Europe’s Monetary (Dis)Union
Europe's Progress Toward Economic Integration
New Opportunities and New Challenges
Euro Fantasies: Common Currency as Panacea
The Case for EMU: More than Money
EMU and International Conflict
The Dollar and the Euro
The Degeneration of EMU
The Future of the Euro
Why the Greek Crisis Will Not Ruin Europe’s Monetary Union
The Failure of the Euro
The Little Currency That Couldn’t
The Crisis of Europe
How the Union Came Together and Why It’s Falling Apart
Can Europe’s Divided House Stand?
Separating Fiscal and Monetary Union
Saving the Euro Will Mean Worse Trouble for Europe
Charting the Disastrous Choices Ahead
Can the Eurozone Be Saved?
Yes, but the EU Summit Was Too Little, Too Late
How to Save the Euro -- and the EU
Reading Keynes in Brussels
Why Only Germany Can Fix the Euro
Reading Kindleberger in Berlin
The Myth of German Hegemony
Why Berlin Can't Save Europe Alone
Europe's Optional Catastrophe
The Fate of the Monetary Union Lies in Germany’s Hands
Why the Euro Will Survive
Completing the Continent’s Half-Built House
Avoiding the Next Eurozone Crisis
How to Build an EU that Works
Europe After the Crisis
How to Sustain a Common Currency
Europe's New Normal
It's Here, It's Unclear, Get Used to It
So Long, Austerity?
Syriza's Victory and the Future of the Eurozone
Austerity vs. Democracy in Greece
Europe Crosses the Rubicon
Why Greece Will Cave—and How
Alexis Tsipras and the Debt Negotiations
Why Greece and Europe Will Still Stay Attached
How to Contain Athens' Economic Problems
A Pain in the Athens
Why Greece Isn't to Blame for the Crisis
The Agreekment That Could Break Europe
Euroskeptics, Eurocritics, and Life After the Bailout
In the intensifying debate over the prospects for European economic and monetary union, there is danger of losing sight of the most fundamental fact about EMU. Like everything else in the push for European integration, it is essentially a political undertaking. To underline that truth is not to deny the compelling economic rationale for EMU but to emphasize that there is more at stake.
The economic rationale is based on the inherent logic of Europe's single-market strategy; EMU may well be essential to the single market's survival. But it has also become a test of both the European Union and the political commitment of its 15 member states, one that goes beyond the technicalities of the project. If Europe fails the test, the consequences for integration will be serious.
Assuming that monetary union will begin as scheduled on January 1, 1999, it is still too soon to know which of the EU's member states will qualify to take part in the first wave; that decision will depend on how each nation's key economic indicators develop. But there is already a growing sense that it could be a substantial minority, perhaps even a significant majority, of the member states.
EMU’s critics continue to argue that it is a bad and damaging idea. But the skeptics have changed their tune. They no longer claim that monetary union will be a failure because most member states will be unable to meet the criteria for economic convergence that the 1991-92 Maastricht treaty set for admittance; they instead predict that the member states will realize that EMU is vital to the political enterprise of European integration and cannot be allowed to fail, and will therefore fudge or even disregard the criteria. Either way, in their view, the result is the same: something called EMU will happen, but it will be botched, and will prove to be a grave mistake for the European Union.
The critics maintain that EMU will not work because the member states will fail to
Loading, please wait...