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:
June 29, 2016
Diana Johnstone
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Fearsome: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail