Clive Crook on How Fiscal Unions Slide Into Transfer Unions

While Merkel’s Germany is keen on building a fiscal union, with stiff penalties for EU member states that exceed various fiscal targets, it is adamantly opposed to building a transfer union, in which resources move across the EU to accommodate various economic shocks and income gaps, etc. Clive Crooks explains why the Germans are not likely to prevent a sufficiently strict fiscal union from evolving into a transfer union:

A fiscal union in the proper sense of the term is a transfer union. Yet Germany’s government, which has pressed so hard for what it calls fiscal union these past few weeks, is implacably opposed to a transfer union. Shielding German taxpayers from the cost of supporting Greek, Irish or Italian taxpayers as this crisis has unfolded is the organizing principle of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s entire policy.

Is her position hopelessly illogical? I wouldn’t go that far. Germany’s leaders calculate, I imagine, that a strong fiscal pact will make a transfer union less likely. In this belief, they are not being illogical, merely delusional.

The reason, Crook goes on to explain, is that fiscal discipline alone isn’t enough to forestall a crisis that can cause deep deficits. By creating a tight fiscal straitjacket, the new EU rules will keep member states from responding to severe downturns through fiscal expansion. So either the straitjacket has to go — or the rich member states will have to rescue the rest, again and again.

Let’s suppose that Europe muddles through this time. Next time, with zero fiscal flexibility, persistent underperformance in many parts of the EU, and an ever-widening gap between incomes in Europe’s core and its periphery, a stark choice will present itself. Let the euro area and the single European market dissolve, which would be a disaster for Germany as for everyone else. Or form a transfer union that puts German taxpayers permanently on the hook for the EU’s backward regions, which is the very outcome that Merkel dreads most.

So what are the implications for the United States? One possibility is that the U.S. will benefit from a European superstate. As hard as it is to imagine now, the next half-century might yield a proper transfer union that shares a common (second) language, namely English, and in which cross-border migration becomes an even more pervasive phenomenon. This would presumably accelerate the evolution — some would say deterioration — of various distinctive European cultures and traditions, yet it also might preserve Europe’s geopolitical relevance by serving as a hedge against rapid aging. Individual European states will soon have less demographic and economic weight than a number of secondary Asian powers. A European superstate, in contrast, might be able to hold its own, thus preserving the relative influence of the trans-Atlantic west.

Another possibility, however, is that a post-federal Europe composed of prosperous pygmy states would actually be much better off, as these smaller entities might avoid, or rather they might recover from, an era of economic sclerosis and serve as fonts of entrepreneurial growth. The strategic influence of the region might decline in some sense, as the lack of a powerful state would make it difficult to martial resources for traditional geopolitical competition, but its prosperity and cultural influence would not.

I don’t think it’s obvious which scenario is better for the U.S. Much depends on how the U.S. evolves over the same period. My gut tells me that the latter course is better for all parties involved. 

Reihan Salam — Reihan Salam is executive editor of National Review and a National Review Institute policy fellow.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More