Blog Post

The fiscal consequences of the pandemic

The likely economic depression triggered by coronavirus will pose a serious fiscal challenge to some euro-area countries. Given the special circumstances of the pandemic, a European solution is needed, involving more European Central Bank purchases, a significantly increased European Stability Mechanism and some degree of mutualisation of the pandemic-related economic costs.

By: Date: March 30, 2020 Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance

Countries inside and outside the EU are working hard to contain the pandemic and address its adverse economic implications. In a new dataset, we have decomposed fiscal measures announced by governments into three categories: (1) immediate stimulus, such as additional government spending and foregone revenues; (2) deferrals of certain revenue sources including taxes and social security contributions, which in principle should be paid later; and (3) other liquidity provisions and guarantees.

The magnitude and the content of fiscal measures vary widely, with the total amount of immediate stimulus ranging between 0.4% in Hungary and 5.5% in the United States. This highlights the lack of a common fiscal response, even in the euro area. It is notable that the direct additional fiscal cost of extra healthcare spending has been below 0.2% of GDP so far. Even if these amounts double or triple later in the year, the direct fiscal cost of additional healthcare measures will remain a relatively small share of GDP.

Nobody can reliably predict how deep the recession is going to be in 2020, yet many factors suggest that the economic fallout from the pandemic will be huge. The economy currently performs at 65% of its normal level in France. Italy, where all non-essential production has been halted, likely performs at a much lower level. The spread of the pandemic has not yet slowed down in many European countries and hence it is impossible to predict how long the current strict lock-down measures are likely to remain in place. Research on pandemics suggests that they have a lasting adverse economic impact, not least because people increase precautionary savings. Even if Europe compresses the pandemic in some months, the adverse impact on some industries, such as tourism, is likely to be persistent. Who would want to spend their summer holidays in Madrid, Milan or Paris, a few weeks after mass infections there? Businesses might learn that teleconferencing can replace many personal meetings, leaving a permanent negative impact on industries directly and indirectly related to travel, hotels and events.

I ran simple simulations to estimate the budget deficit and public-debt implications of three alternative GDP scenarios: -5%, -10% and -20% contractions in 2020. Key assumptions:

  • Slightly more immediate stimulus than what has already been adopted (in the case of countries for which, at the time of writing this blog post, we had already calculated the fiscal measures, which includes five euro-area countries, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain);
  • 3% GDP immediate stimulus for euro-area countries other than France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain;
  • Without the stimulus, primary (non-interest) public expenditures grow at the same rate as the average growth rate from 2014 to 2019;
  • Without the stimulus, government revenues as a share of GDP are the same in 2020 as in 2019;
  • Interest rate on public debt is the same in 2020 as 2019.

I do not complicate the analysis with assumptions about fiscal multipliers, that is, the impact of the stimulus on output. Instead, I assume a certain stimulus and check the implications of three alternative GDP scenarios. Also, I have not considered the deferrals (which might eventually be deferred further or even cancelled in a deep recession, increasing the budget deficit), nor the various guarantees (which might eventually be triggered in a deep recession, increasing the budget deficit). Therefore, my calculations approximate the orders of magnitude, but in a deep contraction the budget deficit and the consequent increase in the public debt/GDP ratio could be higher than what my calculations show.

Table 1: Fiscal implications of alternative GDP developments – general government balance and debt, %GDP

Source: 2019 data from the November 2019 version of AMECO, projections are Bruegel calculations. 

Note: *US figures refer to federal balance and debt only, US state and local debt amounted to an additional 16% of GDP in 2017.

Countries with relatively low public debt levels in 2019 – Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany – would keep their debt ratios under 100% of GDP, even in the case of a 20% GDP contraction.

But countries with higher initial levels of debt might see alarming increases. For example, in the case of a 20% depression, which is unfortunately not unlikely, Italian public debt would reach 189% of GDP by the end of 2020. Investors, who are so far happy with the European Central Bank’s expanded quantitative easing policy, might realise that even total ECB asset purchases in 2020 would amount to less than a third of the new debt issued by euro-area countries (which I estimate at €3660 billion in 2020 if GDP contracts by 20% in all euro-area countries). New debt issuance could be even larger if tax deferrals turn out to be actual expenses and government guarantees are called on. Market pressure on high-debt countries could thus return.

True, Japan has been able to navigate reasonably well with an almost 240% public-debt to GDP ratio. But half of that has already been purchased by the Bank of Japan, and those purchases are set to continue. In the euro area, ECB asset holdings amount to 18% of the public debt of France, 26% of Germany, 16% of Italy and 22% of Spain. Continued market stabilisation by the ECB at a time when public debt explodes rapidly would require even more purchases than what has been announced so far. Large new purchases would need to be continued for several years, if not decades. Given the extraordinary circumstances caused by the pandemic, this would be desirable in my view, but might face legal challenges.

In the absence of a further massive increase in ECB purchases, some euro-area countries will likely face renewed market pressure. A key reason for this is that these countries had poor fiscal and structural policies in the past. A financial assistance programme from the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) is unlikely to solve the current situation, because its firepower is too small compared to the scale of the problem, plus relying on a standard bailout from the ESM would be toxic in some countries. An ESM credit line to all member states without conditionality would not do the trick either, because of its small size. The ESM’s firepower would need to be increased massively to cope with the exploding debt in some countries (Table 1).

If neither the ECB nor the ESM is able to calm markets, then a stark choice will arise: (1) allow a massive sovereign debt crisis in the aftermath of the pandemic crisis, which would make all EU countries worse off and might reverse the European integration process; or (2) mutualise part of the economic costs of the pandemic, for example by either a common debt-management office for the euro area, or one-off joint debt issuance, to finance common expenditures related to the coronavirus crisis (as discussed by Guntram Wolff and Grégory Claeys).

Certainly, mutualisation involves some moral hazard: EU members with high debt might not be incentivised to run responsible fiscal policies in the future, as they will learn that even if they have high debt and limited fiscal space to address shocks, others would foot the bill when a big external shock comes.

While this is a valid argument, there are important factors that call for some degree of mutualisation of the pandemic-related economic costs.

First, low-debt countries have a moral responsibility for encouraging and allowing, for example, Italy to join the euro area in 1999 when it did not meet the criteria.

Second, low-debt countries also endorsed the flawed architecture of the euro area, which is now witnessing the second dramatic crisis in a decade, without proper tools to address the crisis.

Third, some low-debt countries have benefitted massively from the single market and large current account surpluses.

Fourth, the pandemic is an extraordinary external shock causing human suffering in the epicentres which are unprecedented since the second world war.

And fifth, a massive sovereign debt crisis might risk even more human suffering and exits from the euro area, with numerous adverse consequences for many other countries too.

For these reasons, a European solution is needed, involving more ECB purchases, a significantly increased ESM and some degree of mutualisation of the pandemic-related economics costs.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author
 

Policy Contribution

Why has COVID-19 hit different European Union economies so differently?

All European Union countries are undergoing severe output losses as a consequence of COVID-19, but some have been hurt more than others. Factors potentially influencing the degree of economic contraction include the severity of lockdown measures, the structure of national economies, public indebtedness, and the quality of governance in different countries. With the exception of public indebtedness, we find all these factors are significant to varying degrees.

By: André Sapir Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 22, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Without good governance, the EU borrowing mechanism to boost the recovery could fail

The European Union recovery fund could greatly increase the stability of the bloc and its monetary union. But the fund needs clearer objectives, sustainable growth criteria and close monitoring so that spending achieves its goals and is free of corruption. In finalising the fund, the EU should take the time to design a strong governance mechanism.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 15, 2020
Read article More by this author
 

Parliamentary Testimony

Employment and COVID-19

Testimony before the Economic Affairs Committee at the House of Lords, British Parliament on Employment and COVID-19.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation, Testimonies Date: September 9, 2020
Read about event
 

Past Event

Past Event

Bruegel Annual Meetings 2020 - Day 3

Third day of Bruegel Annual Meetings.

Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: September 3, 2020
Read about event
 

Past Event

Past Event

Bruegel Annual Meetings 2020 - Day 2

Second day of Bruegel Annual Meetings.

Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: September 2, 2020
Read about event
 

Past Event

Past Event

Bruegel Annual Meetings 2020 - Day 1

The Annual Meetings are Bruegel's flagship event which gathers high-level speakers to discuss the economic topics that affect Europe and the world.

Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: September 1, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Emerging market central banks and quantitative easing: high-risk advice

Central banks in emerging markets with weak currencies should not resort to unorthodox monetary tools such as quantitative easing as a response to the crisis triggered by COVID-19. Preferable alternatives include shifting public spending away from less pressing needs, moderately increasing public debt and falling back on official development assistance.

By: Marek Dabrowski and Marta Domínguez-Jiménez Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: August 26, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Coronavirus recovery: invest rainy day savings to boost Hong Kong’s economy

The Hong Kong government might want to consider diversifying its economy by using part of the savings earmarked for rainy days. Beyond cushioning the negative impact of Covid-19 on SMEs and households, it is one more reason to spend.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: August 6, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

The Challenges of the Post-Pandemic Agenda

This opinion piece has previously been published in Project Syndicate. PARIS – There is a growing possibility that the COVID-19 crisis will mark the end of the growth model born four decades ago with the Reagan-Thatcher revolution, China’s embrace of capitalism, and the demise of the Soviet Union. The pandemic has highlighted the vulnerability of […]

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: July 28, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Opinion

Can households in the European Union make ends meet?

Half the households surveyed by Eurostat see themselves as unable to find the resources they would need to cope with an unexpected expense within a month, estimated by experts at €375 in the case of Greece.

By: Maria Demertzis, Marta Domínguez-Jiménez and Annamaria Lusardi Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: July 24, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

Having the cake, but slicing it differently: how is the grand EU recovery fund allocated?

The European Commission’s original allocation mechanism really favoured lower-income countries and to a large extent was based on pre-COVID economic data. The modification adopted by the European Council gives more consideration to the country size and the adverse economic impact of COVID-19. As a consequence, by using the Commission’s May 2020 economic forecasts, I estimate that only Germany and France will get more grants from the EU’s recovery fund compared to the Commission’s original proposal, while other countries will get less.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 23, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Government-guaranteed bank lending: beyond the headline numbers

Loan guarantees have been a major part of the COVID-19 support packages offered by European governments to companies. The actual take-up numbers so far follow very different patterns from the headline announcements, and might allay early concerns about single market distortions caused by the different sizes of packages in different countries.

By: Julia Anderson, Francesco Papadia and Nicolas Véron Date: July 14, 2020
Load more posts