The austerity, recently, has become one of the most heatedly disputed notion, and in the politics or the media it is often used, like a curse.
. The austerity is a very contradictory
idea, it is subject of misunderstandings, political manipulations and
deception. As the January 2015 Greek example showed, an anti-austerity program
was enough to win elections.
In general, austerity can be defined as an economical attitude, restraining or
cutting back consumption. Austerity can affect incomes and consumption. In
terms of incomes, it means adjusting revenues to performance (productivity and
real-incomes), in case of consumption adjusting with financing capacities.
In a functioning market economy, austerity is a corrective automatism, it is a way
of adjustment. If growth of real incomes exceeds productivity growth, the
result would be inflation. Inflation is nothing else than cutting real consumption.
If consumption exceeds incomes, it leads to indebtedness, let it be a person, a
company or a country. The imbalances and indebtedness leads to devaluation of
the currency, and by increasing the prices of import goods, it generates
inflation. The exchange rate
devaluations, hand in hand with inflation represent welfare losses, or
defining them otherwise, they are market
In a stricter and narrower sense the
austerities are policy measures.
There are great varieties of them, and can affect individuals, companies,
organisations or states. The individuals (households) can cut consumption of certain
goods or services (buy less books, or postpone vacation abroad), can look for
cheaper variants of available goods, or instead of going to restaurant cooking
at home etc. The companies can optimise or cut costs of their products, can
select cheaper servicers or supplier, rationalise with labour force, not to
mention the several other possibilities. In case of states, austerity is mainly
related to the budget. Fiscal austerity can mean cutting expenditures or
The advantages of policy based austerities are that they can be more targeted, directed, corrective and selective, while the market induced austerities are blind,
usually hitting the whole economy and society. It can directly target the
main sources of problems (overspending or wasting resources) while saving well
operating sectors. Policy austerity creates possibilities and pressures for
more direct actions to improve performance and competitiveness.
As the devaluation or inflation spread
competitiveness and welfare losses to the whole society, the austerity by
market automatisms is less painful, and more easily can be accepted by the
public. This is the reason, why for example, politicians prefer devaluation
against some concrete and more unpopular austerity measures. As policy austerities
affect more concrete business or social interests, it is not surprising that
they are subject of heated political debates and confrontations. The illusions
about the devaluation of currency are particularly general, and they are not
only shared by general public but also by media and experts.
No doubt, that the exchange rate is an
important adjustment mechanism. But contrary to the general believes, in a real
sense, the devaluation does not increase competitiveness. Higher
competitiveness would assume either reduction in costs or improvement of
quality of products. It is not the case. The devaluation transitorily increases
the prices of the export products (in domestic currency), but that applies also
to import. It improves saleability of products, and can keep producers on the
market. But at the same time it is inducing inflation, with a high probability,
which leads to cost increases sooner or later. So the short-term
“competitiveness” gains are lost. If nothing changes, further devaluations could
not be avoided.
The devaluation in itself, therefore is not
a medicine, but a pain relief. It really can help adjustment, giving a certain
sort of breathing time for making steps for real improvement of
competitiveness. But these steps can not be saved. Mystification of
possibilities of devaluation is often connected with populist attacks against
from the 1970s brought radical and
qualitative turn in economic policies. Monetarism is not only a policy, but
after the final collapse of gold standard, it is a system of operating of
economy. The monetarism is pledged very definitely to free market, but the
contrasting the state intervention proposing Keynesianism and the free-marketer
monetarism is fairly misleading. Liberalisation and deregulation was considered
by monetarism only as a way of abolishment of distorting factors of economic
policy efficiencies, while it was in favour of rather strict state intervention
in defence of price stability. Keynes saw unemployment as major threat, while
the monetarist Friedman inflation. But inflation is equally formidable social
disease, in fact affecting not only a part, but all of the society. Inflation
can undermine competitiveness, sustainability of economic growth, profit prospects
and devalue savings.
fundamentally changed the possibilities and the ways of austerity. By
strictly controlling inflation, it practically eliminated or at least highly
limited the free market automatisms of prices and exchange rates, and it meant
that they had to be replaced by direct
policy based austerity measures. It is not surprising that the vehement
criticisms against monetarism and austerity go hand in hand.
The austerity debates became particularly
heated in relation to the treatment of recent Euro crisis. In the EU, the given
monetary union construction expressed the firm intention of the decision-makers
to implement EMU and especially the single currency with a low and controllable
level of inflation. The single currency, for Germany in particular, was
acceptable only if it was not more inflationary than the German national
currency (DM) had been before. This in general coincided with the interests of
all the other member countries
The sharp criticism of austerity policies
is far not without foundations for many reasons.
The stabilisation policies proposed and
pursued are highly restrictive and deflationary.
That particularly applies to the Euro crisis policies supported by the
“troika” (European Central Bank, Commission and IMF), mainly because of its extremely
strict insistence on price stability and balanced budget.
In many cases, due to mistaken national policies
and consumption beyond the capacities, the corrective austerity measures were
unavoidable. How far were some of the austerities excessive, is, however,
question of concrete analysis or consideration.? But what was more important,
that in most cases, no doubt, that they proved to be extremely deflationary.
The some time drastic cuts both in public and private consumption, deprived the
countries of growth possibilities, and forced them into a vicious circle. The
lack of growth resulted new deficits, further increase of indebtedness, and
called for new restrictions. In the crisis countries, the unemployment reached
socially intolerable levels, and the scandalous youth unemployment is
particularly dangerous both in social and political terms. The countries, like Greece, got
into hopeless situation.
The austerity measures often prove to be anti-social or socially and politically
controversial. With high probability the thirteenth or fourteenth months
pensions or salaries were just for buying votes, and they lacked the financial
realities behind them. But in many case, real and justifiable social transfers
fell victim of austerity measures, and as alternative, for example, the
possibilities of taxation of often excessive profits of some sectors (taxing
banks) are missed. In taxing, as against the progressive income taxes, the
increasing and high VATs are typical austerity measures, which hit mostly the
lower income peoples. The governments are more eager and active in cutting
social expenditures, than clamping down on extreme tax evasions of certain
business circles. It is not exaggeration to tell, that if all tax obligations were
duly fulfilled, most of the countries would not have fiscal balance problems.
It is clear, that in order to avoid misunderstandings
and deception, we should concretely analysis the austerity policies of a
country or an organisation, and only then can we decide, what has happened in
reality. Was it necessary to make austerity, in what form and ways were they
implemented, what was their efficiency and what were the real consequences?
Austerity is a normal concomitant of rationally functioning of an economy, and
it depends only on their concrete forms and extent, whether, how and by whom
they are tolerable and acceptable. As in general, the public is hostile to
them, the politicians and governments tend to disguise and manipulate them.
Tags: inflation, profitBe the first to comment!