Commentary: Why Asia and Europe are responding to the same COVID-19 crisis differently

Commentary: Why Asia and Europe are responding to the same COVID-19 crisis differently

The pandemic has highlighted how structural differences and institutional frameworks shape crisis responses, say observers.

FILE PHOTO: EU-China summit in Brussels
FILE PHOTO: Chinese Premier Li Keqiang speaks at a joint news conference after the EU-China summit in Brussels, Belgium April 9, 2019. REUTERS/Susana Vera/File Photo

SINGAPORE: COVID-19 has claimed more than 700,000 lives, infected over 19 million people, and decimated rich and poor economies alike.

But, even as most of the world faces unprecedented recession, policy responses differ sharply. The contrast between Europe and Asia is a case in point.

Both regions are undoubtedly facing serious economic hardship. The European Commission expects the eurozone economy – which grew by 1.3 per cent in 2019 – to contract by 8.7 per cent this year.

In the ASEAN+3 – the ten members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam), plus China, Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea – GDP growth is expected to plunge to 0 per cent this year, from 4.8 per cent in 2019.

READ: Commentary: More government measures needed to cushion a worsening Singapore jobs market

LISTEN: Unfair firing and hiring practices under scrutiny during Singapore’s worst recession

DIFFERENT SUPPORT MEASURES

Policymakers in both regions have responded aggressively, with unprecedented monetary and fiscal stimulus, as well as other measures to support the economy.

But different economic structures, institutional arrangements and vulnerabilities mean that the size, content and distribution of support have been very different.

In the European Union, fiscal rules – particularly the stricture that a budget deficit cannot exceed 3 per cent of GDP – were temporarily suspended, to give countries more space for expansionary fiscal policy.

Of course, significant differences in countries’ fiscal and financial space remain, so the size of the stimulus varies widely by country – from about 50 per cent of GDP in Italy to a few percentage points in other countries, like Ireland.

Coronavirus outbreak in Rome
People walk at Piazza del Popolo, after Italy opened its borders to European countries allowing free movement after the coronavirus lockdown, in Rome, Italy. (REUTERS/Yara Nardi)

In the ASEAN+3, the range is narrower, but not by much. Japan’s stimulus is the largest, at 40 per cent of GDP, while the other economies come in at around 10 per cent of GDP.

All told, fiscal measures, together with indirect financial measures (such as debt moratoriums), amount to nearly 29 per cent of GDP in the eurozone, and 13 per cent of GDP in the ASEAN+3.

READ: Commentary: Europe is finally rising to the COVID-19 challenge

SUPPORT FOR FIRMS AND WORKERS

Differences in the size of the crisis response can be explained partly by the extent to which guarantees have been used to support firms.

In the eurozone, discretionary budgetary measures worth 5.3 per cent of GDP are backed by liquidity facilities totaling almost 21 per cent of GDP.

Those facilities consist of public guarantee schemes – which channel liquidity through the banking system into the economy.

READ: Commentary: Europe’s integration and economies are in trouble. Help won’t come so easily

The ASEAN+3 economies have pursued discretionary fiscal measures on a similar scale – 5.1 per cent of GDP, on average – but backed by liquidity-support schemes averaging just 5 per cent of GDP (including temporary debt relief and moratoriums).

The magnitude of tax and social-contribution deferrals is comparable in the eurozone and the ASEAN+3.

Both regions have also taken steps to support household income, though here, too, structural differences have translated into contrasting approaches. Eurozone economies have favoured job-retention schemes, via short-time work compensation – partly a reflection of the region’s robust social security systems.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, in Jakarta
Passengers wearing protective masks and face shields queue for a public bus, following the COVID-19 outbreak, at a central bus spot in Jakarta, Indonesia, Jul 27, 2020. (Photo: REUTERS/Willy Kurniawan)

In many ASEAN+3 economies – which despite their economic heterogeneity, tend to have larger informal economies, more flexible labour markets, and weaker social safety nets – direct income-support schemes have proved effective.

Moreover, automatic stabilisers – such as taxation and the extension of unemployment coverage and social benefits – have played a much larger role in the eurozone, where they amount to about 5 per cent of GDP. In most ASEAN+3 economies, such stabilisers are estimated to total 1.1 per cent of GDP.

LISTEN: What next for Malaysian workers stuck there and Singapore businesses who hire them here?

READ: Commentary: The former Malaysian workers in Singapore caught in limbo in Johor

COMPLEMENTARY EU POLICIES

Another notable difference is institutional: In Europe, unlike in the ASEAN+3, existing structures allowed for complementary policy initiatives at the regional level.

Even before the EU launched its unprecedented €750 billion (US$886 billion) recovery fund, finance ministers had agreed to three programs worth a total of €540 billion.

First, the European Commission’s Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE) can provide up to €100 billion of loans under favourable terms to member states.

Second, the European Investment Bank is available to support businesses by mobilising up to €200 billion.

READ: Commentary: Europe learns lifting COVID-19 lockdowns doesn’t come cheap

Finally, the European Stability Mechanism’s Pandemic Crisis Support credit line supports spending on health care and preventive measures during the COVID-19 crisis, up to €240 billion.

Of course, the eurozone’s integrated structure also creates risks – particularly if the COVID-19 crisis fuels destabilising divergence among member economies. Some eurozone-wide initiatives – including the recovery fund – aim to mitigate this risk.

DIFFERENCES IN MONETARY POLICY

There are also notable differences in approach on the monetary policy front. In emerging and developing economies, central banks have focused on cutting policy rates and injecting liquidity.

FILE PHOTO: Specialists work on a crane in front of the European Central Bank (ECB) in Frankfurt
FILE PHOTO: The European Central Bank logo. Frankfurt, Germany, January 23, 2020. REUTERS/Ralph Orlowski/File Photo

Key measures among ASEAN+3 economies have included government guarantees on select bank-lending activities, temporary financing lines, and corporate-bond purchases.

Moreover, regulatory forbearance encourages well-capitalised banking sectors to provide some relief to borrowers.

By contrast, central banks in advanced economies had little space to lower interest rates, so they have leaned heavily on quantitative easing.

The European Central Bank expanded its €120 billion asset-purchase program and created a new temporary €750 billion Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program, which it subsequently increased by €600 billion.

READ: Commentary: It’s Asian economies that are poised to ride out COVID-19 collapse

READ: Commentary: More bold measures needed to protect against the job losses heading Singapore's way

LONG ROAD TO RECOVERY

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the way structural differences, institutional frameworks, and the extent to which governments and financial systems have built up buffers shape crisis responses. But short-term emergency action is just the beginning.

It is impossible to say how the COVID-19 crisis will unfold. New waves of infection may necessitate renewed lockdowns, impede or even reverse economic recovery, and intensify fiscal pressures. Additional stimulus measures may be needed.

Even if the virus is brought under control relatively quickly, the road to recovery will be long.

In Europe and Asia alike, policymakers must begin considering how to translate emergency measures into more sustainable policies. Their approaches may not be the same, but their objectives – safeguarding their economies’ long-term prospects – should be.

BOOKMARK THIS: Our comprehensive coverage of the coronavirus outbreak and its developments

Download our app or subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest updates on the COVID-19 outbreak: https://cna.asia/telegram

Hoe Ee Khor is Chief Economist at the ASEAN+3 Macroeconomic Research Office. Rolf Strauch is Chief Economist at the European Stability Mechanism.

Source: Project Syndicate/el

Bookmark