All through the Eurozone emergency, observers called upon Germany to accept administration. However, Germany has not developed as the sought after developer. As indicated by the issue in question, we watch three unique results: right off the wink, Germany declined to lead; also, Germany accepted initiative, however neglected to convey; thirdly, Germany gone about as a fruitful developer. This article scrutinizes the explanations behind this difference by dissecting and looking at one case for every result: the main money related help to Greece, the fizzled endeavor to build up a ‘super-official’, and the molding of the Fiscal Compact. The investigation incorporates unique information, accumulated through meetings in Brussels, Frankfurt and Berlin. The difference in Germany’s conduct can be clarified by utilizing a discerning institutionalism model of administration. Germany’s rise as a pioneer relies on upon the normal expenses and advantages of driving. Its effect, conversely, relies on upon its energy, the conveyance of inclinations among the performing artists included, and institutional requirement.
Although there has been a high demand for leadership throughout the crisis, Germany emerged as a leader only when the benefits of leading exceeded its costs. Once emerged, Germany influenced the outcomes by means of its superior economic power resources. However, power alone does not suffice to exercise successful leadership. The preferences of the ‘followers’ and the institutional environment also play a crucial role. If we compare the super-commissioner proposal with the shaping of the Fiscal Compact, we see that in both cases the power resources and the institutional constraint were the same. Thus, we can affirm that it is indeed the distribution of preferences which accounts for Germany’s different impact on the outcomes in the two cases.
Germany did not emerge as a leader; other actors had the chance or were even forced to take the lead. The ECB’s launch of the OMT, the Commission’s proactive role in shaping the so-called six-pack regulations, but also its unwillingness to take the lead in the issue of Eurobonds, could therefore be further cases to test the theoretical model proposed by this article. Indeed, the article 19 not only aimsto explain Germany’s unsteady role as regards leadership in the crisis, but also to provide a model to explain other situations in which collective actors refrain from offering, fail in delivering, or succeed in exercising political leadership.
Greece was living beyond its means even before it joined the euro. After it adopted the single currency, public spending soared. Public sector wages, for example, rose 50% between 1999 and 2007 – far faster than in most other Eurozone countries. The government also ran up big debts paying for the 2004 Athens Olympics. And while money flowed out of the government’s coffers, its income was hit by widespread tax evasion. So, after years of overspending, its budget deficit – the difference between spending and income – spiraled out of control. Moreover, much of the borrowing was concealed, as successive Greek governments sought to meet the 3%-of-GDP cap on borrowing that is required of members of the euro .When the global financial downturn hit – and Greece’s hidden borrowings came to light – the country was ill-prepared to cope. Debt levels reached the point where the country was no longer able to repay its loans, and were forced to ask for help from its European partners and the IMF in the form of massive loans.
TheEurozone crisis has led Germany’s ordo-liberal principles to trump its other longstanding commitment – i.e. to European integration. These two principles are explored in order then to shed light on how they have played out during the crisis. German centrality has created high expectations for it to provide leadership. Exploring hegemony conceptually and in practice, it is argued that international legitimacy and increasing domestic constraints have limited a leadership role. Indeed, it is argued that it is the domestic political situation that explains why or do-liberalism has trumped pro-Europeanism. Ordo-liberal emphasis on stability culture has provided a valuable strategic resource for securing German objectives within the Eurozone while satisfying the requirements of domestic politics.
More significantly, defaulting would allow Greece to avoid fueling its internal political crisis by forfeiting its national sovereignty. Much of the political crisis inside of Greece stems from the Greek public’s antipathy to austerity. But another part, which would come to the fore under the German proposal, is that the Greeks do not want to lose national sovereignty. In their long history, the Greeks have lost their sovereignty to invaders such as the Romans, the Ottomans and, most recently, the Nazis.
After decades proposing the creation of a political union to make the euro sustainable, Germany has not utilized the ‘window’ offered by the Eurozone crisis to pursue this goal. Using the conceptual devices of the ‘Charta list theory of money’ (which states that a monetary union cannot work without a political union) and ‘hegemony’, three possible explanations are explored in this paper. (1) Germany is slowly becoming a ‘normal’ power; (2) The German public has lost its enthusiasm for European integration; (3) Germany remains a reluctant hegemon and once it has seen that France is still not ready for political union it has refrained from actively promoting this ideal. The conclusion of the paper is that the first two explanations have merits, but the third remains more convincing. Berlin is still determined to build a more federal Europe.