Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

How Europe’s Budget Straightjacket was Born

by

Guy Abeille is known as “Monsieur 3%” . He’s the inventor of a concept signed up to and repeated ad nauseam by all French governments of both right and left for three decades, and all EU countries from 1992 under the Maastricht Treaty: “The public deficit must not exceed 3% of the national wealth (GDP).”

The 3 % rule that has justified all spending cuts, tax increases,  and reforms in Europe over the past thirty years. So to what economic modelling did it owe its origin? Le Parisien newspaper posed the question when it came across the economist in a cafe on the left bank some 18 months ago. And this was the answer.

“We dreamt up this figure of 3% in less than an hour; it was born on the back of the envelope, without any theoretical reflection. “

It happened right at the start of the first term of France’s first Socialist President, Francois Mitterrand, who, ironically, was about to launch a radical Keynesian-style reflation of the depressed economy, through nationalisations, higher investment in public services, increases in wages and welfare, cuts to the working week and a tax on wealth, inspired by a common programme with the communists. These radical policies were abandoned two years later.

“It was a night in May 1981. Pierre Bilger, the Budget Director at the time, summoned us, together with Roland de Villepin (cousin of one time PM Dominique de Villepin). He told us : [Socialist President] Mitterrand wants us to quickly provide him with an easy rule, which sounds like economics and can be used against ministers who march into his office to ask him for money,” Abeille told Le Parisien.

In his office at the Louvre, which at the time was the home of the Ministry of Finance, Abeille scratched his head.

“We needed something simple,” he said. They choose the gross domestic product, GDP, “because with the economy, everyone refers to GDP.”

Same round figure for the deficit? They considered a deficit ratio to GDP of 1%. But “this figure was eliminated as it was impossible to achieve. 2 % ? This put us under pressure too.” 3 %? “This was a good figure, a figure that has travelled through the ages, it was reminiscent of the Trinity.” So they go for 3%.

“Mitterrand wanted a rule, we gave it to him. We did not think it was going to last beyond 1981,” he added.

But the “3%” lasted. According to Abeille, Laurent Fabius – Mitterrand’s Socialist Minister of Finance, later PM and now foreign minister under another socialist President, Francois Hollande, was the first to talk about the deficit as a percentage of GDP, but he felt it too lax. He preferred 2.6%.

So who championed the 3% figure? “It was Mitterrand who took it as his own, using it to give himself legitimacy. Later, this reference was to be theorized by economists and included in the Maastricht Treaty, becoming one of the criteria to join the euro zone. “

Today, this “3%” dictates the daily lives of the French and the other 17 eurozone members. It dictates whether to build – or not – schools, hospitals, nurseries or raise taxes.

What does “Monsieur 3%” think of the 0.5% threshold of “structural deficit” imposed by the latest EU treaty, the fiscal compact or formally, the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, signed by all EU states bar the Czech Republic and the UK in 2012 and which entered into force in January 2013. “It is true that the number zero has its advantages. But if we had made it 0.7%, people would asked why that number? While 0.5% is halfway, not a bad figure, a comfortable number.”

So reported Le Parisien  The obvious conclusion?  That European austerity, and associated policies of privatisation and deregulation, are nothing to do with sound economics and everything to do with politics; the kind of politics that is designed to benefit a tiny elite and dreamed up, for expediency’s sake, on the back of an envelope!

Tom Gill blogs at www.revolting-europe.com

Tom Gill edits Revolting Europe.

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 29, 2016
Robert Fisk
The Butcher of Qana: Shimon Peres Was No Peacemaker
James Rose
Politics in the Echo Chamber: How Trump Becomes President
Russell Mokhiber
The Corporate Vice Grip on the Presidential Debates
Daniel Kato
Rethinking the Race over Race: What Clinton Should do Now About ‘Super-Predators’
Peter Certo
Clinton’s Awkward Stumbles on Trade
Fran Shor
Demonizing the Green Party Vote
Rev. William Alberts
Trump’s Road Rage to the White House
Luke O'Brien
Because We Couldn’t Have Sanders, You’ll Get Trump
Michael J. Sainato
How the Payday Loan Industry is Obstructing Reform
Robert Fantina
You Can’t Have War Without Racism
Gregory Barrett
Bad Theater at the United Nations (Starring Kerry, Power, and Obama
James A Haught
The Long, Long Journey to Female Equality
Thomas Knapp
US Military Aid: Thai-ed to Torture
Jack Smith
Must They be Enemies? Russia, Putin and the US
Gilbert Mercier
Clinton vs Trump: Lesser of Two Evils or the Devil You Know
Tom H. Hastings
Manifesting the Worst Old Norms
George Ella Lyon
This Just in From Rancho Politico
September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Robert Fisk
Cliché and Banality at the Debates: Trump and Clinton on the Middle East
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
Gareth Porter
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]