No abstract

FROM THE MID-1970s to the mid-1980s, most of the industrial economies of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) suffered a sharp slide in economic activity, as measured both by employment in relation to the labor force and by male labor force participation in relation to the working-age population. This decline sparked new structuralist modeling of the determinants of employment and supplied an empirical record for testing the models. Some consensus has now emerged on the main mechanisms and causal forces behind the deep slump. 1 In the 1990s, however, structural recovery became evident in many OECD countries. Structural unemployment in Ireland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom appears to have improved in the first half of the 1990s and again in the second half.

This paper argues that the European Union has gone farther than any other country or institution in internalizing the prescriptions of the Washington Consensus. Embedding neo-liberal principles in the treaties defining its governance, the EU has enshrined a peculiar doctrine within its constitution. We further argue that this "Berlin-Washinghton Consensus" has serious empirical and theoretical flaws, as its reliance on Pareto optimality leads to neglect the crucial links between current and potential growth. We show by means of a simple model that the call for structural reforms as an engine for growth may be controversial, once current and potential output are related. We claim that adherence to the Consensus may go a long way in explaining the poor growth performance of the European economy in the past two decades, because of the constraints that it imposed on fiscal and monetary policies. The same constraints have deepened the eurozone crisis that started in 2007, putting unwarranted emphasis on austerity and reform. Challenging the Consensus becomes a precondition for avoiding the implosion of the euro, and recovering growth.

No abstract

This paper reviews the arguments for and against the 'Stability and Growth Pact' signed by the countries of the Euro area. We find the theoretical debate to be inconclusive, as both externality and credibility arguments can be used to yield opposite, and equally plausible conclusions. We also argue that evidence in favour of a Pact-like rule is scant. We therefore suggest the view that the Stability Pact is a public social norm, and that a country's adherence to that norm is in fact a response to the need to preserve reputation among the other members of the European Union. Using this extreme but not implausible hypothesis, we build a simple model similar in spirit to Akerlof's (1980) seminal paper on social norms, and we show that reputation issues may cause the emergence of a stable but inferior equilibrium. We further show that after the enlargement, with a number of countries anxious to prove their 'soundness' joining the club, the problems posed by the pact/social norm are likely to increase. JEL Codes: D63, D71, E62, E63