際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

Le Plan de relance pour l'Europe

Forums financiers de Wallonie
Forums financiers de Wallonie

Le Plan de relance pour l'Europe Diaporama utilis辿 par Andr辿 Sapir, Professeur l'ULB et chercheur chez Bruegel, lors du webinaire qu'il a anim辿 pour le forum financier, le 16 novembre 2020.

1 of 20
Downloaded 11 times
Le Plan de Relance pour lEurope Andr辿 Sapir Professeur, Universit辿 libre de Bruxelles Senior Fellow, Bruegel PPT pour pr辿sentation au Forum Financier Belge 16 novembre 2020
Les phases 辿conomiques de la pand辿mie Les mesures durgence Les mesures de relance et le plan europ辿en Plan de la pr辿sentation
The three phases (IMF Fiscal Monitor, October 2020) Phase 1: widespread lockdown Phase 2: partial reopening Phase 3: post-Covid-19 recovery The linear view (in June) was wrong Planning the recovery is important but difficult economically and politically The phases of the pandemic
Emergency measures (short-term) Health sector measures Household income support Employment measures Tax measures Other liquidity support Question: loans, grants or equity participation? Recovery measures (medium-term) No need to stimulate private consumption because of private saving Need to boost public investment Need to adopt structural measures Fiscal measures: emergency versus recovery
Mainly by MS borrowing from markets In the Spring, the EU gave MS a licence to borrow ECB PEPP Fiscal rules SURE loan facility: 100bn ESM pandemic loan facility: 240bn This strategy (ECB PEPP + fiscal rules) has been very successful: large differences in growth across MS, but not due to their debt situation How are emergency public expenditures financed?
Top quartile (HR,ES,IE,FR,IT,PT,EL): average of -12.0% Two middle quartiles: average of -10.0% (including BE) Bottom quartile (AU,NL,PL,FI,DE,DK,SE): average of -7.5% Why such differences? Large differences in growth performance in 2020 S4 - Southern Four F4 - Frugal Four
Health situation: lockdown measures Economic structure: tourism share in GDP Economic response: fiscal constraint (debt-to-GDP)? Economic response: governance Possible explanations
Health situation Economic structure Source: own computations Correlation with Y: -0.60 Lockdown -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 IT DE SE -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 HR Tourism revenue-to-GDP (%) Correlation with Y: -0.46 DE IT
Economic response Fiscal constraint? Quality of governance Source: own computations Correlation: 0.46 Tourism revenue-to-GDP (%) -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 HR DE ELIT -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 DE IT EL Debt-to-GDP in 2019 (%) Correlation with Y: -0.49 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 IT DE FI Quality of Governance (WB indicator) Correlation with Y: 0.58
Multiple regression analysis Fall in 2020 growth forecast from Feb to July 2020 = Constant + 留 LOCKDOWN + 硫 TOURISM + 粒 DEBT + 隆 GOVERNANCE + 竜
Using the regression results to decompose differences Governance
MS are (rightly) spending generously on emergency measures They will also need to spend a lot for the recovery Not all EU countries will have the means Need to avoid austerity and a new North/South divide Role of Germany Why an EU recovery plan? Deficit Debt
EUR 750 bn EUR 360 bn in loans => EUR 360 bn EUR 390 bn in grants EUR 312.5 bn in grants => EUR 312.5 bn EUR 77.5 bn in grants under other programs React-EU EUR 47.5 billion Horizon Europe EUR 5 billion Invest-EU EUR 5.6 billion Rural Development EUR 7.5 billion Just Transition Fund EUR 10 billion Resc-EU EUR 1.9 billion New Generation EU (NGEU) EUR 672.5 bn Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)
Coherent package of reforms and public investment projects Must address the country-specific recommendations Must contribute to the 4 overall objectives Environmental sustainability Productivity Fairness Macroeconomic stability Must meet the following targets At least 37% for green investment and reforms At least 20% for digital investment and reforms Plans subject to Commission assessment and Council approval Spending subject to Commission assessment To get RRF money, MS must prepare national RR plans
Countries started to submit draft RR plans in October 2020 Countries must submit final RR plans by April 2021 Com has 2 months to assess and Council 1 month to approve All NGEU commitments must be made before 31/12/2023 All NGEU disbursements must be made before 31/12/2025 for loans 31/12/2026 for grants Timetable
For RRF grants, based on 3 criteria First criterion: share of EU population Second criterion: per capita GNI Third criterion For 70% of RRF grants: unemployment rate during 2015-19 For 30% of RRF grants: loss in real GDP in 2020 and 2021 For loans Must not exceed 6.8% of each MS GNI (based on 2018 GNI) How is the money allocated among MS?
Payments from NGEU grants (billion and % GNI) 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Austria 0.09% 0.13% 0.23% 0.25% 0.15% 0.10% Belgium 0.13% 0.19% 0.31% 0.33% 0.21% 0.15% Bulgaria 1.35% 1.64% 2.73% 2.91% 1.68% 0.92% Croatia 1.35% 1.70% 3.04% 3.28% 1.91% 1.13% Cyprus 0.60% 0.79% 1.34% 1.48% 0.82% 0.48% Czechia 0.50% 0.61% 1.00% 1.08% 0.61% 0.33% Denmark 0.06% 0.09% 0.15% 0.16% 0.09% 0.06% Estonia 0.59% 0.75% 1.19% 1.27% 0.72% 0.39% Finland 0.13% 0.18% 0.30% 0.32% 0.20% 0.13% France 0.18% 0.24% 0.43% 0.47% 0.28% 0.18% Germany 0.08% 0.11% 0.19% 0.20% 0.12% 0.08% Greece 1.16% 1.54% 2.68% 2.98% 1.68% 1.02% Hungary 0.56% 0.74% 1.27% 1.38% 0.76% 0.45% Ireland 0.06% 0.10% 0.15% 0.16% 0.09% 0.07% Italy 0.46% 0.66% 1.17% 1.35% 0.72% 0.45% Latvia 0.78% 1.00% 1.72% 1.87% 1.06% 0.61% Lithuania 0.65% 0.85% 1.46% 1.61% 0.90% 0.49% Luxembourg 0.05% 0.12% 0.17% 0.20% 0.07% 0.04% Malta 0.26% 0.42% 0.68% 0.78% 0.32% 0.16% Netherlands 0.09% 0.13% 0.21% 0.22% 0.14% 0.09% Poland 0.61% 0.76% 1.27% 1.37% 0.79% 0.43% Portugal 0.74% 0.96% 1.74% 1.93% 1.13% 0.69% Romania 0.83% 1.03% 1.73% 1.84% 1.05% 0.57% Slovakia 0.79% 0.99% 1.72% 1.88% 1.08% 0.63% Slovenia 0.45% 0.62% 1.03% 1.13% 0.62% 0.35% Spain 0.62% 0.85% 1.48% 1.66% 0.89% 0.53% Sweden 0.09% 0.12% 0.21% 0.23% 0.14% 0.09% EU27 0.28% 0.38% 0.66% 0.74% 0.42% 0.26% Source: Darvas (Nov 2020) 2021-26
Payments from NGEU loans (billion and % GNI) 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Austria --- --- --- --- --- Belgium 0.95% 1.68% 1.48% 1.29% 0.56% Bulgaria 0.96% 1.68% 1.44% 1.23% 0.52% Croatia 0.95% 1.68% 1.44% 1.22% 0.52% Cyprus 0.96% 1.71% 1.48% 1.27% 0.55% Czechia 0.99% 1.71% 1.47% 1.26% 0.54% Denmark --- --- --- --- --- Estonia --- --- --- --- --- Finland --- --- --- --- --- France --- --- --- --- --- Germany --- --- --- --- --- Greece 0.97% 1.72% 1.48% 1.28% 0.56% Hungary 0.97% 1.67% 1.42% 1.20% 0.51% Ireland --- --- --- --- --- Italy 0.97% 1.72% 1.52% 1.34% 0.59% Latvia 0.95% 1.68% 1.43% 1.22% 0.52% Lithuania 0.96% 1.68% 1.45% 1.25% 0.54% Luxembourg --- --- --- --- --- Malta 0.97% 1.65% 1.41% 1.20% 0.50% Netherlands --- --- --- --- --- Poland 0.97% 1.69% 1.45% 1.24% 0.53% Portugal 0.95% 1.68% 1.46% 1.27% 0.55% Romania 0.96% 1.66% 1.41% 1.19% 0.50% Slovakia 0.96% 1.68% 1.44% 1.24% 0.53% Slovenia 0.95% 1.69% 1.47% 1.26% 0.54% Spain 0.95% 1.67% 1.45% 1.25% 0.54% Sweden --- --- --- --- --- EU27 0.36% 0.64% 0.56% 0.49% 0.21% Source: Darvas (Nov 2020) 2021-25
The amounts involved are not trivial, especially for some MS => strong redistribution Grants Loans Grants & loans S4/EU27 49% 63% 56% DE+FR/EU27 18% 0% 10% F4/EU27 5% 0% 3% A Hamiltonian moment? Not quite but a very important moment nonetheless Supply side: Commission is issuing bonds for EUR 100 bn (SURE) + 750 bn (NGEU), with much success Demand side: big interest of MS for Commission vs. ESM instruments How important is really the EU recovery plan?
In the short term Design of the national RR plans Role of governance Assessment by the Commission In the medium term Making the recovery plan a success How to finance the reimbursement? Meanwhile the own resource ceiling has been increased by 0.6 percentage points. Will the new facility be temporary or become permanent? Main challenges ahead

More Related Content

Le Plan de relance pour l'Europe

  • 1. Le Plan de Relance pour lEurope Andr辿 Sapir Professeur, Universit辿 libre de Bruxelles Senior Fellow, Bruegel PPT pour pr辿sentation au Forum Financier Belge 16 novembre 2020
  • 2. Les phases 辿conomiques de la pand辿mie Les mesures durgence Les mesures de relance et le plan europ辿en Plan de la pr辿sentation
  • 3. The three phases (IMF Fiscal Monitor, October 2020) Phase 1: widespread lockdown Phase 2: partial reopening Phase 3: post-Covid-19 recovery The linear view (in June) was wrong Planning the recovery is important but difficult economically and politically The phases of the pandemic
  • 4. Emergency measures (short-term) Health sector measures Household income support Employment measures Tax measures Other liquidity support Question: loans, grants or equity participation? Recovery measures (medium-term) No need to stimulate private consumption because of private saving Need to boost public investment Need to adopt structural measures Fiscal measures: emergency versus recovery
  • 5. Mainly by MS borrowing from markets In the Spring, the EU gave MS a licence to borrow ECB PEPP Fiscal rules SURE loan facility: 100bn ESM pandemic loan facility: 240bn This strategy (ECB PEPP + fiscal rules) has been very successful: large differences in growth across MS, but not due to their debt situation How are emergency public expenditures financed?
  • 6. Top quartile (HR,ES,IE,FR,IT,PT,EL): average of -12.0% Two middle quartiles: average of -10.0% (including BE) Bottom quartile (AU,NL,PL,FI,DE,DK,SE): average of -7.5% Why such differences? Large differences in growth performance in 2020 S4 - Southern Four F4 - Frugal Four
  • 7. Health situation: lockdown measures Economic structure: tourism share in GDP Economic response: fiscal constraint (debt-to-GDP)? Economic response: governance Possible explanations
  • 8. Health situation Economic structure Source: own computations Correlation with Y: -0.60 Lockdown -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 IT DE SE -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 HR Tourism revenue-to-GDP (%) Correlation with Y: -0.46 DE IT
  • 9. Economic response Fiscal constraint? Quality of governance Source: own computations Correlation: 0.46 Tourism revenue-to-GDP (%) -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 HR DE ELIT -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 DE IT EL Debt-to-GDP in 2019 (%) Correlation with Y: -0.49 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 IT DE FI Quality of Governance (WB indicator) Correlation with Y: 0.58
  • 10. Multiple regression analysis Fall in 2020 growth forecast from Feb to July 2020 = Constant + 留 LOCKDOWN + 硫 TOURISM + 粒 DEBT + 隆 GOVERNANCE + 竜
  • 11. Using the regression results to decompose differences Governance
  • 12. MS are (rightly) spending generously on emergency measures They will also need to spend a lot for the recovery Not all EU countries will have the means Need to avoid austerity and a new North/South divide Role of Germany Why an EU recovery plan? Deficit Debt
  • 13. EUR 750 bn EUR 360 bn in loans => EUR 360 bn EUR 390 bn in grants EUR 312.5 bn in grants => EUR 312.5 bn EUR 77.5 bn in grants under other programs React-EU EUR 47.5 billion Horizon Europe EUR 5 billion Invest-EU EUR 5.6 billion Rural Development EUR 7.5 billion Just Transition Fund EUR 10 billion Resc-EU EUR 1.9 billion New Generation EU (NGEU) EUR 672.5 bn Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)
  • 14. Coherent package of reforms and public investment projects Must address the country-specific recommendations Must contribute to the 4 overall objectives Environmental sustainability Productivity Fairness Macroeconomic stability Must meet the following targets At least 37% for green investment and reforms At least 20% for digital investment and reforms Plans subject to Commission assessment and Council approval Spending subject to Commission assessment To get RRF money, MS must prepare national RR plans
  • 15. Countries started to submit draft RR plans in October 2020 Countries must submit final RR plans by April 2021 Com has 2 months to assess and Council 1 month to approve All NGEU commitments must be made before 31/12/2023 All NGEU disbursements must be made before 31/12/2025 for loans 31/12/2026 for grants Timetable
  • 16. For RRF grants, based on 3 criteria First criterion: share of EU population Second criterion: per capita GNI Third criterion For 70% of RRF grants: unemployment rate during 2015-19 For 30% of RRF grants: loss in real GDP in 2020 and 2021 For loans Must not exceed 6.8% of each MS GNI (based on 2018 GNI) How is the money allocated among MS?
  • 17. Payments from NGEU grants (billion and % GNI) 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Austria 0.09% 0.13% 0.23% 0.25% 0.15% 0.10% Belgium 0.13% 0.19% 0.31% 0.33% 0.21% 0.15% Bulgaria 1.35% 1.64% 2.73% 2.91% 1.68% 0.92% Croatia 1.35% 1.70% 3.04% 3.28% 1.91% 1.13% Cyprus 0.60% 0.79% 1.34% 1.48% 0.82% 0.48% Czechia 0.50% 0.61% 1.00% 1.08% 0.61% 0.33% Denmark 0.06% 0.09% 0.15% 0.16% 0.09% 0.06% Estonia 0.59% 0.75% 1.19% 1.27% 0.72% 0.39% Finland 0.13% 0.18% 0.30% 0.32% 0.20% 0.13% France 0.18% 0.24% 0.43% 0.47% 0.28% 0.18% Germany 0.08% 0.11% 0.19% 0.20% 0.12% 0.08% Greece 1.16% 1.54% 2.68% 2.98% 1.68% 1.02% Hungary 0.56% 0.74% 1.27% 1.38% 0.76% 0.45% Ireland 0.06% 0.10% 0.15% 0.16% 0.09% 0.07% Italy 0.46% 0.66% 1.17% 1.35% 0.72% 0.45% Latvia 0.78% 1.00% 1.72% 1.87% 1.06% 0.61% Lithuania 0.65% 0.85% 1.46% 1.61% 0.90% 0.49% Luxembourg 0.05% 0.12% 0.17% 0.20% 0.07% 0.04% Malta 0.26% 0.42% 0.68% 0.78% 0.32% 0.16% Netherlands 0.09% 0.13% 0.21% 0.22% 0.14% 0.09% Poland 0.61% 0.76% 1.27% 1.37% 0.79% 0.43% Portugal 0.74% 0.96% 1.74% 1.93% 1.13% 0.69% Romania 0.83% 1.03% 1.73% 1.84% 1.05% 0.57% Slovakia 0.79% 0.99% 1.72% 1.88% 1.08% 0.63% Slovenia 0.45% 0.62% 1.03% 1.13% 0.62% 0.35% Spain 0.62% 0.85% 1.48% 1.66% 0.89% 0.53% Sweden 0.09% 0.12% 0.21% 0.23% 0.14% 0.09% EU27 0.28% 0.38% 0.66% 0.74% 0.42% 0.26% Source: Darvas (Nov 2020) 2021-26
  • 18. Payments from NGEU loans (billion and % GNI) 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Austria --- --- --- --- --- Belgium 0.95% 1.68% 1.48% 1.29% 0.56% Bulgaria 0.96% 1.68% 1.44% 1.23% 0.52% Croatia 0.95% 1.68% 1.44% 1.22% 0.52% Cyprus 0.96% 1.71% 1.48% 1.27% 0.55% Czechia 0.99% 1.71% 1.47% 1.26% 0.54% Denmark --- --- --- --- --- Estonia --- --- --- --- --- Finland --- --- --- --- --- France --- --- --- --- --- Germany --- --- --- --- --- Greece 0.97% 1.72% 1.48% 1.28% 0.56% Hungary 0.97% 1.67% 1.42% 1.20% 0.51% Ireland --- --- --- --- --- Italy 0.97% 1.72% 1.52% 1.34% 0.59% Latvia 0.95% 1.68% 1.43% 1.22% 0.52% Lithuania 0.96% 1.68% 1.45% 1.25% 0.54% Luxembourg --- --- --- --- --- Malta 0.97% 1.65% 1.41% 1.20% 0.50% Netherlands --- --- --- --- --- Poland 0.97% 1.69% 1.45% 1.24% 0.53% Portugal 0.95% 1.68% 1.46% 1.27% 0.55% Romania 0.96% 1.66% 1.41% 1.19% 0.50% Slovakia 0.96% 1.68% 1.44% 1.24% 0.53% Slovenia 0.95% 1.69% 1.47% 1.26% 0.54% Spain 0.95% 1.67% 1.45% 1.25% 0.54% Sweden --- --- --- --- --- EU27 0.36% 0.64% 0.56% 0.49% 0.21% Source: Darvas (Nov 2020) 2021-25
  • 19. The amounts involved are not trivial, especially for some MS => strong redistribution Grants Loans Grants & loans S4/EU27 49% 63% 56% DE+FR/EU27 18% 0% 10% F4/EU27 5% 0% 3% A Hamiltonian moment? Not quite but a very important moment nonetheless Supply side: Commission is issuing bonds for EUR 100 bn (SURE) + 750 bn (NGEU), with much success Demand side: big interest of MS for Commission vs. ESM instruments How important is really the EU recovery plan?
  • 20. In the short term Design of the national RR plans Role of governance Assessment by the Commission In the medium term Making the recovery plan a success How to finance the reimbursement? Meanwhile the own resource ceiling has been increased by 0.6 percentage points. Will the new facility be temporary or become permanent? Main challenges ahead