Problems of European Union

 

Almost single-handed, French consumers, who in the third quarter of this year spent an annualised 5% more than in the previous three months, kept the euro area's economy afloat. Among the three largest economies, which account for 70% of euro-area GDP, only France looked healthy, growing by 0.5%. Italy managed just 0.2%; Germany's economy, poorly for a year, actually shrank. As a whole, the euro area grew by a mere 0.1%.

Do not expect the French to keep it up, though. Consumption fell by 0.4% in October, and rising unemployment will probably keep spending in check. Nor is anybody else likely to take up the running. The European Commission reckons that, of the ten euro-area economies for which it forecasts quarterly GDP, only Spain and Finland will grow by more than 0.25% in the fourth quarter. The odd two out, Greece and Luxembourg, may well do better, but all four together make up less than one-seventh of the euro area's GDP.

The three biggest economies, and with them the euro area as a whole, are probably now shrinking, along with America and Japan. Whether the euro area's contraction will last for more than one quarter is unclear. Yet even optimists expect only slow growth in early 2002.

The best hope for revival lies in a reversal of the forces that have aggravated the euro area's slowdown. Rising prices, first of oil and then of food, ate into real incomes and depressed spending. The prices of oil and other commodities have since fallen fast, and the effects of foot-and-mouth disease and BSE are due to drop out of the inflation figures. Some economists think that inflation, now 2.4%, will fall to 1% or less in 2002. As well as boosting real incomes, falling inflation (or the expectation of it) ought to create more room for the European Central Bank (ECB) to cut interest rates below today's 3.25%.

In both France and Germany, inventories were run down in the third quarter, so there is not much more destocking to be done. Germany's construction industry, in decline for two years and a huge drag on growth at the start of 2001, almost stopped shrinking in the third quarter. The euro's weakness against the dollar and the yen should help exports.

That's the good news. Much else is amiss, notably America's slide into recession. This has hurt exports, but it has not reduced the euro area's trade surplus, since imports have been squeezed just as hard. Indeed, says Dieter Wermuth of Tokai Bank in Frankfurt, Germany is seeing a "trade miracle": exports actually rose in the third quarter, while imports fell. The trade balance had a big positive effect on Germany's GDP figure; feeble domestic demand clobbered the total.

America's recession is feeding through to GDP in other ways. Weakening exports are knocking domestic demand, through lower orders to suppliers and cuts in investment. Second, European companies have become more exposed to America through foreign direct investment: the American affiliates of European multinationals doubled their sales in the 1990s, which are now equivalent to almost 9% of euro-area GDP. An American slowdown means less profit, less investment and lower employment—in Europe as well as in the United States.

Third, America's troubles are sapping Europe's confidence. That has been much clearer since September 11th: Germany's IFO index of business confidence dipped again in October, after plummeting in September. The link between spirits in the two big economic regions is more than a couple of months old. The European Commission says that, between 1995 and 2001, the correlation between confidence indices in the euro area and America has been almost 0.9, with America just eight or nine months ahead. Where American businesses and consumers lead, Europeans seem to follow closely behind.

On top of this, there are domestic weaknesses to worry about. Unemployment, which kept falling in the early stages of the downturn, is now expected to rise. The ECB has so far been slow to cut interest rates, and may remain slow in future. The scope for loosening fiscal policy, especially in Germany, is small: next year's deficit will probably be close to the limits set by the euro area's stability and growth pact, which Germany's finance minister is determined not to violate. Salvation in an American recovery, then? Not only. If rising inflation dragged Europe down, falling inflation should help pull it up. With luck, the fourth quarter will be as bad as it gets for the old continent. But don't bet on it; and expect a slow climb back up.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the annual growth rate of the euro-area?

2. Which are the three biggest economies of the euro-area?

3. What dynamics of inflation is expected in the current year?

4. Are European companies becoming more exposed to America? In what way?

5. What are domestic weaknesses of the major European economies?

 

BRITAIN AND THE EURO

 

JUST as public opinion is apparently warming to the idea of joining the euro, relations between Gordon Brown and the European Commission have soured. The cause of the dispute is a ticking-off from Brussels about the chancellor's fiscal plans. This is no ordinary disagreement. It goes to the heart of whether Britain can both join the euro and maintain the drive to improve public services.

At first sight, the row between Mr Brown and the commission looks more theatrical than real. The commission says that Britain is failing to meet the rules of the stability pact by planning to run a budget deficit. This runs counter to the pact's stipulation that member states—both in and out of the euro area—should keep their budgets "close to balance or surplus over the medium term". For the moment, that does not much matter, since fines can be levied only on euro members.

But if Britain were to join the euro, say in 2004, the stability pact would become

highly relevant. Up till now the main focus of debate on whether Britain could make a success of euro membership has been about monetary policy. The principal question that the chancellor's five tests seek to answer is whether Britain could live with interest rates set by the European Central Bank. Underlying this is the worry that the British economy differs so much from the rest of the European Union (EU)-for example, through a housing market especially responsive to changes in interest rates that a one-size-fits-all monetary policy will prove harmful.

The latest row, however, highlights a different question—whether a one-size-fits-all fiscal policy set in Brussels will prove damaging. One criticism of the pact is that it makes little sense for countries to limit their fiscal freedom now that they have surrendered control over interest rates and exchange rates within the euro area. That applies to any euro member state. But there are two particular reasons why Europe's stability pact could prove especially problematic for Britain.

The first is that Britain's public infrastructure is exceptionally run-down compared with the rest of Europe. Government investment is much lower as a proportion of GDP than in most European countries. After a long period of neglect, culminating in Labour's first term of office, there is an urgent need to remedy matters. That is why Mr Brown plans to double net public investment's share of GDP to 1.7% by 2003-04 and then to sustain this level of spending. He wants to finance most of the investment by borrowing, arguing that this is fairer than funding through taxation since it spreads the cost of works that will benefit people for many years to come. With debt now very low in relation to GDP, he maintains that borrowing to invest is also fiscally responsible.

But the European Commission is anxious to ensure that the EU as a whole reduces debt in relation to GDP by running balanced budgets or surpluses. A particular reason for this is concern about the future impact of Europe's ageing populations. This will lead to big increases in spending on pensions and health, resulting in likely deficits and higher debt. This could in turn undermine monetary union as the more heavily indebted countries lobby for inflationary policies to erode their debts. Hence the need to use the next ten or so years, before population ageing gathers momentum, to lower the public debt burden.

That policy may be legitimate for the EU as a whole, but not for Britain. This is the second way in which a one-size-fits-all fiscal policy creates a particular problem because of British exceptionalism. For one thing, Britain's debt is the third lowest in the EU as a share of GDP. More important, Britain does not face the same pressures to raise public pensions as other European countries, partly because population ageing will be less intense but also because big private schemes bear much more of the strain of pension provision, and they, unlike state pensions, are funded. Worries about the adequacy of pensions have led the British government to boost poorer pensioners' income, but this will not change the broad picture.

Over the next few years, then, there is a mismatch between Britain's need for higher investment and the euro area's need for lower debt. One way round this would be to interpret the stability pact more flexibly to meet the interests of individual member states. Treasury sources say that the commission has no monopoly of wisdom in interpreting the pact and criticise the commission for a narrow, legalistic approach. The chancellor will press Britain's case at the next meeting of finance ministers on February 12th, arguing that his budgetary projections are consistent with a prudent interpretation of the stability pact. The commission does not want a confrontation but fears that allowing one exception will open the door to special pleading by other countries.

If the stability pact were to become binding—as early membership of the euro would entail—then this will create real problems for Mr Brown as he tries to find the money to pay for improvements in the public services. He has already been preparing the ground for tax increases in this year's budget. But these would have to be a lot bigger—possibly as much as £10 billion—for Britain to comply with the pact.

Tony Blair wants Britain to join the euro. He also wants to rebuild the public services without upsetting taxpayers. Those two aims may be incompatible.

to asses – work out the (tax) to be paid by (someone) ledger – a book in which the accounts of a business are kept accrued – increased by being added to to wade through – read (something long or boring) to forge – make a copy of something written in order to deceive compliance – when someone obeys a law or rule, keeps an agreement

 

ACCOUNTING

 

Some people mistakenly think of accounting as a highly technical field which can be understood only by professional accountants. Actually, nearly everyone practices accounting in one form or another on an almost daily basis. Accounting is the art of interpreting, measuring, and describing economic activity. Whether you are preparing a household budget, balancing your checkbook, preparing your income tax return, or running General Motors, you are working with accounting concepts and accounting information.

Accounting has often been referred to as "the language of business." This language finds expression in profit and loss statements, balance sheets, budgets, investment analysis, and tax analysis. Accounting information is the means by which firms communicate their financial position to the providers of capital—investors, creditors, and government. It enables the providers of capital to assess the value of their investments, or the security of their loans, and to make decisions about future resource allocations. Accounting information is also the means by which firms report their income to the government, so the government can assess how much tax the firm owes. It is also the means by which the firm can evaluate its performance, control its internal expenditures, and plan for future expenditures and income. Thus it is no exaggeration to say that a good accounting function is critical to the smooth running of the firm.

Developing and communicating accounting information is the role of the business organization's accounting system.

Accounting — is the process of recording, classifying, reporting and analyzing financial data. And while the accounting requirements of every business vary, all organizations need a way to keep track of their money. Unfortunately, there's very little that's intuitive about accounting. Many small businesses hire accountants to set up and keep their books. Other companies use accounting software like QuickBooks, CheckMark Multi-Ledger and M.Y.O.B. Accounting and keep their accounting functions in house. Using a system of debits and credits, called double-entry accounting, accountants use a general ledger to track money as it flows in and out of a business. They record each financial transaction on a balance sheet, which provides a snapshot of a business's financial condition. Accountants record every financial transaction in a way that keeps the following equation balanced: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity (Capital). Accounting is based on the periodic reporting of financial data. The basic accounting cycle includes: 1) Recording business transactions. Businesses keep a daily record of transactions in sales journals, cash-receipt journals or cash-disbursement journals. 2) Posting debits and credits to a general ledger. A general ledger is a summary of all business journals. An up-to-date general ledger shows current information about accounts payable, accounts receivable, owners' equity and other accounts. 3) Making adjustments to the general ledger. General-ledger adjustments let businesses account for items that don't get recorded in daily journals, such as bad debts, and accrued interest or taxes. By adjusting entries, businesses can match revenues with expenses within each accounting period. 4) Closing the books. After all revenues and expenses are accounted for, any net profit gets posted in the owners' equity account. Revenue and expense accounts are always brought to a zero balance before a new accounting cycle begins. 5) Preparing financial statements. At the end of a period, businesses prepare financial reports — income statements, statements of capital, balance sheets, cash-flow statements and other reports — that summarize all of the financial activity for that period.

International businesses are confronted with a number of accounting problems. One of these problems—the lack of consistency in the accounting standards of different countries.

Let's examine the problems arising when an international business with operations in more than one country must produce consolidated financial statements. These firms face special problems because, for example, the accounts for their operations in France will be in francs, in Italy they will be in lira, and in Japan they will be in yen. If the firm is based in the United States, it will have to decide what basis to use for translating all these accounts into U.S. dollars.

Accounting is shaped by the environment in which it operates. Just as different countries have different political systems, economic systems, and cultures, so they also have different accounting systems. In each country the accounting system has evolved in response to the demands for accounting information in that country.

Despite attempts to harmonize accounting standards by developing internationally acceptable accounting conventions a myriad of differences between national accounting systems still remain. These differences make it very difficult to compare the financial performance of firms based in different nations.

Due to the combined impact of the variables, very few countries have identical accounting systems. Notable similarities between nations do exist however, and three groups of countries with similar standards can be identified. One group might be called the British-American-Dutch group. Great Britain, the United States, and the Netherlands are the trend-setters in this group. All these countries have large, well-developed stock and bond markets where firms raise capital from investors. Thus these countries' accounting systems are tailored to providing information to individual investors. A second group might be called the Europe-Japan group. Firms in these countries have very close ties to banks, which supply a large proportion of their capital needs. So their accounting practices are geared to the needs of banks. A third group might be the South American group. The countries in this group have all experienced persistent and rapid inflation. Consequently they have adopted inflation accounting principles.

The diverse accounting practices have been enshrined in national accounting and auditing standards. Accounting standards are rules for preparing financial statements; they define what is useful accounting information. Auditing standards specify the rules for performing an audit—the technical process by which an independent person (the auditor) gathers evidence for determining if a set of financial accounts conforms to required accounting standards and if it is also reliable.

Substantial efforts have been made in recent years to harmonise accounting standards across countries. Perhaps the most significant body pushing for this is the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC)

Other areas of interest to the accounting profession world-wide—including auditing, ethical, educational, and public-sector standards—are handled by the International Federation of Accountants (IFA).

By the mid-1990s the IASC had issued over 30 international accounting standards.

The main hindrance to the development of international accounting standards is that compliance with the IASC standards is voluntary; the IASC has no power to enforce its standards. Despite this support for the IASC and recognition of its standards is growing around the world.