The euro zone shouldnât rely on a bailout from the rest of the world. The International Monetary Fund is asking for an additional $600 billion to help deal with the euro crisis. But the euro zone, which is vastly richer than most of the rest of the world, should find the money to solve its own problems. It will be bystanders in the developing world that may need help if the euro blows up.
One can see why the IMF wants more money. An additional $600 billion on top of its existing firepower of $390 billion would take it up to a nice round number of $1 trillion. Not only would that give its bosses more swagger as they crisscross the world fighting fires but it would allow the IMF to play a big role in any bailout of a large euro zone country such as Italy.
But why should the rest of the world bail out the euro? The rich normally help the poor. But GDP per capita in the euro zone was $33,819 in 2011, more than five times that in the developing world, according to the IMF. As things stand, 57 percent of the IMFâs existing loans are to the euro zone, according toÂ the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Itâs not surprising that other countries are hardly rushing to funnel yet more money its way.
Developing countries need to look after themselves. As the World Bank’s report on Global Economic Prospects highlighted last week, the developing world is already suffering from the euro crisis â mainly because capital flows shrank by 45 percent in the second half of last year compared with the previous year. If the euro blows up, developing country GDP would be knocked by 4.2 percent, it predicts. Some 30 countries, which have external funding needs of more than 10 percent of their income, would be especially vulnerable.
The caution over providing more cash to the IMF is not due only to the fact that relatively poor countries are being asked to help rich ones. The United States and Britain are also reluctant to contribute. This is partly for political reasons: Itâs impossible to persuade Congress to cough up money for the IMF in an election year when the U.S. deficit is nearly 10 percent of GDP; and itâs not that easy to get the British parliament, with its large contingent of euroskeptic MPs, to do so either.
Thereâs also a genuine belief that the euro zone is only in such a twist because of its decision to prevent the European Central Bank from buying national government debt in big quantities. The Federal Reserve and the Bank of England have, after all, bought the equivalent of 15 percent and 18 percent of GDP, respectively, of their own government bonds in an attempt to ward off recession. If the euro zone thinks such money printing will debauch its currency, so be it. But such a holier-than-thou attitude hardly gains sympathy elsewhere.
Whatâs more, there are alternatives. If Italy needs a rescue, why doesnât the euro zone double the size of the European Stability Mechanism, its own planned bailout fund, to 1 trillion euros? The answer, of course, is that governments of countries such as Germany would find it hard to persuade their electorates to pour yet more money into southern Europe. But that attitude doesnât get much sympathy either. Ironically, Germany is on the receiving end of the lectures it is so fond of dishing out to others â just as it tells southern Europe to get its act together, some in the rest of the world are telling the euro zone to solve its own problems.
To be fair, the euro zone hasnât been sitting on its hands in recent weeks. Italy, for example, has made a promising start under its new prime minister, Mario Monti. And the ECB has been willing to provide unlimited funds to banks â an operation that may indirectly prop up the governments and even weaken, if not debauch, its currency.
To be fair, too, the IMF isnât asking for cash just to channel from the rest of the world to the euro zone. Not only has the euro zone itself promised $200 billion but also the IMFâs resources could be used to help others caught in the backwash of any euro blowup. Whatâs more, an expanded war chest might restore investor confidence so much that the crisis recedes, to the benefit of everybody. Finally, the IMF would like the euro zone to beef up its own bailout fund simultaneously.
These arguments are fine as far as they go. But they can be applied with even greater force to the idea of just expanding the euro zone bailout fund. The IMFâs existing resources are perfectly adequate to bail out a raft of even fairly large emerging markets such as Turkey and Egypt. Moreover, if the rest of the world does give the IMF a bazooka, the euro zone will have less incentive to come up with its own. So it makes sense for the rest of the world to keep Europeâs feet to the fire, even if it ultimately helps out a bit. Germanyâs Angela Merkel surely understands that logic.