Greece and European Monetary Union: a challenge or a helping hand?

  • Nicos M. Christodoulakis


By almost all macroeconomic accounts, Greece is the odd man out in the process of satisfying the criteria set out by the Maastricht Treaty as the preparation for Economic and Monetary Union. The Greek public debt is approaching 100% of GDP, and shows no sign of coming down as long as the current fiscal policies are applied. Owing to high interest payments, the budget deficit stands at 14% of GDP even after the primary deficit has been brought down to 1%. Inflation persists at 15% despite the prolonged recession in the Greek economy. The exchange rate is depreciated by 10–12% annually against the Ecu currencies, but this is still not enough to correct the accumulated loss of competitiveness caused by inflation differentials with Greece’s trading rivals. After the escudo joined the Exchange-Rate Mechanism in March 1992, the drachma was further isolated as the only currency left outside the band.


Social Cohesion Inflation Rate Indirect Taxis Real Effective Exchange Rate Maastricht Treaty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alogoskoufis G. and N. Christodoulakis (1991), “Fiscal deficits, seigniorage and external debt: the case of Greece”, in G. Alogoskoufis, L. Papademos and R. Portes (eds.), External Constraints on Macroeconomic Policy: The European Experience, Cambridge University Press for Centre for Economic Policy Research.Google Scholar
  2. Christodoulakis N. and T. Kollintzas (1991), “European Monetary Union: a chance for the economy of Greece to take off again”, Economicos (Athens), September (in Greek).Google Scholar
  3. Christodoulakis N. (1992), “Tax-collection lags and revenue-maximising inflation”, Discussion Paper, Athens University of Economics and Business.Google Scholar
  4. Commission of the European Communities (1990), “One market, one money”, European Economy 44, October.Google Scholar
  5. Dimelis S., N. Christodoulakis, T. Kollintzas and K. Prodromidis (1991), “Main stylised facts of the Greek business cycle: 1948–1989”, Centre for Economic Research (KOE), Athens.Google Scholar
  6. EEC (1991), “Indicators of price and cost competitiveness”, DOC I1/194/3/91.Google Scholar
  7. EKEM (Hellenic Centre for European Studies) (1991), “Greece and EMU”, Collection of papers, No. 9, October.Google Scholar
  8. Giavazzi F. and M. Pagano (1988), “The advantage of tying one’s hands: EMS discipline and central-bank credibility”, European Economic Review 32, 1055–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gomme P. (1991), “Money and growth revisited”, Discussion Paper, Institute for Empirical Macroeconomics.Google Scholar
  10. Mundell R. (1961), “A theory of optimum currency areas”, American Economic Review, 657–665.Google Scholar
  11. Pisani-Ferry J. and A. Italianer (1992), “The regional-stabilisation properties of fiscal arrangements”, this volume.Google Scholar
  12. Tanzi V. (1978), “Inflation, real tax revenue and the case for inflationary finance: theory with an application to Argentina”, IMF Staff Papers Vol. 25.Google Scholar
  13. Van der Ploeg F. (1993, forthcoming), “Unanticipated inflation and government finance: the case for a common independent central bank”, in F. Torres and F. Giavazzi (eds.), A Single Currency for Europe, Cambridge University Press for CEPR.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Centre for European Policy Studies 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicos M. Christodoulakis

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations