 The nature of the eurocrisis. A reply to Febrero, Uxò and BermejoDepartment of Economics University of Siena from Department of Economics, University of Siena Abstract: Febrero et al. (2017) criticise the balance of payments (BOP) view of the EMU crisis. I have no major objections to most of the single aspects of the crisis pointed out by these authors, except that they appear to underlie specific sides of the EMU crisis, while missing a unifying and realistic explanation. Specific semi-automatic mechanisms differentiate a BOP crisis in a currency union from a traditional one. Unfortunately, these mechanisms give Febrero et al. the illusion that a BOP crisis in a currency union is impossible. My conclusion is that an interpretation of the Eurozone troubles as a balance of payments (BOP) crisis provides a more consistent framework. The debate has some relevance for the policy prescriptions to solve the eurocrisis. Given the costs that all sides would incur if the currency union were to break up, austerity policies are still seen by European politicians as a tolerable price to pay to keep foreign imbalances at bay - with the sweetener of some ECB support, for as long as Berlin allows the ECB to provide it. Keywords: European economic and monetary union; ECB; balance of payment crisis; Target2; Euro (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:usi:wpaper:752 Access Statistics for this paper More papers in Department of Economics University of Siena from Department of Economics, University of Siena Contact information at EDIRC. |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.