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: and Date: July 23, 2020 Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance

Note: The calculations of this blog were updated here in November 2020 to include the latest data. 

The grand EU budget deal reached by the European Council on 21 July 2020, which includes a one-time €750 billion recovery fund named ‘Next Generation EU’ (NGEU), is unprecedented. For the first time in its history, the EU will borrow from capital markets to finance expenditures throughout the Union.

The NGEU deal includes some notable modifications compared to the Commission’s original proposal. It reduces the overall amounts of grants and guarantees and increases the amount of loans. It abolishes certain instruments, including all proposed funding for non-EU countries. And it alters the cross-country allocation method of the largest instrument, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF).

In Table 1 I compare the overall amounts available for the various recovery instruments with the original proposal of the Commission.

In this post, I focus on the changes in the allocation key for the recovery instruments that was decided (see the methodology here). Overall, the allocation key has shifted from favouring low-income countries towards better considering the country size and favouring those countries that were hit by a stronger decline in GDP. It thus became closer to an insurance system.

The most important change relates to the cross-country allocation of the RRF. 70% of the grants provided by the RRF shall be committed in the years 2021 and 2022, according to the Commission’s original proposal. The remaining 30% shall be committed in 2023, for which “the 2015-2019 unemployment criterion is replaced, in equal proportion, by the loss in real GDP observed over 2020 and by the cumulative loss in real GDP observed over the period 2020-2021” (see points A15 and A16 here).

To understand the importance of this change, let me briefly recall the Commission’s original cross-country allocation proposal for the RRF (see further details in  my previous post, particularly in the annex). That allocation depends on (a) the 2019 population, (b) the inverse of 2019 GDP per capita, and (c) the 2015-2019 average unemployment rate, all relative to the EU27 value. Relative GDP per capita is measured in current euro values (not in purchasing power parity) and the inverse of its ratio to the EU average is capped at 1.5. The unemployment rate ratio is capped at 1.5 for countries with GDP per capita below the EU average and at 0.75 for countries with GDP per capita above the EU average.

Therefore, only one out of the three indicators (population) depends on the size of the country, the other two indicators (GDP per capita and unemployment rate) are independent from the country size. The three ratios are multiplied with each other. That means that the population ratio sets the country’s population share in EU population; that share is then multiplied by ratios around 1, whereby eg, an unemployment rate ratio (the ratio of the country’s unemployment rate to the EU’s unemployment rate) higher than 1 increases the country’s overall share in the RRF allocation, while an unemployment rate ratio below 1 decreases it. Yet the 0.75 cap on the unemployment rate ratio for higher-income countries, as well as the use of the inverse GDP/capita ratio (which is further enlarged by using current euro values and not purchasing power parity values) further favour lower-income countries.

In short, the Commission’s original allocation mechanism really favours lower-income countries. Such a favouring is also very significant in the allocation of the ReactEU funds. This favouring is the main reason why eg, Bulgaria, Croatia and Greece were expected to obtain grants and guarantees amounting to about 15% of their GDP from the recovery tools (see my calculations on Figure 1 here, and Table A1 on page 51 of Commission Staff Working Document here).

The proposed RRF allocation mechanism is confirmed by the European Council for 70% of RRF grants. However, for the remaining 30%, the unemployment ratio indicator applied is replaced by the loss in real GDP. In its conclusions, the European Council does not specify how to measure “the loss in real GDP”, but this expression has been used by the Commission for the allocation mechanism of ReactEU; it is meant to describe the fall in the constant-price euro value of GDP, which is in line with the meaning of “the loss in real GDP”.

However, the fall of GDP valued in constant-price euro depends on the country size. The larger the country, the larger the euro value of the GDP fall. Hence, an indicator that is independent of the country’s size (unemployment rate) is replaced by an indicator that very much depends on the country’s size (loss in real GDP). In its conclusions, the European Council does not indicate any additional criteria for consideration of real GDP loss regarding the RRF. In contrast, ReactEU has a complicated cap system for a similar GDP loss indicator . The ReactEU capping was explicitly confirmed by the European Council (see point A20 of the conclusions).

This change in the RRF allocation mechanism mitigates the favouring of lower-income countries in the Commission’s proposal, and benefits larger countries and those that suffered larger losses in GDP due to the pandemic.

Beyond the country size issue, Germany further benefits from the changed allocation criterion, because it had a very low unemployment rate in 2015-2019. France also benefits beyond the country size issue, because even though it had a higher unemployment rate than the EU average in 2015-2019, its unemployment rate indicator was subject to the 0.75 cap applied for higher income countries.

The allocation criteria of instruments other than the RFF has not been changed by the European Council, except a small change for ReactEU: Luxembourg will get an extra lump sum €100 million and Malta an extra €50 million.

For estimating the impact of the change in allocation criteria, I use the May 2020 Commission economic forecasts. I find that only three countries, Germany (by €20.4 billion), France (by €12.4 billion) and Italy (by €5 billion) will get more grants from RFF, all other countries will get less. And since grants in other recovery instruments were cut substantially for all countries, only Germany (by €13.4 billion) and France (by €7.4 billion) will get more grants from the overall recovery package compared to the Commission’s original proposal (see Table 2). Overall, Italy will get €1 billion less in grants, Spain will get €9.5 billion less, while Poland will get €11.4 billion less.

The overall envelope for guarantees available for EU countries in the recovery instruments was drastically cut from €61.6 billion to €5.6billion. In that way, all EU countries will be entitled to less than 10% of the guarantees initially proposed by the Commission (Table 3).


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 about event More on this topic
 

Upcoming Event

Apr
21
14:00

Living standards and financial resilience across Europe

What has the impact of the pandemic on households’ financial resilience been, and how should policy makers respond?

Speakers: Romina Boarini, Zsolt Darvas, Maria Demertzis and Daniel Tomlinson Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic
 

External Publication

Wealth distribution and social mobility

This report explores the distribution of household wealth in the EU Member States and analyses the role of wealth in social mobility.

By: Zsolt Darvas and Catarina Midões Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: April 1, 2021
Read article Download PDF More by this author
 

Working Paper

The unequal inequality impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

Less-educated workers have suffered most from job losses in the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is quite likely there was a significant increase in European Union income inequality in 2020.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: March 30, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

New EU insolvency rules could underpin business rescue in the COVID-19 aftermath

Corporate bankruptcies are set to rise in the context of COVID-19. EU countries should speed up adoption of recent insolvency reforms and, in addition, offer consistent treatment to restructuring finance.

By: Alexander Lehmann Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: March 24, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

How has COVID-19 affected inflation measurement in the euro area?

COVID-19 has complicated inflation measurement. Policymakers need to take this into account and should look at alternative measures of inflation to understand what is actually happening in the economy.

By: Grégory Claeys and Lionel Guetta-Jeanrenaud Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 24, 2021
Read article
 

Blog Post

An update: Vaccination in the EU

Progress has been made, but more progress is needed.

By: J. Scott Marcus and Niclas Poitiers Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: March 17, 2021
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Think green act local: the role of the G20 in sustainable infrastructure

In this workshop, invited guests will discuss priorities and proposals for the Italian G20 Presidency for a green local infrastructure agenda.

Speakers: Amar Bhattacharya, Marco Bucci, Adriana Calderon, Maria Demertzis, Matthias Helble, Elly Schlein, Niclas Poitiers and Gelsomina Vigliotti Topic: Energy & Climate Date: March 15, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Persistent COVID-19: Exploring potential economic implications

We see three main economic implications of a scenario of recurrent outbreaks: lasting border restrictions, repeated lockdowns and enduring effects on the composition of both supply and demand. We explore each of these implications in turn.

By: Olivier Blanchard and Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 12, 2021
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author
 

External Publication

When and how to unwind COVID support measures to the banking system?

Study of regulatory measures and supervisory practices that have supported public guarantee schemes and moratoria in euro-area countries prepared for the ECON committee of the European Parliament.

By: Alexander Lehmann Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 9, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

Self-employment, COVID-19, and the future of work for knowledge workers

The experiences of the self-employed could give a glimpse into the future of work for knowledge workers in a post-pandemic world.

By: Milena Nikolova Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: March 8, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

The EU’s fiscal stance, its recovery fund, and how they relate to the fiscal rules

Joint EU borrowing to boost the recovery, if not treated as national deficit and debt, will substantially ease rules-based fiscal adjustment needs in southern and eastern Europe, but not in western and northern Europe.

By: Zsolt Darvas and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 4, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

資產泡沫無益於疫情後的經濟恢復

新冠疫情帶來的全球經濟危機可以說是公認近些年來最嚴重的,但相比於程度與之最相似的1929年經濟大蕭條,二者對資產價格帶來的影響卻截然不同。

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: March 3, 2021
Load more posts