by Katinka Barysch

Christine Lagarde, the French finance minister, threatens to walk out of the London G20 summit unless France gets its way on tougher financial regulation. The toppled Czech Prime Minister, Mirek Topolanek, who happens to hold the EU presidency, describes the US fiscal stimulus as “the road to hell”. Not one EU leader deems it necessary to support Gordon Brown publicly when he tries to drum up support for a more concerted international effort to revive the global economy. The Dutch and the Spaniards are turning the G20 itself into a misnomer by insisting on their own place at the table, and raising the number of the already over-represented Europeans (The fact that there will be six European governments represented, plus the Czech presidency, plus the European Commission, not counting the European heads of the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund, attracts deserved ridicule from other countries).

So is the G20 just another opportunity for the Europeans to show how weak, divided and status-conscious they are?

In fact, the Europeans have not done as badly in the run-up to the summit as some media reports (and occasional outbursts by stressed prime ministers) suggest.

EU leaders managed to thrash out a reasonably coherent position at their spring summit on 20th -21st March. The meeting’s final communiqué has a special section on the agreed line for the London summit. The words in this section are vague but represent a workable compromise which could allow the Europeans to speak with one voice at the G20.

G20 finance ministers had already reached a kind of truce on the issue of more fiscal stimuli at their meeting on March 14th. Not surprisingly, EU leaders, at their spring summit a week later, also rejected calls for an immediate increase in budgetary spending. So why some commentators are still speculating whether the G20 may come up with a new, co-ordinated package is a bit of a mystery. There needs to be a firm pledge from all G20 countries to assess critically the fiscal efforts they have made so far, and then to revisit the issue of a co-ordinated stimulus at their next summit, probably later this year.

At the March 20th–21st summit, EU leaders called only for swift implementation of those packages already announced. This, and the fact that the communiqué also calls on the EU countries to prepare for “an orderly reversal of macro-economic stimuli” and to “ensure consistency with longer term objectives such as sustainable public finances” represents a victory for Berlin and other capitals worried about inflationary pressures and the stability of the euro.

The Europeans supported global efforts to make more money available for the poorer and more vulnerable countries around the world. They started at home, by doubling the size of the EU’s own emergency fund for Central and Eastern Europe to €50 billion. The Europeans also agreed to raise an additional €75 billion as their contribution to a significant increase in the IMF’s war chest, to at least $500 billion. Since Japan had already pledged $100 billion, the onus is now on the US and China to chip in.

China, of course, will be cautious about committing money to an unreformed IMF. Here the EU’s position is lame. The communiqué only calls for a “reform of the IMF so that it reflects more adequately relative economic weights in the world economy”. The Europeans should have made it clearer that they are prepared to decrease their own voting shares and representation on the IMF’s management board. But diplomats say that the strongest opposition to thorough IMF reforms currently comes from the US – reluctant to give up its de facto ability to veto IMF decisions – rather than Europe.

On financial market regulation, the EU’s position is quite far advanced, much more so than the American one. The EU summit communiqué list all the measures that the EU wants to take – on regulating credit agencies, hedge funds, credit default swaps and so forth – and attaches deadlines to each. There has been a great deal of convergence within Europe, chiefly between Germany, France and others that want to see tighter rules and supervision of financial markets, and the UK, which has abandoned its belief in ‘light touch’ regulation. There are a lot of similarities between the recommendations of the recent reports from Jacques de Larosiere, which the EU wants to use as a basis for its legislative programme, and Adair Turner, head of the UK’s Financial Services Authority. Both, for example, call for more co-ordination between the supervision of individual banks and the monitoring of the stability of the financial system as a whole. The emerging US position as presented by US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on March 26th also calls for more centralised supervision of US financial services, as well as a reform of capital adequacy and accountancy rules (in line with EU demands). Geithner for the first time acknowledged that hedge funds and other hitherto lightly regulated but systemically important finance vehicles need at least some supervision.

Of course the devil is in the detail and the London summit cannot and will not agree on more than the broad principles of further regulation and supervision. The debate about a new supervisory system in the US is only just beginning. It will be long and politicised. The EU’s deadlines for new legislation run from May until the end of 2009. Since the European Parliament will be re-elected in June and the European Commission will step down in October (although it could be extended to the end of the year), comprehensive new rules are unlikely before 2010.

The EU has looked weak and divided in the run-up to the G20 summit. Its reluctance to make more commitments to increase fiscal stimuli is rightly open to criticism. But the Europeans have actually managed to agree a reasonably coherent position and in many respects, their positions are as, or more, polished than the US ones.

Katinka Barysch is deputy director of the Centre for European Reform.

by Philip Whyte

Disasters often provoke unseemly bouts of finger-pointing. This has certainly been true of the global financial crisis. In the Anglo-Saxon world, libertarians have blamed it on governments, and governments on ‘bankers’. But in continental Europe, many blame Anglo-Saxons for their supposed reluctance to regulate financial markets. The crisis, they believe, would never have happened if the British and the Americans had regulated and supervised their financial sectors like the French and the Germans. On this view, the UK needs to change, notably by clamping down on hedge funds. Does this narrative stack up? Or have some Europeans just turned Anglo-Saxons and hedge funds into their scapegoats of choice?

Tirades against Anglo-Saxons long predated the crisis, but they have gathered in intensity since it began. In the run-up to the G20 summit in April, Luxembourg’s prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, stated that this crisis “started in the US. The Anglo-Saxon world has always refused to add the dose of regulation which financial markets needed.” At the end of the same summit, the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, announced the death of “unregulated Anglo-Saxon finance”. And in July, Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, told a political meeting in Nuremberg that “with us, dear friends, Wall Street or the City of London won’t dictate again how money should be made, only to let others pick up the bill.”

In any analysis of the causes of the crisis, the UK and the US clearly deserve a share of the blame. They tolerated unsustainable domestic credit booms which wreaked havoc on themselves and the rest of the world. But they were hardly the only countries to experience credit-fuelled housing booms. Denmark, France, Ireland and Spain did too. Nor were they the only countries which allowed ‘shadow banking’ entities to proliferate and banks’ exposures to complex financial instruments to grow. It was a funding crisis at two ‘special investment vehicles’ (SIVs) that brought the regulated German bank, IKB, to its knees. And German banks built massive exposures to collateralised debt obligations (CDOs).

What of hedge funds? Listen to French and German leaders, and you would think that hedge funds were central to the financial crisis. France and Germany have leaned on the European Commission to propose a directive that would regulate hedge funds; they have criticised the Commission’s resulting legislative proposal as too weak; and they have accused the British of dragging their heels. France and Germany are not entirely wrong: the example of Long Term Capital Management in 1998 shows that some hedge funds can pose a threat to financial stability. Even so, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that France and Germany have used the crisis as an opportunity to advance one of their hobby horses.

Both the EU’s de Larosière report and the UK’s Turner review agree that hedge funds did not cause the global financial crisis. They did not drive the growth in sub-prime lending. They did not cause house prices to fall. And they did not force regulated banks (such as Germany’s Hypo Real Estate) to hold CDOs on their balance sheets. So it is quite wrong to imply, as some French and German politicians do, that the crisis would not have occurred if hedge funds had been more tightly regulated. It is also wrong to suggest that the British are reluctant to regulate hedge funds. The British government has accepted the Turner review’s recommendation that “regulation should focus on economic substance, not legal form”.

The Turner and de Larosière reports point to a broad, technocratic cross-Channel consensus on the causes of the financial crisis and the lessons to be learned. Does it matter if this is not reflected in political rhetoric? Yes, for two reasons. First, political obsessions can often drag policy in undesirable directions. (Remember that when Germany chaired the G7 in the months leading up to the crisis in 2007, it was so fixated with regulating hedge funds that it was blind to what turned out to be the central problem: the excessive leverage and effective under-capitalisation of the regulated banking sector). Second, rhetoric can poison negotiations unnecessarily, making agreement more difficult to reach.

Populist broadsides against Anglo-Saxons and hedge funds are unlikely to help the prospect of pan-European regulatory reform. If French and German politicians are not careful, the scenario which they paint of a recalcitrant Britain at odds with the rest of Europe could become a self-fulfilling prophesy. It is no secret that sections of Britain’s media and political class are primed to detect sinister motives in anything emanating from Europe. More often than not, such fears are just paranoid fantasy. But for once, the British may be forgiven if they conclude that France and Germany are exploiting the crisis to promote some of their longstanding objectives and to weaken London’s position as a financial centre.

Philip Whyte is a senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform.

by Philip Whyte

When EU finance ministers met in Brussels on 18 May, many observers expected sparks to fly. The reason? This was the first EU meeting that Britain’s newly-elected government would attend. And a leading item on the agenda was the Commission’s proposed directive to regulate managers of ‘alternative investment funds’. France and Germany have pressed hard for the directive. Britain has deep reservations about it. The fear across the EU was that a hard-line British eurosceptic government ideologically resistant to regulating financial markets would come to Brussels seeking confrontation over the directive. In the event, the bust-up never happened. What lessons should one draw about the new, Conservative-led government’s attitude to the EU and to financial regulation?

The Conservative Party is more eurosceptic than it has ever been. Many of its members would like to withdraw from the EU altogether. The party’s leader, David Cameron, is no euro-enthusiast himself. But he is above all a pragmatist, not a rigid ideologue bent on confrontation. Recall that he enraged sections of his party when he decided not to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty once it had been ratified by all 27 member-states; and that he has formed a coalition with the UK’s most pro-European party, the Liberal Democrats. Besides, the government that he leads has more important things to do than pick needless fights in the EU. The focus of its attention over the next five years will be on consolidating the public finances and managing the inevitable social conflicts that will result.

What of financial regulation? A common view across Europe is that the financial crisis was the result of ‘unregulated Anglo-Saxon capitalism’; that the EU’s task is to cajole the reluctant British into clamping down on the City of London; and that the Conservatives may be particularly resistant to cooperating, given their ideological commitment to free markets and historical links to the City. Much of this account is inaccurate. Many of the regulatory failings exposed by the crisis were as much in evidence outside the Anglo-Saxon world as within it. The UK has pushed through many regulatory reforms before the EU. And the Conservative Party has distanced itself from the City and is considering measures – like breaking up large banks – that go far beyond what most EU countries are contemplating.

Does this mean that Britain and the EU will work harmoniously on the reform of financial regulation? The answer is: probably not. One problem is the populist undercurrent that is driving some reforms in the EU. The sad truth is that the alternative investment fund managers’ directive has been a poor advert for EU legislation. The Commission proposed it, under pressure from France and Germany, without carrying out the detailed impact assessment that its ‘better regulation’ agenda requires. The directive targets a rag-bag of disparate entities, mostly in the UK, that had nothing to do with the crisis and that will be saddled with inappropriate rules. And it is being imposed over the objections of the country that will be most affected by it by countries that will barely be affected by it at all.

Britain’s historical attitude to the EU – its enthusiasm for the single market, allied to its hostility to institutional integration – is another problem. Why? Because it is no longer clear that this Janus-faced position is tenable. As the UK’s Turner Review acknowledged, the financial crisis exposed fault-lines in the EU’s single market for banking that can only be solved in one of two ways. The first (the ‘less Europe’ option) is to return powers to host country authorities – a move that would mark a retreat from the single market. The second (the ‘more Europe’ option) is to beef up existing EU bodies so that a common rulebook can be developed and co-ordination between national supervisory authorities can be tightened. (This option does not currently envisage the creation of a pan-European supervisory authority.)

A key task facing the EU following the financial crisis is to rescue the single market in banking. If the EU is to succeed, Britain’s Conservative-led government and its EU partners must work together constructively. Britain’s EU partners need the Cameron government’s pragmatism to trump its euroscepticism. But European politicians would help if they showed cooler heads and more measured rhetoric than they are doing at present. Tirades against hedge funds, ‘speculators’ and Anglo-Saxons may play well in some EU countries. But in Britain, they increase the suspicion that European politicians are happier looking for scapegoats than learning the real lessons of the crisis. If it goes unchecked, European populism could become an obstacle to the Cameron government’s pragmatism.

Philip Whyte is senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform