Both sides of the Atlantic reacted differently to the 2008–9 financial crisis. While the US and UK were pouring vast amounts of money into the market through enormously large rescue packages to bail out big banks. Evidently, this is a policy separate from the neoliberal doctrine of ‘fiscal discipline.’ On the other hand, Germany-led EU went for the neoliberal way. It did not only pursue the austerity measures that sparked social tensions throughout the continent and led to the rise of left and right populisms but also forced anti-austerity countries to implement them.

Now, while the ‘post-neoliberalism’ is being discussed, the United States is pursuing “protectionist” economic policies and seeking to involve its European and Asian allies in its struggle against China (and Russia). As a result of being severed with inexpensive Russian energy, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the CHIP Act are fueling the EU’s concerns about deindustrialization. On the one hand, indebted and having dependent competitiveness on state interventions, Southern and Eastern Europe and the richer Northern countries, not in favor of rescuing the poorer with joint EU loans, on the other, Brussels is awaiting much more challenging days.

Letter of objection to the European Commission

The European Commission has received a letter signed by Austria, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, and Slovakia.

Not signatories to the letter, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands also oppose the overall concept. The letter raises concerns about a proposed joint fund to support and shield the green industry from US subsidies. Instead of looking for new money, the letter demands, existing loan capacity should be utilized.

Only around 100 billion euros of the total of 390 billion euros of the post-pandemic recovery fund have been used, the seven countries recalled.

Central banks against governments

The tension between governments and central banks, which increase interest rates and employ monetary tightening to focus on ‘fighting inflation,’ is a prime illustration of the contention.

However, the epidemic years were a glorious time: The IMF, the World Bank, and national central banks all issued statements urging governments to “spend as much as you can.” It is believed that at that period, the United States pumped more than $2 trillion into the market via bond purchases and monetary expansion. During the same period, the EU helped the member countries stay afloat through joint borrowing and joint funds.

Now the disparity is widening, and it seems to be one of the most discussed topics among policymakers in the informal gatherings in the halls at the World Economic Forum (WEF) Davos summit.

Anticipating further inflationary pressure due to pandemics, geopolitical conflicts, and green transitions related to the ‘climate crisis,’ governments have prioritized spending more to ease the financial burden on consumers, notwithstanding the central banks argue and act the other way around.

Crying out “fiscal authorities must do more” in recent years, central banks seem to have received their wish, although in an unexpected form.

Furthermore, this difference, called “fiscal authority against monetary authority,” has not yet wholly appeared. According to IMF economist Gita Gopinath, the limits of tension between fiscal and monetary authorities have not been tested.

The European Union (EU) may be the only place where the rising tension is more visible. Member governments continue to unveil substantial aid packages to their citizens battling with energy and food inflation despite the European Central Bank’s aggressive interest rate increases to combat inflation.

Summary: Government aid packages

In the context of energy, the diverging monetary and fiscal policies are pretty evident.

To help with grid fees, a significant part of electricity bills, the Austrian government, for instance, is getting ready to offer a new aid package. In addition to the initial support package of 475 million euros until the middle of 2024, Vienna has revealed intentions to distribute an extra 200 million euros. Thus, the government will pay 80% of the network/infrastructure costs.

Due to rising wholesale power prices, France’s electricity and natural gas regulator CRE has suggested a 108 percent hike in residential electricity rates.

Despite the CRE’s recommendation, the French government only raised the rate by 15% with subsidies for electricity prices.

Households, small local governments, and micro-enterprises with annual revenues of less than 2 million euros are eligible for the government’s “tariff shield” system.

Greece, one of the EU’s weakest economies, even gave subsidies on energy bills to 840 million euros. Citing a fall in gas prices, Kostas Skrekas, the minister of energy, announced that subsidies would be reduced to 95 million euros.

Is the energy crisis over?

Governments seem to have concluded that the worst is over, thanks to the mild winter and energy costs plummeting.

For example, RTE, the French power grid operator, recently announced the risk of power cuts left behind. According to RTE, this is due to increased nuclear power output and the mild winter. RTE has reported that the utilization of nuclear energy capacity has reached 70%.

Once again, the mild winter seems to be reducing power use. This year’s consumption was 8.5% lower than the average for the same period of 2014-2019. Also decreasing by 13% was the use of natural gas.

Indeed, natural gas’s MW/s price on the Dutch stock market dropped from 200 euros to 70 euros in January. Moreover, 81 percent of the EU’s gas storage tanks are still full, and it is anticipated that this rate for Germany is close to 90%.

Still, Klaus Müller, the president of Germany’s federal grid agency Bundesnetzagentur, pointed out that if many heat pumps and charging stations continue to be installed, local power cuts will become a source of concern.

In order to avoid power outages, TransnetBW, the grid operator in southern Germany, has asked residents to decrease their energy use in the evenings.

South Holland has similar problems. The grid is reportedly overloaded due to balancing demand and integrating new energy sources.

For this reason, inconveniences occur in the ‘transition to green energy,’ an objective of these two countries. The load on the electricity grid is growing as demand for industrial heat pumps and charging stations increases. Considering a 27 percent growth in demand for electric cars in Germany alone, it is next to impossible to expect this problem to be solved quickly. In the short term, major transmission issues, particularly on local low-voltage lines, are anticipated to arise in Germany. From 2020 to 2021, investment in distribution networks had a 10% increase, much below the expected 40% rise.

Eurelectric predicts that in 2021, between 375 and 425 billion euros would need to be invested in energy infrastructure to render it endurable for the new electrification mechanisms. In addition, the inflationist change in electrical equipment over the last two years makes this prediction seem unduly optimistic.

The flutters of Brussels

The 0.2 percent shrinkage in Germany, the largest economy of the Old Continent, in the last quarter of 2022 is another indication that things are not going well. However, Olaf Scholz has pointed to declining energy prices and a mild winter as evidence that the recession is beginning to turn around.

One of the largest steel makers in Germany and the world, Thyssenkrupp, has urged the German government to match Washington’s “protectionism,” a sign that warning bells are ringing. Martina Merz, CEO of the conglomerate, emphasized the need to succeed in the green transition without deindustrializing the continent. Highlighting the sufferings of the steel, cement, and chemical industries from higher energy costs, Merz said that “tomorrow’s markets are being carved up now.”

Carved-up markets are ominous words that require no explanation. The European Commission’s “Green Deal Industrial Plan” seems like another dead-cat bounce by Brussels before the EU leaders’ summit to be held next week. The proposed draft urged Europe and its allies to combat “unfair subsidies” and “prolonged market distortions.” The United States and China seem to be the primary targets of this battle.

The loosening of the EU’s government incentives system appears vital for Europe in the ‘green energy transition.’ EU members have the same right as governments outside the EU to provide subsidies to businesses operating within the union.

The combined economic might of Germany and France, of course, exists here as well. Recalling that German and French industries get 77% of EU-wide state incentives (€356 billion and €162 billion, respectively), financially weak nations in the south, such as Italy, Spain, and Portugal, are once again bringing up joint EU borrowing for subsidies. The German and Dutch coalition, on the other hand, blame poor countries for seeking ‘grants’ rather than using the money in the pandemic recovery fund as a loan.

Moreover, the fragmentation is not only between EU countries but indeed between regions. Craig Douglas, the founder of World Fund, for instance, says the discrepancies between the specific buckets of capital in Europe are sharp, and there is more regional capital available in Aachen or Bavaria than in Paris if they want to build a manufacturing facility.

‘Europe is in panic mode’

Fear of the escape of investments created by the IRA has gripped all of Europe. “Europe is in panic mode,” Paul Tang, a Dutch member of the European Parliament, told the Financial Times (FT).

Panic is not a temporary problem. Concerns over the very fundamentals of the EU’s economic model are not comparable to this panic. Long before the IRA, the pandemic and the Ukraine crisis have already started to undermine the economic orthodoxy of the German-led EU.

Mark Rutte, the Dutch prime minister, is among those drawing attention to this, reminding that a more ‘interventionist’ approach could have a long-term impact far beyond the IRA.

However, the genie is out of the bottle. Ineligible for state subsidies, several EU-based manufacturers decide to relocate their operations to the other side of the Atlantic. These are by no means a few. Since the transition to “green capitalism” calls for significant investments, state interventions are crucial in managing and directing these investments and convincing society with the carrot and stick for this shift. A state that provides only fiscal discipline and austerity is no longer acceptable. Therefore, without German-French intervention, the goal of “strategic autonomy of Europe,” which has been brought up specifically by France, is unrealistic.

Moreover, the EU is still far away from the ‘clean technology’ investments and initiatives flowing to Asia and North America. In other words, the challenge comes not only from the United States but also from Asia, particularly China. In the next article, I put an end to the with a piece focusing on Asia and ‘developing countries,’ especially China.