Opinion

Save markets to save the single market

It’s time for the EU to make quick and indispensable progress in forming a capital markets union.

By: Date: May 15, 2020 Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance

Necessary though it was, the temporary relaxation of state aid rules in the EU has brought grave unintended consequences. Through indiscriminate support, the EU is rapidly moving from an even playing field that promotes the “survival of the fittest” to a situation where only those with the “richest parents” survive.

The EU economic system will come out battered and unbalanced. Countries in the south will lose a substantial part of their production fibre as they lack the means to save those in need. But indiscriminate help in the richer north will also delay the natural sorting between productive and unproductive firms. As companies slip into liquidity problems, they risk predatory takeovers below their market’s worth from EU and non-EU firms rushing to exploit market distress.

The EU needs to reverse this process and needs to think about how to safeguard all markets. We see reasons for rethinking state-aid rules and making some long needed progress with creating capital markets.

Clearly, some form of state-aid rules must be reinstated as quickly as possible to preserve the integrity of the single market.  However, for as long as state-aid rules are not in operation, the EU must rethink a strategy for the future of its industry.

For all its faults, the current relaxation of such rules offers a unique opportunity to rethink how the rules must be adapted to a new global order. State-aid rules have up till now constrained the EU from defending itself against rising global structural imbalances. The new but crucial objective should be the notion of economic sovereignty. Decide which industries should be promoted as necessary for sustaining economic independence and protect the EU from unfair practices elsewhere, without however succumbing to protectionism.

In the meantime, national “rescue” operations cannot be indiscriminate but have to be based on balance sheet information before a cut-off date.

Productive firms will be asked to drive the recovery, so they need to be ready to go. They need to be given liquidity, preferably in the form of grants not loans, to prevent the negative future consequences of accumulating debt.

Firms with very precarious balance sheets, on the contrary, should be allowed to fail. Their employees should receive support through unemployment benefits and help with employment transition. This would be the best pursuit of societal purposes.

The real problem however rests with a third category of firms, the largest of all: those who are neither clearly productive nor clearly failing. The difficulty in deciding what to do for them was the real reason behind the policy of indiscriminate support.

Markets are the only ones capable of sifting through the risks the EU currently faces and identify who is the fittest to survive. The best the EU can do is provide the legal certainty necessary for this to happen.

A tempting response for some is to call for state participation in the form of equity. If taxpayers are to take a share in the losses, the argument goes, they must also have a share in the profits.

This argument is seductive, but it puts the role of the state on a par with the markets. The state can support those that are clearly productive, in its role as a buffer against truly unforeseen circumstances. But it is not well placed to identify those that are worth saving. Its involvement in this third, problematic category, needs to be limited, therefore, to encouraging others to do it.

Should it be banks? Partially yes, but mostly no because banks are constrained in how much risk to take and they are not meant to have “skin in the game”. But if not banks, then who?  The answer is capital markets. Unfortunately, the EU is very poorly prepared in this respect.

It’s time for the EU to make quick and indispensable progress in forming a capital markets union. And it can do it, as it did with Banking Union during the previous financial crisis. This could take the shape of a “28th regime”: a separate legal jurisdiction, created from scratch and separate from any national jurisdiction. By design, it should encourage more private capital involvement, domestically but also across member states.

Markets are the only ones capable of sifting through the risks the EU currently faces and identify who is the fittest to survive. The best the EU can do is provide the legal certainty necessary for this to happen.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint.

Due to copyright agreements we ask that you kindly email request to republish opinions that have appeared in print to [email protected].

Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Conversation with President Jin Liqun (AIIB) on key Infrastructure trends that could shape the recovery

What will happen to infrastructure financing in a post-COVID world?

Speakers: Jin Liqun and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 26, 2021
Read about event More on this topic
 

Upcoming Event

Feb
9
14:00

Mobilising equity finance for Europe’s recapitalisation challenge

At this invitation-only event the panellists and invited audience will discuss what sources of equity finance can help Europe emerge from the recession.

Speakers: Alexander Lehmann, Thomas Wieser, Laurent Zylberberg, James Chew and Katja Langenbucher Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read about event
 

Upcoming Event

Feb
11
12:00

Building back greener: sustainable finance and the Green Deal

How could additional regulation incentivise investment while upholding the integrity of sustainable finance?

Speakers: Klaas Knot, Alexander Lehmann, Isabelle Mateos y Lago and Sean Kidney Topic: Energy & Climate, Finance & Financial Regulation Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

疫情對全球經濟的結構性改變或比想像的更深

現在是時候重新思考我們目前經濟模式中的基本原理,來減輕這些影響。

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 21, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

Happy New Year?

A recovery from the COVID-19 recession is underway though the suffering is far from over, especially for the most vulnerable. Inequality is both a consequence of the pandemic and a cause of its severity. Many countries need comprehensive policy change to address its worst effects.

By: Uri Dadush Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 23, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Are we out of the woods yet?

The return to normal may just have to wait.

By: Maria Demertzis Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 14, 2020
Read article Download PDF More by this author
 

Parliamentary Testimony

European Parliament

Euro area accession countries in the context of the pandemic

Testimony before the European Parliament on the subject of euro area accession.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, European Parliament, Testimonies Date: November 19, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Green recovery spending: how, when and where

Analysing potential recovery spending and green investment through multiple dimensions.

Speakers: Cyril Garcia, Kerstin Jorna, Ann Mettler, Peter Sweatman and Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: November 19, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Can Europe build a Capital Markets Union without a strong European markets supervisor?

Invitation only event to discuss Europe’s Capital Markets Union.

Speakers: Stephane Boujnah, Jan Pieter Krahnen and Nicolas Véron Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: November 9, 2020
Read article
 

Blog Post

Europe’s banking union should learn the right lessons from the US

In revived discussions on European banking union, some have suggested a new regime to deal with failing banks, alongside existing ones, drawn from parts of the United States’ bank resolution framework. This fragmented approach could be counterproductive. Europe should adopt a unitary regime, like the US, that applies to all banks irrespective of size.

By: Anna Gelpern and Nicolas Véron Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: October 29, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Completing the banking union in the age of Next Generation EU

Invitation only event to discuss the banking union.

Speakers: Tuomas Saarenheimo and Nicolas Véron Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: October 27, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

The pandemic will structurally change the global economy more than we think

It is time to rethink many of the basic principles of our economic model to mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 20, 2020
Load more posts