• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Uri Dadush"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Western Europe",
    "France",
    "Germany",
    "North America"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Surviving the Storm is the First Priority

To save the euro, Europe must not only put out the immediate fire, but also act to prevent future fires by layering both fiscal and political unions on top of its currency union.

Link Copied
By Uri Dadush
Published on Nov 8, 2011

Source: Il Sole

Surviving the Storm is the First PriorityThe Sole Manifesto on saving the euro calls for five sets of reforms, all in the right direction. I will share some doubts, however, beginning with the fact that the manifesto is seriously incomplete in three respects.

First, saving the euro requires putting out the fire before we revise the fire safety code. As has become painfully evident, last week’s Brussels agreement has simply failed to provide markets with the assurance that the fire brigade (the European Financial Stability Facility, or EFSF) has enough water. Sensible people also know that relying on the European Central Bank to backstop Italian and Spanish bonds—i.e. printing money—is a false solution: it does not deal with the underlying problem, reduces the incentive to deal with it, is inflationary, undermines the balance sheet of the Central Bank, and risks a break-up of the eurozone when the countries at the core say enough is enough. Right now, there is no substitute for a bigger EFSF complemented by resources external to the eurozone and carrying tough conditions on the countries that draw on it.

Second, saving the euro requires, above all, reforms in the crisis countries. That is why former prime minister and president Ciampi’s call on these pages that reforms are “up to us” (“sta in noi”) is so apt. Especially in the case of Italy, the needed reforms are not only fiscal, though these are vital—but also reforms to facilitate the workings of markets, increase competition and flexibility—in short, to promote competitiveness and sustained growth. Prime Minister Berlusconi’s letter to the G20 contains many of these reforms. There is no mystery to them—it is just that they have been ignored for far too long. Countries that are not willing or able to deal with them should take the inevitable but tragic consequence, prepare sooner or later to leave the euro, and deal with five years of chaos and depression.

Third, Germans need to take more responsibility. The euro’s institutional deficit is their fault too, and it is certainly now their problem as much as anyone else’s. This means they must promote more expansionary policies at home, support more expansionary policies by the European Central Bank, and put more money in the EFSF—while insisting on corresponding commitments in the crisis countries.

As for the five measures included in the manifesto, the new eurozone economic governance mechanism is the crucial missing part of the puzzle, and all others flow from it. To speak clearly, this is about taking a big step toward a United States of Europe. What does that mean? It does not mean that people in Berlin and Rome speak the same way, have the same culture, or the same prejudices (inhabitants of Boston and Dallas certainly do not). It does mean, however, that a much larger share of their taxes and their public spending belongs in a common pool, that they are able to fund common infrastructure, and that they are able to compensate for asymmetric shocks with transfers, and workers move more freely. And it means that a common set of regulations governs the financial system and a lender of last resort exists so that a local banking problem is prevented from infecting the system.

A eurozone economic governance mechanism does not, however, imply that the European Central Bank stands behind the bonds of constituent nations—certainly the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States does not stand behind the bonds of New York State or Texas. Instead, a combination of tough balanced budget provisions (independently adopted by states themselves) and market disciplines ensure that individual states toe the line. Implicitly, but not explicitly, the Federal Reserve Bank stands behind the bonds issued by the U.S. federal government, but their yield may reach great heights (as they have in the past) before the Federal Reserve intervenes, exercising discipline.

The United States did things in the correct order—first it established a political union, then the fiscal union, and the common currency followed. The Sole manifesto is correctly calling for the fiscal union to follow the European common currency. What it does not say is that Europe also needs a much tighter political union for that to succeed. It took about 150 years for the United States to arrive at its current institutional set up (the Federal Reserve Bank was only established in 1913), requiring many plebiscites, and at the cost of a civil war. Europe has only a few years to travel the same path, without the war.

About the Author

Uri Dadush

Former Senior Associate, International Economics Program

Dadush was a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He focuses on trends in the global economy and is currently tracking developments in the eurozone crisis.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    The Labors of Tsipras

      Uri Dadush

  • In The Media
    Greece, Complacency, and the Euro

      Uri Dadush

Uri Dadush
Former Senior Associate, International Economics Program
Uri Dadush
EconomyWestern EuropeFranceGermanyNorth America

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Article
    From Labor Scarcity to AI Society: Governing Productivity in East Asia

    The debate over AI and work too often centers on displacement. Facing aging populations and shrinking workforces, East Asian policymakers view AI not as a threat, but as a cross-sectoral workforce strategy.

      Darcie Draudt-Véjares, Sophie Zhuang

  • Article
    Governing AI in the Shadow of Giants: Korea’s Strategic Response to Great Power AI Competition

    In its version of an AI middle power strategy, Seoul is pursuing alignment with the United States not as an endpoint but as a strategy to build industrial and geopolitical leverage. Whether this balance holds remains an open question.

      Darcie Draudt-Véjares, Seungjoo Lee

  • China Financial Markets
    Commentary
    China Financial Markets
    Is China’s High-Quality Investment Output Economically Viable?

    China’s rapid technological progress and its first-rate infrastructure are often cited as refuting the claim that China has been systematically overinvesting in non-productive projects for many years. In fact, as the logic of overinvestment and the many historical precedents show, the former is all-too-often consistent with the latter.

      Michael Pettis

  • Article
    India’s Press Note 3 Gamble: Opening the FDI Door to China

    On March 10, 2026, India’s Union Cabinet approved amendments to Press Note 3, a regulation that mandated government approval on all foreign direct investment (FDI) from countries sharing a land border with India. This amendment raises questions primarily about whether its stated benefits will materialize and if the risks have been adequately weighed. This piece will address the same.

      Konark Bhandari

  • Humanoid robots follow technicians to learn job skills at the data collection area of an embodied AI robot innovation center on September 14, 2025 in Shaoxing, Zhejiang Province of China.
    Paper
    The AI Labor Debate: Three Views on the Future of Work

    AI could hollow out jobs, reshape them gradually, create entirely new ones—or do all three at once. The case for starting to act now doesn’t depend on knowing which.

      • Teddy Tawil

      Teddy Tawil

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.