I’ve been thinking about the European debt crisis in game theory terms. Let’s assume for simplicity that there are only two players: a European core country (solvent government and banking system, current account surplus) “Germanland” and a European periphery country (insolvent government and banking system, current account deficit) “Greetaly”.
I think that the strategy matrix of this 2-player game would be the following:
| |
Germanland “pulls the plug” |
Germanland “assumes the periphery debt” |
Germanland “doubles down” |
| Greetaly “presses the red button” |
Greetaly leaves Euro |
Greetaly leaves Euro |
Greetaly leaves Euro |
| Greetaly “enacts austerity” |
Greetaly leaves Euro |
Greetaly enters depression |
Greetaly may slowly recover |
Greetaly will be able to stay in the Eurozone and avoid major economic shocks (i.e. banking system collapse or adoption of a new devalued national currency) only if Germanland is willing to assume its debt and if Greetaly accepts to give up its sovereignty by implementing a fiscal policy imposed by its northern neighbor.
Even then, I believe that in order to have a stable economic scenario, Germanland would need to “double down” and agree to fiscal transfers (or a “Marshall Plan”) benefiting Greetaly, otherwise the depression in the periphery would create social tensions and increase the likelihood of Greetaly eventually choosing to exit the Eurozone.
The only real choice left to Greetaly is to either accept foreign-imposed austerity or to “press the red button”, i.e. choose to default and/or leave the Eurozone now.
Below is a possible payoff matrix for Germanland and Greetaly. What makes it interesting is that short-term and long-term payoffs are different.
Germanland might have a hard time to politically justify another round of bailouts and even more so to launch a “Marshall plan” (with negative short-term effects), but that would be the best choice in the long-term. The bailouts today represent the necessary cost of a solid export-driven economy at nearly full employment.
Similarly, Greetaly would suffer significant shocks in the short term if it decided to default and exit the Eurozone, but on average as a country it would probably enjoy a faster recovery thanks to suddenly higher competitiveness, growing exports, lower debt overhang (as Argentina did).
| |
Germanland “pulls the plug” |
Germanland “assumes the periphery debt” |
Germanland “doubles down” |
| Greetaly “presses the red button” |
Germanland: -20 ST, -10 LT Greetaly: -100 ST, +20 LT |
Germanland: -20 ST, -10 LT Greetaly: -100 ST, +20 LT |
Germanland: -20 ST, -10 LT Greetaly: -100 ST, +20 LT |
| Greetaly “enacts austerity” |
Germanland: -20 ST, -10 LT Greetaly: -100 ST, +20 LT |
Germanland: -15 ST, +5 LT Greetaly: -20 ST, -20 LT |
Germanland: -30 ST, +10 LT Greetaly: -20 ST, +10 LT |
Given that political decisions tend to optimize short-term outcomes and because of the high short-term cost of the Eurozone exit decision by Greetaly, the most likely outcome is the suboptimal box highlighted in yellow. Both Greetaly and Germanland are worse off in the long-term than in the optimal box highlighted in green.
There is a dominant strategy in the long-term, which would be a decision by Greetaly to exit the Eurozone, although at an extremely high short-term cost.