Skip to main content

European Fiscal Policy Co-ordination and the Persistent Myth of Stabilization

  • Chapter
The Future of EMU

Abstract

The asymmetric constitution of European macroeconomic governance is well known. Monetary policy is made at the European level, while fiscal policy remains the purview of the member states. The pathologies this creates are also well known. Macroeconomic policy is uncoordinated at the European level and fiscal policy is uncoordinated across the member states. The result is almost universally regarded as sub-optimal (Tsoukalis 2005: 161). Better co-ordination of monetary and fiscal policy at the European level could improve aggregate demand management for those countries that have adopted the euro taken as a group (the euro-zone). Better co-ordination of national fiscal policies could also enhance predictability (and reduce negative externalities) in a context of high interdependence and so improve national achievement of national objectives with national fiscal instruments. Alas, the prospects for better co-ordination are slim.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bayoumi, T. and Eichengreen, B. (1997), ‘Ever closer to heaven? An optimum-currency-area index lor European countries’, European Economic Review, 41: 761–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayoumi, T. and Eichengreen, B. (1998), ‘Exchange rate volatility and intervention: implications of the theory of optimum cunency areas’, Journal of International Economics, 45: 191–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayoumi, T. and Masson, P. R. (1995), ‘Fiscal flows in the United States and Canada: lessons lor monetary union in Europe’, European Economic Review, 39: 253–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. N. (1968), The Economics of Interdependence: Economic Policy in the Atlantic Community, New York: McGraw-Hill for the Council on Foreign Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Grauwe, P. (2006), ‘Monetary integration since the Maastricht Treaty’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(4) (November): 711–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enderlein, H. (2006), ‘Adjustment to EMU: the impact of supranational monetary policy on domestic fiscal and wage-setting institutions’, European Union Politics, 7(1) (March): 113–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, J. M. (1971), ‘On exchange rate unification’, Economic Journal, 81(323) (September): 467–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galí, J. and Perotti, R. (2003), ‘Fiscal politics and monetary integration in Europe’, in R. Baldwin, G. Bertola and P. Seabright (eds), EMU: Assessing the Impact of the Euro, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 241–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodhart, C. A. E. (2006), ‘The ECB and the conduct of monetary policy’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(4) (November): 757–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gowa, J. and Mansfield, E. D. (2004), ‘Alliances, imperfect markets, and major-power trade’, International Organization, 58: 775–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallerberg, M. (2004), Domestic Budgets in a United Europe: Fiscal Governance from the End of the Bretton Woods System to EMU, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. (2003), ‘Liberalized capital markets, state autonomy, and European Monetary Union’, European Journal of Political Research, 42(2) (March): 111–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. (2004), ‘The politics of Europe 2003: differences and disagreements’, Industrial Relations Journal, 35(6) (November): 483–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. (2006), ‘European macroeconomic governance’, in Jeremy Richardson (ed.), European Union Power and Policymaking, 3rd edition, London: Routledge, pp. 329–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh, E. et al. (1998), ‘The political economy of EMU in Ireland’, in E. Jones, J. Frieden and F. Tones (eds), Joining Europe’s Monetary Club: the Challenges for Smaller Member States, New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 123–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenen, P. B. (1969), ‘The theory of optimum cunency areas: an eclectic view’, in R. A. Mundell and A. K. Swoboda (eds), Monetary Problems of the International Economy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 41–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon, R. I. (1963), ‘Optimum cunency areas’, American Economic Review, 53(4) (September): 717–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mélitz, J. (2004), ‘Risk sharing and EMU’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(4) (November): 815–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mélitz, J. and Zumer, F. (1998), ‘Redistribution régionale et stabilisation par le gouvernement central’, Economie Internationale, 75(3): 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mundell, R. A. (1973), ‘Uncommon arguments for common currencies’, in H. G. Johnson and A. K. Swoboda (eds), The Economics of Common Currencies, London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., pp. 114–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadeh, T. (2005), ‘Who can adjust to the euro?’, The World Economy, 28(11) (November): 1651–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadeh, T. (2006a), ‘Adjusting to EMU: electoral, partisan, and fiscal cycles’, European Union Politics, 7(3) (September): 347–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadeh, T. (2006b), Sustaining European Monetary Union: Confronting the Cost of Diversity, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sala-i-Martin, X. and Sachs, J. (1992), ‘Fiscal federalism and optimum currency areas: evidence for Europe from the United States’, in M. B. Canzonieri, V. Grilli and P. R. Masson (eds), Establishing a Central Bank: Issues in Europe and Lessons from the United States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195–219.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Steil, B. (2007), ‘The end of national currency’, Foreign Affairs, 86(3) (May/June): 83–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamborini, R. (2006), ‘The “Brussels consensus” on macroeconomic stabilization policies in EMU: a critical assessment’, in R Tones, A. Verdun and H. Zimmermann (eds), EMU Rules: the Political and Economic Consequences of European Monetary Integration, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, pp. 137–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavlas, G. S. (1993), ‘The “new” theory of optimum cunency areas’, The World Economy, 16(6) (November): 663–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilford, S. (2006), Will the Eurozone Crack? London: Centre for European Reform.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukalis, L. (2005), What Kind of Europe? Updated and expanded edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2009 Erik Jones

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jones, E. (2009). European Fiscal Policy Co-ordination and the Persistent Myth of Stabilization. In: Talani, L.S. (eds) The Future of EMU. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230233898_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics