As part of the assessment for the financial crises course I took during the capital markets graduate program I attended in 2022/23, we were required to write an essay on the Greek crisis. Below was my attempt, which has been slightly modified to correct grammatical errors I previously overlooked.
The Greek ‘Spartan’
Crisis and Lessons for Developing Economies
Executive
Summary
Admission into the
‘promising’ euro area unlocked growth potential for Greece, as it had access to low-interest rates, coupled with capital and labour inflows. To sustain its popularity, the Greek government embarked on excessive public spending, funded through external borrowing at low cost, while closing its eyes to tax
administration and evasion problems that dampened revenues.
As the wind of the
Global Financial Crisis (GFC) blew across Europe and capital flows stopped, underlying vulnerabilities in Greece emerged in 2009, including significant fiscal and debt issues that had been previously masked by inaccurate statistics. Constrained by its membership in
the euro area, Greece had no flexibility in monetary policy to mitigate current
account deficits and control the interest rate environment. The euro area rules
also prevented central bank financing of budget deficits.
A financial rescue
package was prepared by eurozone partners and the IMF for Greece to mitigate systemic risk in Europe, accompanied by conditions for implementing strict reforms, which led to protests, political turmoil, and economic hardship in the country. A lack of investor confidence in the stability of other euro area member states soon led to contagion in Cyprus, Ireland, and Portugal, and to a lesser extent, in
Spain and Italy.
Following a
deeper-than-expected contraction in economic activity, high debt, and the government’s inability to follow through with reforms, Greece became the first advanced nation to default on its IMF obligations and thus received additional financial packages. The IMF and euro partners continued to guide Greece
until it exited the bailout packages in August 2018, when it resumed access to
financial markets.
Previous
experiences from financial crises, especially the Argentine crisis, raise
concerns about the effectiveness of the policy responses to the Greek Crisis by
the IMF and euro leaders. Was Greece eligible to join the euro area at the time
it did? Why were the underlying vulnerabilities not flagged despite several IMF
surveillances and the ‘taunted’ strict rules of the euro area? Was the Greek crisis
avoidable? Are there lessons for other nations from the Greek crisis?
Greece Prior to 2009
Greece became a part
of the now 27-member state European Union in 1981 and joined the euro area in 2001.
Typically, member states join the euro area after demonstrating a high degree
of sustainable convergence based on the convergence criteria laid out in the
Maastricht Treaty
as well as compliance with the requirements for national central banks to integrate
with the European System of Central Banks.
The Greek economy experienced tremendous growth after adopting the Euro, driven by lower interest rates, the liberalisation of the financial sector, greater access to capital, and a higher labour supply resulting from immigration. Consequently, per-capita GDP growth averaged 3.8 per cent between 2000 and 2008 in Greece, compared to 1.4 per cent in the Euro area.
Despite the growth
opportunities, several factors increased imbalances within the Greek economy,
which eventually became problematic.
Low-Interest Rates
Following the euro's adoption, investor confidence soared in favour of the European Monetary Union, based on the belief that stronger countries within the bloc would prevent weaker countries from failing, given the various rules within the bloc. The
yields of sovereign bonds reflected optimism for the monetary union as it trended
downwards, resulting in reduced borrowing costs for EU countries. The lower
rates, in turn, encouraged excess borrowing by member countries of the EU,
including Greece.
High Public Spending and Low Revenues
The Government of
Greece took advantage of the boom period and the low-interest-rate borrowing opportunities
to increase its public expenditure without a corresponding increase in revenue. Budgets
for projects, military expenses and welfare packages soared.
Public workers received higher paychecks/pensions, and increased labour supply from immigration contributed to higher labour costs. Meanwhile, poor tax
administration and tax evasion hampered growth in revenues, and the Government
recorded consistent budget deficits between 1990 and 2000.
Rising Debt Levels
Greece had a
history of high debt, compounded by increased public spending that widened the
fiscal deficit. Debt rose to about 115 per cent of the GDP in 2009 from 68 per cent of
GDP in 1990,
a wide margin from the maximum debt limit of 60 per cent of GDP in the
Maastricht Treaty.
Current Account Deficit
Greece's consumption
exceeded its production, leading to trade deficits that were funded through external
borrowing, resulting in a more significant current account deficit to approximately 15 per cent of
GDP in 2008 from 5.1 per cent of GDP in 1999.
The Crisis Unfolds
The global
financial Crisis (GFC) of 2007/2008 and its attendant recession reduced
investors’ risk appetite and dampened confidence, slowing cross-border capital inflows.
The GFC was the catalyst that revealed the underlying imbalances in the Greek
economy. In October 2009, a newly elected Government in Greece, led by George
Papandreou, estimated a much higher-than-expected fiscal deficit of 12.8 per cent
of GDP (from a previously
estimated 3.6 per cent of GDP), which pointed to fiscal misappropriations and underreporting
of statistics. Consequently, rating agencies downgraded Greece's debt, causing its sovereign spreads to rise above the German debt as yields trended upward to compensate for the possible risk of default.
With higher
borrowing costs and a sudden halt in capital inflows, Greece faced a difficult situation in financing its substantial debt obligations. Additionally, Greece lacked an independent monetary policy as a member of the euro area. It could therefore not devalue its currency to stimulate demand for cheap exports and increase domestic investment, thereby reducing the current account deficit. The
Maastricht treaty also barred the financing of budget deficits through the
central bank to mitigate moral hazards. While economic activities (including
production, retail sales, and tourism) slowed in Greece, the wage bill remained
high with greater inflation expectations above other member states in the euro
area, thus losing its competitiveness. The slowdown in activities and higher
cost of funds also diminished banks' profitability; rating agencies downgraded
some banks, which led to a sharp drop in banks' equity prices.. By 2010, Greece had lost
access to financial markets, and fears over European systemic risks
necessitated a bailout.
Policy Response and Bailouts
During the initial
discussions to rescue Greece, the option of an assisted intervention by the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) was not well received in Europe, so the fund provided only technical assistance to Greece on managing public finances and administering taxes. Later, Europe’s perception shifted towards
the need to tap into the IMF's experiences in crisis management, which led
to the first bailout package for Greece.
The first financial
package
– the IMF, the European Central Bank, and the European Commission formed a partnership, informally dubbed “the troika," to provide a combined loan package of € 110 billion to Greece by May 2010. The package consisted of an SDR allocation of 30 billion euros from
the IMF and bilateral loans worth 80 billion euros from 15 euro area partners.
It was a stand-by arrangement (SBA) of 3 years, conditional on implementing stringent
policies/reforms to improve its fiscal position., reduce debt, and enhance
competitiveness.
The sharp
reduction in public expenditure and investment led to a contraction in GDP.
Inflation rose, reflecting the increased pass-through of taxes to prices. Despite the reforms,
sovereign spreads remained high as markets were unconvinced that the package
would eliminate the need for debt restructuring in Greece.
The second
financial package – An IMF review of the SBA in December 2010
showed that Greece's GDP contracted deeper than estimated, driven by low investment and private consumption, as well as inadequate credit availability for firms, and higher unemployment. Additionally, banks were found to be
undercapitalised and needed liquidity support. Despite making some
progress with fiscal reforms, the debt remained high.
Subsequently,
Greece requested debt relief from private creditors in July 2011, which was
initially agreed at 21 per cent but later increased to 50 per cent, along with
an extension of loan maturities and a reduction in lending rates. By March 2012, the
troika replaced the SBA with an extended fund facility (EFF) of 173 billion
euros for four years, enabling Greece to continue with the structural
adjustment program while remaining in the euro area.
The third
financial package
– political
instability and public outcry over the austerity measures stalled reform
progress.
The Government of Greece requested flexibility in implementing reforms, as the contraction in GDP increased the debt-to-GDP ratio, which stood at approximately 157
per cent by the end of 2012. However, Greece's
creditors insisted on the implementation of reforms to unlock the last disbursement of
the EFF. Fears that Greece would exit the euro area caused bank runs and a
crash in stock prices. Subsequently, the Greek government imposed capital controls to prevent a deposit outflow and restricted ATM withdrawals.
Eventually, Greece defaulted on its payment obligations to the IMF, becoming the
first advanced country to do so.
Following a call
for a referendum on the reforms, which the public eventually rejected, the
leaders of the euro area underwent several negotiations before agreeing to provide a third financial package to Greece, worth € 86 billion, in August 2015,
conditional on the continuous implementation of the reforms. The agreement temporarily restored economic stability in Greece and helped secure a loan to repay
arrears owed to the IMF.
Greece continued
to implement structural adjustment reforms, received further credit from its eurozone partners, and secured an extension of maturities on some loans from creditors, ultimately successfully exiting the bailouts in August 2018.
Contagion
As the Greek
Crisis unfolded in 2009, concerns arose among investors regarding the stability of the euro area. By 2010, weaknesses in the banking industries of Ireland, Portugal, and Cyprus had become exposed, and these countries subsequently requested emergency
funding from European partners and the IMF. By 2011, the crisis had spilt over to
Italy and Spain due to massive capital outflows. However, both countries
managed the Crisis through bond purchases and financing from Europe, coupled
with decisive actions, without undertaking an IMF-financing program. Ireland
and Portugal exited the funding programs by 2013 and 2014, respectively, and
regained access to the financial markets.. The funding program for
Cyprus continued into 2016, but it had regained access to financial markets
by 2014.
Post-Crisis Evaluation: Could the Crisis have been avoided?
It is usually
easier to manage country vulnerabilities when there is no crisis, but no
country is immune to financial contagion if it has underlying weaknesses. The
GFC exposed the existing flaws in Greece's economy.
A sustainable
fiscal and debt framework could have put Greece in a better position to manage
negative spillovers from the GFC. Similarly, transparency in reporting
economic/financial statistics could have alerted European leaders and the Greek Government to act early to resolve economic imbalances.
The accurate
statistics would have shown that Greece was not yet qualified to join the euro
area based on the convergence criteria of the Maastricht Treaty. In that case,
Greece would have had the opportunity to allow its currency to be
adjusted/devalued to resolve the current account deficit and influence the
interest rate environment.
Most importantly, there
were warning signs as far back as 1999. For example, the ECB Convergence Report
for 2000 noted that Greece's debt was 104.4 per cent of GDP, far above the 60 per cent maximum target of the Maastricht treaty. Without any visible fiscal
reforms, the IMF and European leaders should have been curious about the steps
taken by the Greek Government to meet the debt ratio target between 1999 and their adoption of the Euro in 2001. They should have been
more hesitant in admitting Greece into the euro area.
Furthermore, the IMF had previously raised concerns about fiscal imbalances in Greece during Article IV consultations, but did not raise sufficient alarm to prompt the implementation of urgent reforms. Its surveillance of the European Union also tended to focus on
more prominent countries and did not anticipate the possibility of smaller
countries causing problems within the union. The IMF also failed to predict the full ramifications of capital flow reversals within the European Union and
the contagion effect.
Was the Policy Response appropriate?
Many analysts
believed that the management of the Crisis could have been better if debt
restructuring had been undertaken at the initial stage, as it seemed to be a
more viable option before the first bailout package by the troika. The financial
packages primarily served to repay debts and did little to boost Greece's economy, which continued to contract during the Crisis.
The IMF received
criticism for not thoroughly evaluating all available options to support Greece, including debt restructuring, given that the country's sovereign debt already had a
high probability of being unsustainable. Analysts believed that the decision to provide a bailout initially increased the fiscal adjustment required, which led to a deep contraction in Greece's GDP. It also led to low support for the bailout programs, which made it difficult for the Greek Government to implement the reforms.
Similarly, the
bailout response was not well thought out, as estimations for growth and
revenues were overly optimistic.There seemed to be too
much confidence in the Greek Government’s ability to carry out difficult
reforms. The IMF had no immediate backup strategy when it became apparent that the
deployed strategy was not efficient. Thus, the inefficient strategy persisted for a long time without yielding much success.
By adopting the
decision already reached by European leaders to give bailout packages, the IMF
seemed to have been influenced by them. Similarly, the IMF received criticism
for granting the exceptional access program to Greece, despite not
meeting all the conditions for one, and thus was judged to have handled Europe
differently than it would usually do with other countries.
The Greek crisis also shares many similarities with the Argentine crisis, in which the IMF was involved.
With the experience from the Argentine crisis, the IMF should have transferred
that knowledge to handling the Crisis in Greece.
There were
criticisms that European leaders, especially those from Germany, exerted too much power and insisted on austerity measures that squeezed the Greek people hard, with
little or no palliative measures for the most vulnerable.
Some Lessons Learned
- From
the Mundell-Fleming Trilemma, a country can achieve at most two out of
independent monetary policy, open capital account and fixed exchange rate. By
joining the euro area, Greece lost its independent monetary policy, which prevented it from exercising control over interest rates and addressing current
account problems.
- Although
the rules of the Euro Area attempted to prevent moral hazards by disallowing
budget deficits to be funded by central bank financing, it did not prevent
countries from fiscal profligacy since there was no similarity in budgetary policies
in the union.
- The
moral hazard risk remained, given that investors believed that stronger
countries within the bloc would prevent weaker countries from failing, thus
reinforcing the possibility of excessive risk-taking.
- The
Crisis was not only costly for Greece in terms of the structural adjustments
and austerity measures it had to undertake, but was also costly for the rest of
Europe and the IMF. They contributed financially to resuscitate Greece and the
other European countries that suffered from the contagion.
- Giving
loans (more debts) to repay existing debts does not solve a crisis!
References
European Central
Bank, ECB (2000). Convergence Report. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/conrep/cr2000en.pdf?3a6a148876b98ab9ff985f2012bd8379
European Central Bank, ECB (2022). Convergence Criteria. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/orga/escb/html/convergence-criteria.en.html
Forbes (2016). The
Most Expensive Summer Olympics. https://www.forbes.com/pictures/geeg45eglhf/2-2004-athens-games/?sh=59be895bc5d6
Independent
Evaluation Office, IEO (2016). The IMF and the Crises in Greece, Ireland, and
Portugal. Evaluation Report, International Monetary Fund, Washington DC.
International
Monetary Fund, IMF (2009). Greece: 2009 Article IV Consultation. IMF Country
Report No. 09/244, August 2009.
International
Monetary Fund, IMF (2010a). Greece: Request for Stand-By Arrangement. IMF
Country Report No. 10/111, May 2010.
International
Monetary Fund, IMF (2010b). Greece: Stand-By Arrangement - Review Under the
Emergency Financing Mechanism. IMF Country Report No. 10/217, July 2010.
International
Monetary Fund, IMF (2010c). Greece: Second Review Under the Stand-By
Arrangement. IMF Country Report No. 10/372, December 2010.
International
Monetary Fund, IMF (2012). IMF Executive Board Approves €28 Billion Arrangement
Under Extended Fund Facility for Greece. Press Release No 12/85, March 15, 2012.
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/14/01/49/pr1285
International
Monetary Fund, IMF (2013a). IMF Completes Third Review Under Extended Fund
Facility Arrangement for Greece, Concludes 2013 Article IV Consultation. Press
Release No. 13/195, May 31, 2013. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/14/01/49/pr13195
International
Monetary Fund, IMF (2013b). IMF Executive Board Concludes 2013 Article IV
Consultation, Completes Third Review of the Extended Fund Facility (EFF), and
Discusses Ex Post Evaluation of 2010 Stand-By Arrangement (SBA) with Greece.
Public Information Notice No 13/64, June 5, 2013. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/pn1364
International
Monetary Fund, IMF (2013c). Greece: 2013 Article IV Consultation. IMF Country
Report No. 13/154, June 2013.
International
Monetary Fund, IMF (2016). Greece: 2016 Article IV Consultation. IMF Country
Report No. 17/40, February 2017.
Kindreich, A.
(2017). The Greek Financial Crisis (2009–2016). https://www.econcrises.org/2017/07/20/the-greek-financial-crisis-2009-2016/
Larson, S. (2017).
Three Trigger Points for a Greek-Style Debt Crisis. https://www.aier.org/article/three-trigger-points-for-a-greek-style-debt-crisis/
National Bank of
Belgium. The institutional framework of monetary policy - The Maastricht
convergence criteria. https://www.nbb.be/en/monetary-policy/general-framework/institutional-framework-monetary-policy/maastricht-convergence
Nelson, R. M., Belkin,
P. & Jackson, J. K. (2017). The Greek Debt Crisis: Overview and
Implications for the United States. Congressional Research Service (CRS)
report, April 24, 2017, No 7–5700.
North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, NATO (2010). Financial and Economic Data Relating to NATO Defence.
Press Release Communique No PR/CP(2010)078, June 2010. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2010_06/20100610_PR_CP_2010_078.pdf
Sawe, B. E.
(2018). The Most Expensive Summer Olympic Games in History. World Atlas - World
Facts https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-expensive-summer-olympic-games-in-history.html