## Growing Pains: Europe's Dilemma

_IMF Blog, October 21, 2011_

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Growing Pains: Europe's Dilemma](https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2011/10/21/growing-pains-europes-dilemma)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/en/blogs/articles/2011/10/21/growing-pains-europes-dilemma/index.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/en/blogs/articles/2011/10/21/growing-pains-europes-dilemma/index.json)
- [Bundle manifest](/en/blogs/articles/2011/10/21/growing-pains-europes-dilemma/bundle-manifest.json)

## Bibliographic details
- Authors: innovation.
- Published: October 21, 2011

---

### Divergent per capita GDP growth in Europe
- Growth rates in the past decade ranged from close to zero in Italy and Portugal to more than 4 percent in the best performers.
- Some countries grew much slower or faster than expected given their income level (convergence only part of the story): Italy and Portugal grew slower than expected; the Slovak Republic and Sweden grew faster.

### Role of convergence and other factors
- Convergence: poorer countries can grow faster by importing technology; richer countries at the technology frontier can only grow faster through innovation.
- Convergence does not fully explain differences in growth performance across European countries.

### Integration into the global economy
- Better-performing countries are much more integrated into the world economy than poor performers.
- Strong performers experienced high and increasing levels of trade (both exports and imports); many poor performers have lower and stagnating levels.
- Examples:
  - In Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, the share of export and import in GDP rose by about 15 percent to more than 20 percent between 1995 and 2010.
  - The Czech and Slovak Republics, and to a lesser extent Poland, saw similar increases.
  - Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain experienced stagnation in export-to-GDP and import-to-GDP ratios over those years.

### How to recover from "euro sclerosis"
- Historical precedent: late 1970s and early 1980s episodes of “euro sclerosis” (high unemployment and low growth) show policy change can reverse decline.
- Case studies: the Netherlands and Sweden in the 1980s and 1990s
  - Both countries undertook sweeping reforms after prolonged malaise and crisis.
  - Conditions before reform: income per capita falling relative to Germany for about a decade; deteriorating public finances; growing fiscal deficits.
  - Country-specific constraints:
    - Netherlands: rising unemployment driven by high real wage costs.
    - Sweden: poor-performing traditional industries, the banking crisis in the early 1990s, and stifling taxes.
  - Policy responses:
    - Netherlands: wage agreement between employers and unions as the centerpiece to restore employment; additional tax and benefit reforms to create jobs and encourage labor force participation; reduced regulation to allow new companies and industries to flourish.
    - Sweden: fiscal consolidation, tax reform, clean up of the banking sector, overhaul of the wage bargaining system; reduced regulation to foster new companies and industries.
  - Outcomes: reforms spanned more than a decade and took time to yield full benefits; per capita income in both the Netherlands and Sweden is now significantly higher than even that of Germany.

### Lessons and policy recommendations for current poor performers
- Reforms work—but they take time.
  - It takes time to implement reforms, time before their impact becomes visible (initial deterioration possible), and time before full benefits accumulate.
- Address both macroeconomic imbalances and barriers to growth.
  - If deficits and debt are not brought under control, growth is unlikely to pick up.
  - Correcting macroeconomic imbalances alone, without removing growth barriers, will not result in sustained high growth.
- Reform priorities evolve over time.
  - As initial bottlenecks are removed, new constraints become binding and require sequential policy attention.

*Source: Growing Pains: Europe's Dilemma (October 21, 2011).*

---


## References

- [Europe](http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2011/CAR100611A.htm)
- [growth in Europe](http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/reo/2011/eur/eng/ereo1011.htm)
- [https://www.imf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fig1.jpg](https://www.imf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fig1.jpg)
- [https://www.imf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fig2.jpg](https://www.imf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fig2.jpg)
- [https://www.imf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/europe-oct-21-fig3.jpg](https://www.imf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/europe-oct-21-fig3.jpg)
- [https://www.imf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fig4.jpg](https://www.imf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fig4.jpg)

_Source: https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2011/10/21/growing-pains-europes-dilemma_