Tag Archives: Greece economy

Barbarism at the gates

Illustration by Manos Symeonakis

Politicians often say things during election campaigns that they later regret. Looking back on his first year as prime minister, George Papandreou must be wondering what possessed him ahead of last year’s October 4 poll to utter – with excruciating regularity – the words: “The money is there.” Unless, of course, by “there” he meant in the back pockets of pensioners, civil servants, motorists and most middle and working class families that are now footing the bill for Greece’s economic rescue effort.

The money was never there and everybody, including PASOK, knew it. This didn’t stop Germany’s Werkstatt Deutschland organization from awarding Papandreou the Quadriga Prize for “Power of Veracity” on Sunday. The award, named after the sculpture of a horse-drawn chariot that sits atop the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, was in recognition of Papandreou revealing the truth about the state of Greece’s public finances, which seems a bit like giving a lollipop to a child who admits its part in smashing a vase but only after discovering there was nowhere to hide the broken pieces.

Nevertheless, the trip to Berlin may have given Papandreou an opportunity to contemplate one of the other regrettable statements he made before last October’s election. “Socialism or barbarism,” the PASOK leader had said, echoing Marxist activist Rosa Luxemburg, a late resident of the German capital who believed adopting Socialism was the only escape from an unjust existence. Papandreou spoke in a slightly different context, arguing that the global financial crisis was proof that the capitalist model was unsustainable and that a center-left structure, with more emphasis on regulation and the state, should replace it.

However, 12 months on, his dreams of 21st century Socialism have vanished into the same vortex that is consuming the billions of euros Greeks are paying to prevent their country from going bankrupt. In the meantime, the threat of barbarism has become very real.

Some of the measures taken over the last 12 months were undoubtedly necessary and long overdue but the manner in which they are being applied and the IMF/EU market-driven philosophy that underpins them is brutal. While all eyes are trained on safeguarding financial capital, little attention is being paid to the negative effect on social capital.

The recent liberalization of the road haulage sector set a dangerous precedent. Apart from the truck owners themselves, most people would argue that time had run out on the closed-profession privileges the truckers enjoyed for so many years. Yet, it’s unsettling that the forced end to their lengthy strikes – first with a civil mobilization order in the summer and then with legislation threatening truckers with jail sentences in September – should be met with such satisfaction within the government and among some of the public. After all, this was a failure of democracy and had a distinct totalitarian element to it. PASOK backtracked on its promises to the truckers, one of the many groups that have been pampered by successive governments, and then portrayed them as being unreasonable and obstructing progress. Unable to engage in debate and then formulate policy – functions of the democratic systems we uphold and the governments we vote for – PASOK rammed the liberalization through Parliament and down the throats of the truckers. The government’s heavy-handedness throughout the dispute does not bode well for the future.

Greece’s experience is being replicated in other European countries, such as Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Britain, where citizens are being presented with a fait accompli. Their governments, regardless of political hue, are telling them that austerity measures must be adopted without question. In doing so, elected politicians are not only perverting the very system that put them in power, they’re also sowing the seeds of deep discontent as people grow increasingly aggrieved with the impact of the austerity measures and the lack of alternatives.

The United Nations work agency, the International Labor Organization (ILO), warned last Friday that the global employment market, where 22 million new jobs are needed, would not recover from the crisis until 2015 and that this would only fuel social unrest. “Fairness must be the compass guiding us out of the crisis,” said ILO director general Juan Somavia. “People can understand and accept difficult choices if they perceive that all share in the burden of pain. Governments should not have to choose between the demands of financial markets and the needs of their citizens. Financial and social stability must come together. Otherwise, not only the global economy but also social cohesion will be at risk.”

While scenarios of popular revolution are pure fiction as far as Greece is concerned, the country is no stranger to social unrest. The longer that measures which impact on people’s viability are passed one after the other, with no discussion or effort to present a vision for a better future, the more resentment will fester and the threat of a backlash will grow.

The possible breakdown of social cohesion creates the conditions for another, even darker, reaction to austerity. While understandable to some extent, the glee some citizens and commentators expressed at the abrupt way the government dealt with the truckers is a tell-tale sign that, given the current circumstances, a larger proportion of the population than usual thinks the use of force – psychological or physical – is acceptable. The danger is that the longer the government depends on this tactic, the more people will become accustomed to it and start believing it’s a perfectly legitimate way to run a country and get things done. In Greece, where society has been fragmented for many years thanks to each group pursuing its narrow interests, the flourishing of this mind-set will lead to even graver polarization.

Hungary, which was discovered in 2006 to have been fiddling its economic figures and had until this year been applying the austerity measures prescribed as part of the rescue deal it signed with the IMF, offers a salutary tale for Greece. Earlier this year, the extreme right-wing Jobbik party won 850,000 votes in the parliamentary elections on the back of a campaign that targeted the Roma but also played up the failures of the traditional guardians of power in Hungary, the conservative Fidesz and the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP). “The main factor behind Jobbik’s rise has been its ability to make political hay out of popular demand for extremist policies,” writes Peter Kreko for the Political Capital think tank in Budapest. “The primary driver behind extremist sentiment is a decline in public morale: Many Hungarians feel they can no longer trust the political elite or their governing institutions. The other fact is a rise in prejudice, especially toward foreigners.”

So, as Greece takes stock a year on from when Papandreou made his foolhardy election campaign pronouncements, it can draw some timely conclusions from its own and others’ experiences. It’s clear that the money is not there, nor is Socialism. As for barbarism? It’s creeping through the gates.

This commentary was written by Nick Malkoutzis and was published in Athens Plus on October 8, 2010.

Waiting for the great leap forward

Illustration in linocut by Manos Symeonakis

To paraphrase the Chinese proverb, if you wait on the banks of the river long enough, your enemy’s corpse will eventually float by. This essentially reflects Greece’s longstanding philosophy on attracting foreign investment: If we sit back and do nothing, then someone, somewhere, will sooner or later want to give us some money.

At this most crucial of times, it’s the Chinese and their capital that are floating into view but Greece is still having difficulty shaking off its passiveness. It’s perplexing that just a few days before the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visits Athens accompanied by Captain Wei Jiafu, president and chief executive officer of the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), the government is allowing creases to form in the fabric of this new relationship rather than ironing out any problems.

COSCO, the world’s second-largest shipping company, is about to complete the first 12 months of its 35-year, 3.5-billion-euro concession deal for one of the container terminals at Piraeus. Secured under the previous conservative government, the momentous deal has been threatened by this administration’s intractability and incompetence.

State-owned COSCO was due to take over control of Piraeus’s Pier 2 on October 1 last year but this was delayed for a month because of a strike by port workers who’d been told by PASOK that the contract with the Chinese would be renegotiated if the Socialists came to power after the September elections. This, of course, never happened as PASOK realized it risked entering a legal minefield and blowing Greece’s reputation to smithereens.

Having shown patience with the strike, COSCO, which has hired 300 Greek workers of its own this year, is now in dispute with the government over its failure to give back to the company some 20 million euros in value-added tax (VAT) payments. The delay is due to the Finance Ministry holding back a series of VAT returns for fear of creating a gaping hole in public finances. Although 20 million euros might seem a drop in the ocean for a huge company like COSCO, it’s the difference between the firm showing a profit or a 10.6-million-euro loss on its investment in Greece for the first six months of this year.

Also, according to reports, the Chinese side has expressed concern that the Piraeus Port Authority (OLP), which operates the other container terminal, is not competing on an equal footing with COSCO and is benefiting from the privileges it’s afforded as a state-owned company. The Chinese were also reportedly surprised by the Thessaloniki Port Authority’s (OLTH) announcement this month that it would hold a tender in October for the 220-million-euro contract to expand one of its quays. Possible Chinese investment in Thessaloniki port was expected to be one of the items to be discussed by Wen and Prime Minister George Papandreou on October 2.

Wen’s trip follows a May visit to Greece by Captain Wei, when the government beseeched him to invest in anything that moved, including the Hellenic Railways Organization (OSE) – although given the slowness of its trains, it’s debatable whether they do actually move. Wei politely pointed out that COSCO was a shipping company, not a railway, electricity or any other kind of firm but promised to convey to the Chinese government Greece’s supposed willingness to do business. This precipitated China’s Vice Premier Zhang Dejiang’s visit the following month, when he signed 14 investment deals.

So, having cultivated this budding relationship with China, Greece would be expected to prove there is fertile ground for further cooperation. The situation doesn’t require anyone to bend backward but simply to project forward and envision the benefits to be gained from enticing further Chinese investment. COSCO is set to spend a further 500 million euros on improving Pier 2 and building Pier 3 at Piraeus and is interested in investing more than 150 million euros in constructing a logistics terminal in the Thriaseio Plain, west of Athens, to transport goods to the rest of Europe. So, by the time the Chinese premier visits next week, Papandreou and his team have to be clear in their minds about what they want to gain from this relationship and how they can gain it. The visitors from China will have little appetite for any more of the shilly-shallying of the past few months.

Some might argue that if the Chinese were to withdraw their interest, then someone else would step in to fill the void — but Greece has a miserable record of attracting foreign direct investment and the current economic conditions have left few major players in the game. Papandreou spoke this week to wealthy Greek-Americans in New York but they cannot match the financial muscle of the Chinese. Greek-Americans have repeatedly shunned invitations to plough their money back into Greece, which suggests they know their homeland and its traps too well and are reluctant to get involved in political games that only outsiders like the Chinese – who did a deal with the New Democracy government but executed it under the PASOK administration – can avoid getting tangled up in.

Others might express concern about the apparent disparity in the way that China and Greece, as a European Union member, view work-related issues like safety and laborers’ rights. After visiting the Piraeus port earlier this month, the International Dockworkers Council (IDC) described the employment conditions at Pier 2 as “substandard.” IDC complained that COSCO is employing “union-busting” tactics and endangering workers’ safety. Presumably, the Chinese company would respond by saying that it successfully manages ports in other EU countries such as Naples in Italy, Antwerp in Belgium and Rotterdam in the Netherlands without any labor problems. Also, although worker safety is often compromised in the rapidly developing Chinese economy, the Communist Party has shown a growing willingness to address the problem. Deaths in Chinese mines were down from almost 7,000 in 2002 to about 2,600 last year, according to The Guardian newspaper, and Wen recently ordered pit bosses to go down into the shafts with miners in a bid to encourage safer conditions.

Skeptics will also emphasise that the line between a sell-off and a sell-out is extremely thin. COSCO, for instance, has been linked with a 500-million-euro investment in Crete, where it has plans to build a container terminal at Tymbaki, on the island’s southern coast. Locals, who have protected the area from excessive tourist development, oppose the scheme as they fear it will damage the local environment, including endangered sea turtles’ nests. It’s a conundrum for the government: Greece cannot afford to shun foreign investment but is it willing to pay the price of investment at all costs?

These are all questions Papandreou and his ministers will have to be in a position to answer in their talks with Chinese officials next week. Other countries came to terms with these dilemmas many years ago but, as with so many things, Greece is only now facing up to the rigors of reality and time is not on its side. The late Chinese leader Mao Zedong wrote in one of his poems: “Time passes. Ten thousand years are too long. Seize the day, seize the hour.” If Greece doesn’t do so now, it’s possible the only thing floating by will be another wasted opportunity.

This commentary was written by Nick Malkoutzis and was published in Athens Plus on September 24, 2010.

Missing the trees for the forest

Illustration by Manos Symeonakis

In a country where residents wake up in the morning not knowing if an illegal strike will take place and deprive them of the capital’s metro system, and visitors show up at its most revered archaeological site only to be turned away by protesting employees, it hardly seems that the prime minister’s priority should be to attend an island gathering of big thinkers. Discussing theoretical permutations when there are practical problems to deal with somehow doesn’t appear very fitting.

Rather than tackle more mundane issues in Athens, Prime Minister George Papandreou chose this week to visit Poros for the Symi Symposium, a brainchild of his which sees some of the world’s top politicians, economists, academics and opinion leaders gather in Greece every year. Like cicadas striking up across Athens, you could hear the disapproving tut-tuts of his political opponents but especially his government colleagues. In Papandreou’s absence, his PASOK party embarked on a new bout of schizophrenic infighting.

In fact, the past few days have epitomized Papandreou’s premiership — like the schoolchild who wants to sketch freely but is constantly forced to paint by numbers like the rest of his classmates — the PASOK leader’s attempts to allow his grand visions to take flight are repeatedly grounded by the complications of the day-to-day running of the country.

Yet, it seems churlish to criticize a leader for wanting to inspire and be inspired by great ideas or for broadening his contacts and the country’s allies by meeting with foreign leaders and experts. After all, his predecessor was castigated for remaining rooted to the spot, like a homing pigeon that didn’t have a message worth delivering.

Free from the burdens of protesting Culture Ministry contract workers and striking air traffic controllers, Papandreou was able to tackle meaty subjects at a symposium whose title alone — “Fast Forward: Progressive Ideas for Greece, Europe and the World” — projected positiveness. One of his big ideas this week was to express support for a Tobin Tax, also known as a Robin Hood Tax.

The idea — to impose a tax of as little as 0.1 percent on financial trades — was first proposed by American economist James Tobin in the 1970s as a way of reducing the volatility of currency exchange rates and, more significantly for today’s leaders, to “promote autonomy of national macroeconomic and monetary policies,” in other words to deter speculators.

As you might expect from a Nobel Laureate, Tobin had the intelligence to understand that the timing of his proposal was unfortunate. The idea of taxing transactions at a time when neoliberal economic policies were taking root meant that his plea fell on deaf ears. “It did not make much of a ripple,” he acknowledged some years later. “In fact, one could say that it sunk like a rock.”

However, the crises that have shifted the world’s economic paradigms over the last couple of years mean the idea is being floated again, especially as it would allow governments to build up funds that could be used for a number of things, from bailing out banks to driving development. The Tobin Tax sounds like something from Lord of the Rings and for years it seemed a work of fiction but now there is growing momentum toward making it become a reality.

“The proposal for the imposition of a tax on financial transactions, a so-called ‘Tobin Tax,’ which will bring in funds that we can invest in our economies, is very significant and one which we will insist on because investment is vital if we want to exit the current crisis,” Papandreou told his audience on Poros.

This week, both the French and German finance ministers Christine Lagarde and Wolfgang Schauble declared their support for such a levy (also known as a financial transaction tax or FTT), ahead of an Ecofin meeting where they raised the issue with their European counterparts. In declaring his support for the levy in the same week, Papandreou appears to be aligning himself with Europe’s big players. Isn’t this just what we want from a Greek leader — for him to put the country at the forefront of developments and progressive thinking rather than bringing up the rear?

You would think so but Papandreou’s attempt to grab at these big ideas somehow leaves a nagging feeling that he is overreaching, perhaps unaware of the full implications of what he is promoting. For instance, there is a strong counter-argument to the Tobin Tax. Some financiers claim it goes against the principles of wealth creation and would simply drive business to other countries where the levy does not apply. Sweden, where Papandreou spent part of his youth, applied such a tax on trades of local stocks and derivatives in the 1980s but the scheme was abandoned in the 1990s because many investors simply traded from other countries and the revenue generated by the levy did not meet expectations.

By declaring his support for a Tobin Tax, Papandreou may be showing that he’s in step with other leading thinkers but at the same time he is opening himself up to another, even more damaging, accusation that is often leveled at him — that he has a knack of identifying good ideas but just not the ones that would help overcome the problems he has to solve.

Papandreou’s statement of support for the levy came on the same day that Greece announced it had managed to slash its budget deficit by 46 percent during the first six months of 2010 compared to last year, but that it had fallen well short of its target to increase revenues by 13.7 percent. While public spending cuts seem to have done the trick, the idea of raising taxes, VAT in particular, has not had the desired effect.

Papandreou’s government had to scramble to rescue public finances but in its rush to do so, little thought was paid to the fact that hiking taxes when people are pushed for money leads to them spending less and will ultimately prove counterproductive, as the government collects less revenue. PASOK has not been able to find a way to compensate for this. It makes Papandreou’s bid to chase the world’s rich when Greeks become increasingly poorer seem like irrelevant folly rather than visionary politics.

Herein lies one of Papandreou’s greatest challenges. As he leads his band of not-so-merry men into the battles ahead, the prime minister must find a way of balancing his love of the broad, theoretical political brushstrokes with the need for precise, effective interventions that will address the pressing problems Greece faces. Anything less, and he’s in for a rather lonely and painful ride through the glen.

This commentary was written by Nick Malkoutzis and was published in Athens Plus on July 16, 2010.

Win or lose?

Illustration by Manos Symeonakis

When Greece lines up against Argentina at the World Cup in South Africa on Tuesday, the two sides will not appear to have much in common. Argentina, a squad packed with some of the planet’s best soccer talents, will be wondering whether it can make it to the final. Greece, a squad of ageing tryers running short of ideas, will probably be wondering what time their flight home is.

But beneath the surface, there is plenty that links these two teams. They both represent countries that have experienced economic meltdowns. Both have suffered the ignominy of being ridiculed for their handling of public finances. Both have had trouble convincing financial markets of their credibility. Both peoples have had to endure the consequences of these failures.

The similarities do not end there. Before defaulting on almost $100 billion of debt in 2001, Argentina had tied its currency to the dollar for 10 years – almost as long as Greece has been a member of the eurozone. Buenos Aires also relied on loans from the International Monetary Fund, paying a rate of 6 percent – almost as high as the one Greece is paying for its bailout package. And, despite Buenos Aires adopting austerity measures in 2001, the IMF pulled out of the South American country, triggering a default and devaluation of the peso.

“The circumstances leading to the Greek and Argentinean crises were similar – two countries with a great reputation that did not see the consequences of their excessive expansion and who counted on continued external support,” Claudio Loser, a Senior Fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based forum for opinion leaders, told Athens Plus

Argentina once had an economy that was as dynamic and successful as Diego Maradona, the country’s former star midfielder who now coaches the national side. But like Maradona, who suffered from drug abuse, health issues, money problems and general erratic behaviour, the Argentinean economy hit a brick wall in 2001. Greece always craved a Maradona-like economy. The good news is that it finally got it. The bad news is that it’s the fat, wheezy and unruly Maradona, not the nimble world-beater.

So, with talk of default and exit from the single currency rife in the Athens air. Is there anything that Greece can learn from Argentina? Fernando Navajas, the chief economist and director of the Buenos Aires-based FIEL think-tank believes the best advice for Greece is to be more cohesive and organized than Argentina. “I am not saying that devaluation and default could have easily been avoided but one could have minimized the costs by some collective action on the political side coupled with a professional approach to crisis management,” he told Athens Plus. “Argentina did just the opposite on both fronts. Instead of minimizing, it maximized the cost of the crisis.”

Argentina’s disorderly retreat meant that millions of people lost their savings overnight and the value of property crashed, bringing people out onto the streets in daily protests. More than 20 people lost their lives in riots. It’s no wonder that Argentineans are cautious when they hear economists recommending that Greece leave the euro and devalue the drachma.

“Do not be fooled by a sorcerer’s apprentice that tells you the Argentinean case is a good recipe for Greece,” says Navajas. “This is particularly true in the case of magic formulas that involve asymmetric conversion from euros to drachmas in the financial sector.

“If confronted with the hard choice to abandon the euro, Greece should combine collective action and high technical capabilities to think not of an unconditional exit but rather an exit-plus-reentry program,” adds the FIEL director. “Argentina never thought about reentry and has been drifting ever since.”

Argentina used the depreciation of the peso to offset declining domestic demand by making its exports cheaper in foreign markets. It sounds like a good example to follow but Greece exports hardly anything. Also, unlike Argentina, Greece is one of 12 members of a single currency and any decision to abandon the euro would have far-reaching consequences for its eurozone partners and the European Union as a whole. Even if exit and devaluation were a viable economic option, it is almost inconceivable in political terms. This leaves debt restructuring as the only realistic option on the table.

“A process of adjustment without devaluation is possible although it may require in practice a reduction in nominal salaries and declining prices for goods and services, such as tourism,” says Loser. “A situation of adjustment without a serious look at the debt is much more difficult.”

However, even restructuring carries a very heavy economic and political cost. Argentina’s decision to default may have seemed like a simple way to get rid of an onerous load but it only helped the country switch one burden for another. Since 2001, the South American country has not been able to borrow on international markets and has been involved in a protracted process to convince its creditors to accept a loss on their investment. In 2005, three-quarters accepted a bond exchange worth a third of what they had invested. Buenos Aires is currently in negotiations with the remaining creditors and has given them until June 22 – the day Greece will play Argentina – to accept a debt securities swap.

Since its default, a number of factors have helped Argentina turn its fortunes around. Chief among which was the upturn in the world economy during the last decade. Greece, on the other hand, has to clamber out of its deep hole in the middle of a global recession. Also, Argentina’s success has come at a price – increased government spending that has been funded in part by central bank reserves and nationalized pension funds. Many economists have been scathing about this tactic, accusing the government of President Cristina Fernandez, who dismissed the rescue plan for Greece as being “condemned to fail”, of having no economic plan and burning its way through the country’s savings

“Argentina’s default and devaluation was a one-way journey without any careful planning that damaged the reputation of the country and affected its long-term growth prospects,” says Navajas. “This has been hidden by the extraordinary external conditions after the crisis, which will not be available for Greece, and which have led to confusion about the causes of recovery.”

It’s evident from Argentina’s experience that despite what some may say, default and exit from the euro are options that Greece should avoid considering. Or, at least if it does, then it should think its strategy through properly, something Greek governments do not have a very good track record of doing. Of course, there is always the possibility that, as with Argentina, its financial backers will just lose confidence in Greece and default/devaluation will not be a matter of opinion but a matter of course.

“The big message is that even with significant resources, there is a point when the rest of the world – or Europe and the IMF in Greece’s case – will not be willing to continue the support, even if they support others, such as Portugal, Spain and Ireland, because they are seen as more virtuous,” says Loser. “This is exactly what happened with Brazil and Uruguay at the time of the Argentinean crisis.”

There are clearly many things that Greece can learn from Argentina but perhaps the most useful one is that, as the national soccer team is likely to find out on Tuesday, when your back is up against the wall, there is no easy way to end up on the winning side.

This commentary was written by Nick Malkoutzis and appeared in Athens Plus on June 18, 2010.

Life, but not as we know it

Illustration by Manos Symeonakis

It’s a scene that is becoming very familiar to people across Europe: A newly elected leader addresses his nation and blames the previous government for its “total irresponsibility” which has left a “terrible legacy” of seriously compromised public finances, which are in an “even worse state than we thought” and which will require “painful” but absolutely necessary cuts. Earlier this year, it was George Papandreou delivering this stark message — British Prime Minister David Cameron reprised the role this week.

A few days earlier, the scene had been repeated in Hungary, which, like Greece, has borrowed money from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. The claims by government officials in Budapest that the previous administration had disguised the poor state of the local economy and that the public deficit would be bigger than expected, sent the type of shockwaves across the continent and international financial markets that only Athens had been capable of until recently, as concerns about a Hungarian default stoked another round of fear about the future of the euro and the EU.

Apart from Greece, Britain and Hungary, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, France and Italy have all had to take steps – albeit less austere than the Greek ones – to rescue their public finances. Even Germany, Europe’s economic powerhouse and the metronome for stability within the Union, announced this week that it’s seeking to make more than 80 billion euros in cuts over the next few years. Until now, there has been unease about European countries being too disparate in economic terms but, ironically, the current debt crisis has suddenly given them common points of reference. It’s causing people across the continent to ask two key questions: “Why are we in this position?” and “How do we get out of it?”

There are two aspects to why so many European countries find themselves in a mess: the economic and the political. In terms of the economic failings, the EU simply found itself unprepared for the consequences of the financial crisis that began in the United States two years ago. A failure to reduce debt when European economies were booming meant that the onset of recession — which also coincided with the use of public money to prop up the private sector, especially banks — has saddled many countries with unprecedented debt and exposed an Achilles’ heel that speculators can exploit.

“The banking crisis has mutated into a sovereign debt crisis; the weakest members of the eurozone are targeted because the euro is a comparatively new currency lacking sufficiently strong institutional foundations, and because markets doubt the ability of the weaker countries to manage their debt problems,” the editorial director or the European Council on Foreign Relations, Thomas Klau, told Athens Plus.

This implies that the real roots of the crisis lie in the political arena. Just as governments across Europe have tried to mask the real size of the problem, often leaving it for the next administration to deal with, so for a number of years, the politicians of various ideological persuasions that held power found it easier to go with the flow rather than develop a long-term plan. Instead of making hay while the sun shone, they simply sat back and soaked up the rays. What happened in Greece, more than anywhere else, has driven this point home. “Greece stands as a warning of what happens to countries that lose their credibility or whose governments pretend that difficult decisions can somehow be avoided,” Cameron said this week.

There are few who would argue with him. “I think that the political inadequacies are most pronounced in the Greek case and to a lesser extent in Portugal,” Professor Iain Begg of the European Institute at the London School of Economics told Athens Plus. “In the other cases, it is more that – as with banks like Northern Rock or Lehman Brothers – the business model is no longer as viable as it used to be and that has fueled market scepticism. Let’s not forget that Spain actually scored pretty well in relation to the fiscal rules, even if, with hindsight, we can now say that it ought to have been running a budget surplus.”

These inadequacies, which an unnamed German official described to the International Herald Tribune’s John Vinocur as “a decade wasted through a lack of frankness and realism,” have left many European countries, the single currency and millions of people at the mercy of markets, which have now become the sole judges of economic policy. The response to this situation, therefore, must be one that is deeply political and carries serious conviction. “Because EU members were caught misrepresenting their finances with the passive acceptance of France and Germany for a decade, no response or solution that is based on a statement of intention rather than a legally binding undertaking is likely to lead the markets away from their hair-trigger surveillance of the euro and Europe’s solidity,” wrote Vinocur in the IHT this week.

The political solution to this problem must first come at an individual state level. “In the UK, the problem, I suspect will prove to be reasonably easy to manage but in Greece, the whole approach to the public sector needs radical change,” says Begg. “In Spain and Italy, labor market and welfare reforms will require political courage and leadership.”

This decisiveness then has to be replicated on a collective level as well. The IMF said as much in its report on the European debt crisis this week. “Crisis management is not an alternative to corrective policy actions and fundamental reforms needed to reinforce the foundation of the European Monetary Union,” the Washington-based fund said in the wake of European finance ministers agreeing to commit 440 billion euros to a rescue fund for debt-ridden EU members, which the IMF will also participate in.

In practical terms, it means that common policies and instruments must be devised along with checks that it is in everyone’s interest to adhere to. “What this crisis has shown is that the euro countries must accept a much stronger degree of shared sovereignty over their public finances and economic policy to ensure the long-term survival of their currency,” says Klau. “A monetary union needs a political union, as the Bundesbank wrote 20 years ago.”

Instilling this level of togetherness is going to be a massive challenge. If controling their debt in the midst of a recession appears an elusive goal for EU countries, then getting them to work in harmony toward this will seem like trying to pin down a greased greyhound during a torrential rainstorm. Already this week, Britain has rejected the notion of presenting its national budget to Brussels before submitting it to its own Parliament. The newness of the debt crisis means that political leadership and consensus will take some time to emerge but recent history indicates our futures depend on it eventually shining through.

“The decisions we make will affect every single person in our country, and the effects of these decisions will stay with us for years and decades to come,” Cameron told his audience this week as his government began reviewing its planned spending cuts. “How we deal with these things will affect our economy, our society, indeed our whole way of life,” he added. The Conservative Party leader will probably never utter more accurate words during his premiership. In fact, our way of life is already being transformed. What it changes into will depend on the political decisions taken over the next few months.

This commentary was written by Nick Malkoutzis and appeared in Athens Plus on June 11.