How could a “green” stimulus save growth in Europe?

Dear all, as promised, here is the English (and slightly longer) version of my article published in Le Monde – Selin Ozyurt : une relance « verte pourrait apporter le soutien tant attendu à la croissance européenne » . I hope you enjoy reading it!

In a context of weak growth outlook and inflation, the European Central Bank (ECB) announced in September 2019 new monetary stimulus by cutting the policy interest rates further and relaunching the net asset purchase program. Christine Lagarde, President of the ECB since November 2019, also suggested at her first press conference that the institution would play a key role in fighting global warming. So what role could the ECB play in 2020, while the global economy is slowing down unexpectedly and the climate emergency requires prompt action?

In the aftermath of the 2008-2009 global financial crisis, the enlarged toolkit of central banks has certainly helped to combat the danger of deflation. Yet, the effectiveness of additional monetary stimulus becomes questionable when rates are already close to their lower bound. The potential negative effects of low (and negative) interest rates are being openly discussed now, ten years after their first implementation. So, why are the interest rates still low despite their negative side effects on the economy?

The primary cause of historically low interest rates would be excess savings, reflecting greater risk aversion after the crisis in 2008 and the ageing of the population. According to American economist Larry Summers, the slowdown in productivity and low population growth reduced the growth potential of our economies over the past decades (i.e. secular stagnation hypothesis).

This leads us to wonder why productivity has been so low in advanced countries since the crisis. Underinvestment in the face of financial deleveraging needs, by governments and also the private sector, would be the usual suspect to explain the weakness of productivity. Stanley Fisher (Blackrock 2019) points out that lack of investment in infrastructure, education, renewable energy and digital technologies would limit potential growth and prevent TFP from returning to pre-crisis levels. Surprisingly, almost half of business investment decisions in the European Union (EU) would be hampered by inadequate transport infrastructure and lack of access to digital infrastructure (Boone and Buti 2019).

Vicious circle between low interest rates and low productivity

Interestingly, low interest rates may not only be the symptom but also the cause of the productivity problem. Recent research (Bergeaud et al. 2019; Gopinath et al. 2017) find that with low interest rates, a large number of unproductive firms and projects became artificially “profitable”. Accordingly, only a large technology shock would trigger enough productivity gains to get our economies out of this negative spiral.

With impending environmental challenges, failing investment in advanced economies become even more problematic in the medium term. Briefly speaking, the consequences of climate change are likely to weigh more heavily on our economies in two essential ways:

1) Further slowdown in labour productivity with increasing average temperature.

2) The destruction of productive capacities due to natural disasters.

In short, reducing CO2 emissions in entire sectors such as energy, industry and transport will require more and, above all, different investments.

“Explosive Cocktail”

Facing the “explosive cocktail” of economic and environmental challenges, a judicious combination of fiscal, monetary and structural policies (“policy mix”) becomes necessary. As Mario Draghi reiterated several times, there is significant fiscal space for stimulus in some euro area countries (e.g. Germany, the Netherlands, Austria). More generally, the positive differential between the real interest and economic growth rates offer a unique window of opportunity for fiscal accommodation, while preserving public debt sustainability.

One could also speak of a “green policy mix” in the light of recent announcements by European decision-makers. The new European Commission has presented its “Green Deal“, a green pact to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Yet, given the massive size of the challenge, the Green Deal should mobilise substantial budgetary, both at the EU and Member States levels.

Regarding monetary policy, Christine Lagarde stressed that climate objectives should be integrated into the ECB’s strategic review. Importantly, supporting the EU’s economic policies is part of the ECB’s mandate, as long as this does not undermine the primary objective of price stability. Thus, the ECB could already ally with the new Commission, in particular by ensuring that green projects benefit from favourable financing conditions. Although green securities have already been purchased under the ECB’s asset purchase policies (CPSP and PSPP), their volume remains very limited for the time being.

Greening the ECB’s balance sheet

As part of the “green policy mix”, Greens Bonds could become the central financing instrument for green projects and the European Investment Bank, the real financial arm of the Green Deal. The European market for Green Bonds is still in its infancy at the moment. Hence, the EU could increase the depth of this market by feeding it directly, but also through regular and large scale emissions from member states. A deeper secondary market for green bonds would allow the ECB to purchase larger amounts of green bonds and thus lower their yields, while respecting the imperative of market “neutrality”. Moreover, these purchases of green bonds will gradually make the balance sheet of the ECB greener, which is currently far from being CO2 neutral.

Finally, to ensure its effectiveness, the duration of this expansionary policy should be announced as soon as it is introduced, In addition, it is essential that the private sector takes over to play a central role in the energy transition of our economies takes over in the medium. This greening, through the investments in infrastructure and innovation it induces, could meet the technological challenge and stimulate productivity gains. Put differently, this “green” cooperation could ultimately get our economies out of secular stagnation and provide much-needed support to growth.

Why ‘We Love Economics’?

The urge to start this blog came from my struggle to make sense out of our Western society. Working in an European Institution (ECB), I should confess that most of us did not see any of these coming: The Brexit referendum vote to leave the EU, arrival of the Trump administration in the US, rejection of Renzi’s constitutional reforms in Italy and the growing support to the National Front in France. Perhaps we took it all granted while being caught up in our daily businesses.

This blog started from my despair and struggle to challenge the post-truth politics and loopholes in our democracies. Would a vote systematically mean democracy? We are currently destroying the accomplishments of painful fights, in the name of what? How democratic is it to reduce a complex situation to a grotesque “yes or no” question without giving any clarity about its heavy consequences? How legitimate is it to decide in a “yes/no” way to destroy all the progress made in terms of human rights, social inclusion, universal healthcare, environment protection, integration of immigrants, and so on. What about future generations? Will they agree with the economic, humanitarian and environmental cost of all this?

Our society became extremely impatient and short-sighted. To many of us, repeating populist mantra seemed more appealing than digging into facts and figures. The fast-information culture limited our perception to 140 characters. Automatically re-tweeting felt easier than challenging what we were being told. Simply no time to think! Obviously, this ‘reaction society’ was a pure bliss for politicians spreading populism to follow their own agenda.

I created this blog because I still believe that any simple action can make a difference. My blog posts will mostly cover economic matters on which I am supposed to have some ‘expertise’. To avoid falling into blind militancy, I will insist on showing numbers and theory/fact-based evidence. In any case, I will refrain myself from categorising people or dividing them further.

Of course, all this undertaking will only make sense with your engagement. Please share your thoughts and give me feedback.

Hopefully, I will post a new short article every other week. Here are some of the topics that I would like to exchange about:

  • What are the ‘true’ economic consequences of Brexit versus what was communicated by politicians?
  • Bitcoin and Blockchain: Devil or angel?
  • What is economic growth? What sense does it make in terms of inequalities, pollution and better life quality?
  • Is immigration bad for the economic performance of the Western world?
  • How real is the climate change and how bad is the current situation?
  • What do the meat and dairy industries not communicate in terms of environmental damage and animal rights?
  • How do Uber and other internet businesses improve the way we work?
  • What is the true cost of ‘fast fashion’ industry in terms of pollution and human dignity?