Blog Post

Three-quarters of Next Generation EU payments will have to wait until 2023

Because of hurdles in designing, approving and implementing European Union programmes, less than a quarter of the €438 billion in grants planned under the new EU recovery instruments is expected to be spent in the next two and a half years, when recovery needs will be greatest. Well-functioning financial markets can help bridge the gap between urgent spending needs and late-arriving EU disbursements, but more effort is needed to frontload EU payments.

By: Date: June 10, 2020 Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance

The falling government bond yields of Greece, Italy and Spain reflect the market’s positive assessments of the landmark economic initiatives unveiled last month. Following the 18 May Franco-German proposal, the European Commission proposed a new recovery facility, Next Generation EU, which would borrow money in the name of the European Union to finance EU-wide expenditures. This was a bold move. Primarily aimed at cyclical stabilisation, it would involve redistribution across member states: “Action at the Union level is thus necessary to achieve a fast and robust economic recovery in the Union.” Speed is of the essence, and the proposal rightly emphasised the need to put in place and implement the Next Generation EU instrument quickly. However, a major policy challenge remains unsolved: how to bring forward expected pay-outs from the new EU recovery instrument so that they are early enough to support economic recovery from the pandemic-induced recession.

The incorporation of the temporary Next Generation EU into the EU’s next multiannual budget would take advantage of a well-established framework, already subject to various checks and balances. The temporary instrument would add €433 billion in grants, €67 billion in guarantees and €250 billion in loans (measured at 2018 prices) to the €1,100 billion ‘standard’ seven-year EU budget for 2021-2027. Considering the urgency of EU budget support, the Commission also proposed to add €11.5 billion (at current prices) to the current 2020 annual budget, of which €5 billion would be grants and €6.5 billion would be guarantees.

However, the EU budget is a slow-moving machine. As operational programmes have to be designed, approved and implemented, EU budget commitments are typically paid down over many years (see Figures 1 and 2 here). The Commission has emphasised that commitments from the new recovery instrument should be frontloaded. But expected payment amounts in the Commission’s sectoral regulation proposals are somewhat hidden in annexes. Their aggregation reveals that the proposed recovery instrument will be subjected to the same time constraints as usual (Figure 1).

  • Commitments related to the combined €438 billion grant component of Next Generation EU and the 2020 annual budget amendment are indeed frontloaded: 78% of total commitments are scheduled to be agreed in 2020-2022. However, the Commission expects that barely 24.9% of the total new firepower for grants would be spent in 2020-2022, when the recovery needs will be greatest.
  • Moreover, these payment plans presuppose 100% absorption rates, while in practice absorption rates vary: for the 2007-2013 budget, national absorption of available structural and cohesion funds ranged from 48% in Croatia to 95% in Estonia and Portugal.
  • The time profile for the smaller guarantee component (€73 billion) is similar, with 63% of commitments made in 2020-2022, but only 31% of payments.
  • The €250 billion in loans would be fully committed in 2021-2022 and 43% paid out in these two years, supposing 100% demand for loans and, again, a 100% absorption rate.

Since EU debt will be issued to finance the recovery instrument as payments are being made, backloaded payments also imply that the increased supply of safe assets will come rather late.

The Commission expects that barely 24.9% of the total new firepower for grants would be spent in 2020-2022, when the recovery needs will be greatest.

Well-functioning financial markets can help bridge the gap between the urgent recovery needs and the later EU budget pay-outs. Countries could borrow and spend immediately to support their economic recoveries and the EU funds could be used when they will be available later, hence allowing countries to borrow less later. Still, it is crucial to frontload EU payments to support economic recovery.

Recommended citation
Darvas Z. (2020) ‘Next Generation EU: 75% of grants will have to wait until 2023’, Bruegel Blog, 10 June, available at https://www.bruegel.org/2020/06/three-quarters-of-next-generation-eu-payments-will-have-to-wait-until-2023/


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 More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Europe’s recovery gamble

Next Generation EU, was rightly hailed as a major breakthrough: never before had the EU borrowed to finance expenditures, let alone transfers to member states. But the programme and its Recovery and Resilience Facility amount to a high-risk gamble.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: September 25, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

Will European Union countries be able to absorb and spend well the bloc’s recovery funding?

To help finance the post-coronavirus recovery, the European Union is raising large amounts to pass on to its members. But absorption of EU funds is typically slow and some countries might struggle to spend what they can get, even if they will have broad freedom to design spending programmes. The focus should be on worthwhile spending, not just on absorbing EU funds.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 24, 2020
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
 

Blog Post

Redefining European Union green bonds: from greening projects to greening policies

European Union green bonds, as promised by European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, might be better linked to the bloc's achievement of its climate goals, rather than project-by-project green criteria.

By: Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Date: September 21, 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 Download PDF More on this topic
 

Policy Contribution

Financing the European Union: New Context, New Responses

With the European Union for the first time taking on debt to help finance the economic recovery from the coronavirus, new resources are needed to fund the EU budget. Various ideas have been floated – including a digital tax and a financial transactions tax – but the most appropriate new resource would be revenues from the EU emissions trading system, which could provide enough funding to repay the EU's coronavirus borrowing.

By: Clemens Fuest and Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 11, 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
Load more posts