Economics and Politics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com: "Suppose that some members of the euro zone are hit much harder by a downturn than others, so that they have much higher-than-average unemployment; how will they adjust?
In the United States, such shocks are cushioned by the existence of a federal government: the Social Security and Medicare checks keep being sent to Florida, even after the bubble bursts. And we adjust to a large degree with labor mobility: workers move in large numbers from depressed states to those that are doing better.
Europe lacks both the centralized fiscal system and the high labor mobility. (Yes, some workers move, but not nearly on the US scale).
To be sure, America has at least minor-league versions of the same problems: we are having fiscal crises in the states, and the housing slump has depressed mobility in the recession. But we’re still better able to cope with asymmetric shocks than the eurozone.
Was the euro a mistake? There were benefits — but the costs are proving much higher than the optimists claimed. On balance, I still consider it the wrong move, but in a way that’s irrelevant: it happened, it’s not reversible, so Europe now has to find a way to make it work.
How Many Currencies?
Some commenters on my Europe/euro post offer a reductio ad absurdum: if Spain should have its own currency, why not every state/town/family in America?
Strange to say, economists have thought about that — a lot. It’s called optimal currency area theory. (Optimal? Optimum? Nobody seems to know — or care).
The basic idea is that there’s a tradeoff. Having your own currency makes it easier to make necessary adjustments in prices and wages, an argument that goes back to none other than Milton Friedman. As opposed to this, having multiple currencies raises the costs of doing business across national borders.
What determines which side of this tradeoff you should take? Clearly, countries that do a lot of trade with each other have more incentive to adopt a common currency: the euro makes more sense than a currency union between, say, Malaysia and Ecuador. Beyond that, the literature suggests several other things that might matter. High labor mobility makes it easier to adjust to asymmetric shocks; so does fiscal integration.
When EMU began as a project, there were a number of studies comparing the EU with the United States. What all of them suggested was that Europe was less suitable as a currency area, basically because of lower labor mobility and lack of fiscal union. That didn’t settle the question of whether the euro was a good idea, but it did suggest that appealing to the success of the United States with a single currency didn’t tell you much.
What I’ve always found interesting is the way many Europeans now insist that a single currency is absolutely essential, when the example of Canada — which is closer to the United States than it is to itself — provides an obvious counterexample. But people tend to forget that Canada exists …
Fiscal Transfers Across US States:
See the full data below:
Strange to say, economists have thought about that — a lot. It’s called optimal currency area theory. (Optimal? Optimum? Nobody seems to know — or care).
The basic idea is that there’s a tradeoff. Having your own currency makes it easier to make necessary adjustments in prices and wages, an argument that goes back to none other than Milton Friedman. As opposed to this, having multiple currencies raises the costs of doing business across national borders.
What determines which side of this tradeoff you should take? Clearly, countries that do a lot of trade with each other have more incentive to adopt a common currency: the euro makes more sense than a currency union between, say, Malaysia and Ecuador. Beyond that, the literature suggests several other things that might matter. High labor mobility makes it easier to adjust to asymmetric shocks; so does fiscal integration.
When EMU began as a project, there were a number of studies comparing the EU with the United States. What all of them suggested was that Europe was less suitable as a currency area, basically because of lower labor mobility and lack of fiscal union. That didn’t settle the question of whether the euro was a good idea, but it did suggest that appealing to the success of the United States with a single currency didn’t tell you much.
What I’ve always found interesting is the way many Europeans now insist that a single currency is absolutely essential, when the example of Canada — which is closer to the United States than it is to itself — provides an obvious counterexample. But people tend to forget that Canada exists …
Fiscal Transfers Across US States:
See the full data below:
No comments:
Post a Comment