Driving the Global Economy with the Brakes On

By Olivier Blanchard

(Versions in  عربي中文EspañolFrançaisРусский日本語)

After the speech by the IMF’s Managing Director in Berlin yesterday, my main messages on the global outlook will not surprise you.

Starting with the bad news--the world recovery, which was weak in the first place, is in danger of stalling. The epicenter of the danger is Europe, but the rest of the world is increasingly affected.

There is an even greater danger, namely that the European crisis intensifies. In this case, the world could be plunged into another recession.

Turning to the good news--with the right set of measures, the worst can definitely be avoided, and the recovery can be put back on track. These measures can be taken, need to be taken, and need to be taken urgently.

And now the numbers, starting at the epicenter:

The IMF’s forecast for growth in Euro Area for 2012 is ‑0.5 percent—this marks a decrease of 1.6 percentage points relative to our September 2011 projection. In particular, we predict negative growth in Italy (‑2.2 percent) and Spain (‑1.7 percent).

We have also revised downwards our forecasts for other advanced countries, although by less. Only for the United States, is our forecast unchanged at 1.8 percent.

The growth outlook in emerging and developing countries is also down, at 5.4 percent, a decrease of 0.7 percent relative to our September forecast. The revision is particularly sharp in Central and Eastern Europe, reflecting their links to the Euro area. But it is also substantial in China and India, where internal factors explain most of the decrease.

What are the forces behind these numbers?

Most advanced economies are operating with two major brakes on.

  • The first is fiscal consolidation. Consolidation is necessary—debt levels are very high—but, in the short run, it is clearly a drag on demand, it is a drag on growth.
  • The second is tight credit. In many countries, particularly in Europe, banks are still weak. They are deleveraging. And, in many cases, deleveraging means tighter credit to households or firms, another drag on growth.

With those brakes on, the recovery cannot be very strong, and indeed this is something you see in past financial crises.

What is happening in Europe, however, is making things worse.

Doubts about fiscal sustainability are leading to high yields on sovereign bonds and, in turn, doubts about bank solvency. To reassure markets, governments have felt they had to consolidate further. To reassure investors, banks have deleveraged and tightened credit. Both actions have further decreased growth, leading to a dangerous downward spiral.

This explains our forecasts of negative growth for some of the Euro periphery countries, and low growth in the rest of the Euro area. Looking beyond Europe, spillovers through trade are already visible among Euro trade partners. And bouts of risk aversion and uncertainty are leading to high volatility of capital flows to emerging markets.

If not contained, this downward spiral can lead to even worse outcomes, be it disorderly default or Euro exit, with major spillovers, first to the rest of the Euro area, and then to the rest of the world.

In this context, the required policies are clear.

These are largely a repeat of the main messages from the Managing Director Christine Lagarde’s speech yesterday.

  • First, fiscal consolidation must proceed, but at an appropriate pace. Decreasing debt is a marathon, not a sprint. Going too fast will kill growth, and further derail the recovery.It took more than two decades to successfully decrease debt from its World War II heights. We should expect that it may take as long or longer this time.Of the essence here is a credible medium term plan, something still missing in the United States and Japan. Once such a plan is in place, in most countries, automatic stabilizers should be left to play. In some countries, slower consolidation may even be appropriate.
  • Second, a credit crunch must be avoided. Where banks need to increase their capital ratios, they should do it through an increase in capital, rather than a decrease in credit. Recapitalization through public funds will help credit, sustain activity, and may actually improve the fiscal outlook.
  • Third, and to the extent that they are taking the tough measures they need to take, Euro periphery countries—such as Italy or Spain—must be able to borrow at low interest rates. As many investors have left the market and are unlikely to return soon, public liquidity provision may be needed. It can be provided in various ways, by the European Central Bank, by the European Union, and by the IMF. Whichever combination is used, the available funds must be large enough to maintain low interest rates and fiscal sustainability.

Our forecasts are based on the assumption that these measures will be adopted, and the Euro crisis will slowly decrease in intensity. If they are not, one can fear the worst. If they are adopted decisively, the world economy may perform better than our forecast.

One should be under no illusion however. Even then, the brakes will still be on, and unemployment will decrease only slowly. We have a long way to go before the world economy has fully recovered.

2017-04-15T14:13:41-05:00January 24, 2012|


  1. Per Kurowski January 24, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    As long as the regulators insist on their silly capital requirements for banks based on perceived risks, they will be feeding the banks a hallucinogen, which makes these more sensitive to risk; seeing good credit ratings in much brighter lights; and making not-so-good ratings to seem far scarier… you will not be able to stop the destructive deleveraging that is going on, as a result of the equally destructive leveraging that caused this crisis. Occupy Basel!

  2. George Naumovski January 24, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    The majority need to work together and realise that there are some excessively profiteering from this crisis. Employers want cheaper labour hire and Asia provides that while most nations have no jobs and money to buy and to prop up their economy. Small businesses just keep borrowing and then cry poor when they can’t make the repayments because no one is buying and yet these employers want to pay less in wages and this creates a vicious cycle as employers want to pay less but no one is buying because people have no money!

  3. Faiz Ahamed January 25, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    More people are beginning to realize that their economy should be local. Bank locally, purchase products made in America, and invest locally. The factor price equilibriu­m of wages that compare a $3,000 U.S. annual salary equivalent to compete with American labor at $30,000 is unfair to Americans. The free enterprise competitio­n stops at an equilibriu­m which would be $21,000 for each worker, the Chinese and the American. This hurts the American and he has no interest in this. However, the American enterprise (WalMart) loves this as the cost of goods to them beats the American competitio­n. This was never explained to the American worker. And these boys expect the pledge of allegience to be uttered. ugh.

  4. Raj Manotra January 25, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    I do not know if the Europeans, meaning the Germans, will adopt Lagarde’s inflationary recommendations or not. The world gets the same amount of pain either way. The present austerity policy means the pain will be felt by the banks, the stock market, and the segment of the labor force that is laid off. The bailout/inflation policy means the pain will be felt by the bond market, tax payers, and the general public. A good case can be made for either policy being “correct”, and a good case can be made which policy is ultimately adopted.

    Thank you for your fine article.

  5. Per Kurowski January 25, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    The world cannot afford to have its banks being herded with the whip of capital requirements into the officially perceived safe havens.

    What could be done? One solution could be that of declaring a ten year new capital requirement moratorium on all current bank exposures; allowing the banks to run new lending with whatever new capital they can raise, while imposing an equal 8 percent capital requirement on any bank business, no risk-weighting. If there’s an exception, that should be on lending to small businesses and entrepreneurs, in which case they could require, for instance, only 6 percent of capital, because these borrowers do not pose any systemic risk, and also because of: when the going gets to be risky, all of us risk-adverse need the “risky” risk-takers to get going.

    There is life outside of what is safe … in fact risk-taking is the oxygen of life and development. Stop the nannies! Occupy Basel! http://bit.ly/dFRiMs

  6. rachelkasumbaRachel Kasumba January 26, 2012 at 10:06 am

    Olivier, thanks for the updates. I agree with Per that “risky” risk takers, a.k.a small businesses and entrepreneurs, should be especially supported in these times of economic uncertainties, in order to spur growth and employment.

    That said, there needs to be a balance in reverting to either capitalist or socialist or other systems in between to curb globalization. It is not just a case of either or the other – many models need to be examined and adopted as per the local demands, all the time keeping in mind, how these will affect the world at large.

    We are no longer operating in a vacuum wherever we may be and this fact needs to guide all our policies for the future.

  7. Javed Mir January 28, 2012 at 11:01 am

    Olivier Blanchard – relevant as usual – the gist is that we should pursue fiscal consolidation but not too rapidly and also not too slow.

  8. […] of GDP. In a reasonably good growth environment this pace of adjustment would be fine. But in the current weaker macroeconomic environment bringing deficits down this quickly could pose a risk for the economic […]

Leave A Comment