IMF-euro conditions not what they seem

April 23, 2012

We’re going to be really tough on the euro zone. If they want more bailouts from the International Monetary Fund, they are going to have to submit to strict conditionality. That was the message delivered by the rest of the world when it agreed at the weekend to participate in a fundraising exercise that will boost the IMF’s resources by at least $430 billion.

But the meaning of the message isn’t quite what it seems. The IMF is actually in some ways calling for less rather than more short-term austerity in the euro zone. So if the Europeans submit to IMF discipline, it will ironically mean less of a hair shirt.

It is easy to see why the rest of the world is unhappy with the special treatment the euro zone receives from the IMF. The managing director, currently Christine Lagarde, has always been a European. Vast resources, way beyond what are normally available in IMF programmes, have been channelled to Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

What’s more, the rest for the world – from developed countries such as America, Britain and Canada to emerging nations such as Brazil – feel that, despite being pretty rich, the euro zone has not done enough to sort out its own problems. Hence, the agreement to beef up the IMF resources only after a long wrangle – and only after scaling back the original request from $600 billion as well as insisting on strict conditionality before the money is ever disbursed.

At the same time, the IMF has three recommendations, as outlined in last week’s World Economic Outlook, which are somewhat at variance with current euro zone policy. First, it wants the region not to overdo short-term fiscal austerity while placing more emphasis on longer-term structural measures to improve budgets. Second, it wants the European Central Bank to continue very accommodative monetary policies. Finally, it wants the euro zone authorities to be prepared to inject capital directly into troubled banks and to accompany that with stronger European-wide supervision of lenders. All these ideas would help reduce the pressure of the current euro zone recession and so ease the crisis.

Will the IMF, though, get its way? Well, certainly not immediately. The euro zone doesn’t have to listen to it unless another country – say Spain or Italy – needs a bailout. Even then, only the country requiring cash would technically have to pay heed to the IMF. The rest of the euro zone, led by Germany, could argue that the IMF has no business interfering with the monetary policy or banking supervision of the entire 17-member euro zone when only a few peripheral nations are receiving help.

What’s more, the bulk of the money from any future bailouts would continue to come from other euro zone countries rather than the IMF. These other countries would argue that they should have a big say, even on fiscal policy, because they will be bankrolling most of any deficit shortfall.

But even if the IMF can’t get its way immediately, the debate is shifting slowly in its favour. The euro zone may not like interference in monetary policy. But the ECB has shown itself willing to spray 1 trillion euros in long-term loans at the region’s banks in the heat of the crisis in recent months. Some of the central bank’s members, with the notable exception of Germany’s Bundesbank, are saying it is too early to plan for an end to such policies.

Or take fiscal policy. Euro zone leaders may have agreed the so-called fiscal compact which will require them to balance their budgets and cut their debts. But no sooner had the deal been signed than Spain varied its fiscal targets. Italy has followed up by saying it won’t react to a deeper than expected recession by pushing through more cuts – a policy that would just lead to further recession.

Now the Dutch government, previously the high priest of austerity, has found it cannot push through its own budget cuts. Meanwhile, Francois Hollande has promised to push for a more growth-orientated policy if he wins the French election. The austerity consensus is fraying.

Finally, consider banking policy. The intertwining of lenders and their states is unhealthy. Banks which get into trouble need to be bailed out. That makes their governments less creditworthy which, in turn, further infects banks which loaded up on their bonds. That occurred in Ireland and could be repeated in Spain.

The IMF’s proposal is to sever this incestuous relationship by getting the euro zone to put money directly into troubled banks rather than by lending to governments which, in turn, would inject capital into the banks. Such a policy would be matched by euro zone-wide supervision of banks.

The idea is rational. That, of course, doesn’t mean that it will be adopted. But with an expanded warchest, the IMF has greater ability to be heard on this and other issues – especially if it keeps reminding the euro zone that the rest of the world has insisted that strings are attached before any more countries are given bailouts.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

The IMF and World Bankers have a special way of defying the laws of arithmetic.

Money is a concept…and as any other concept can be shaped and molded over time by the ones who know better.

You may have to pay $7 for bread, and $13 for milk…but in the end, you will be OK with the new concept.

Posted by Farkel4 | Report as abusive

the article is more a wish list than pragmatism;

thrifty european households will replace the debt-junky delusions of market speculators;

agrarian-based conservative consumption patterns and politics will regain their place;

and more europeans will enjoy living and working in different EU states over their lifetime

one of the benefits of mobility within the single EU market

the IMF’s area of interest will be to continue threatening those fiscal reprobates (e.g. greek politicans) if they continue to rely on sovereign welfare payments

Posted by scythe | Report as abusive

Wishful thinking of another Anglosaxon who sleeps and wakes up with the dream that the Euro will be abolished!!!

Posted by ektope | Report as abusive

Wishful thinking of another Anglosaxon who sleeps and wakes up with the dream that the Euro will be abolished!!!

Posted by ektope | Report as abusive

Its not like there is a choice on fiscal policy. Don’t want to cut your budget deficit? OK, but expect to see your debt service costs increase. How is that ‘stimulative’? Can you even stimulate a debt choked economy with lousy demographics? The experience of Japan says no and the US, which has had loads of fiscal and monetary stimulus, doesn’t seem to indicate you’ll get to sustained economic take off either. More likely, the PIIGS, like an airplane with too much weight, will simply speed down the runway unable to gain altitude and crash and burn when the runway ends.

Posted by sangell | Report as abusive

The Euro will survive. Simply because the people (Europeans) want it.
On the other hand, governments, banks and assorted monetary institutions will not survive. Simply because they are not only broke, but insolvent to the point of too big to bail. Moreover, their credibility as a good place to invest funds is slightly below zero. I can think of few occupations more futile than being a seller of Spanish, Greek, Portuguese or even Irish bonds. The domestic banks of these countries and the ECB might buy them, but that is as far as it goes.

Reforms will come after a systemic collapse of the credit markets but not before. The political shift outlined above is just the beginning of the end. The telling moment will be when the forces of ‘growth orientation’ collide with ‘market discipline’. It won’t be a pretty sight.


Posted by rwmccoy | Report as abusive