What Is Austerity?

The term austerity refers to a set of economic policies that a government implements in order to control public sector debt. Governments put austerity measures in place when their public debt is so large that the risk of default or the inability to service the required payments on its obligations becomes a real possibility.

In short, austerity helps bring financial health back to governments. Default risk can spiral out of control quickly and, as an individual, company, or country slips further into debt, lenders will charge a higher rate of return for future loans, making it more difficult for the borrower to raise capital.

How Austerity Works

Governments experience financial instability when their debt outweighs the amount of revenue they receive, resulting in large budget deficits. Debt levels generally increase when government spending increases. As mentioned above, this means that there is a greater chance that federal governments can default on their debts. Creditors, in turn, demand higher interest to avoid the risk of default on these debts. In order to satisfy their creditors and control their debt levels, they may have to take certain measures.

Austerity only takes place when this gap—between government receipts and government expenditures—shrinks. This situation occurs when governments spend too much or when they take on too much debt. As such, a government may need to consider austerity measures when it owes more money to its creditors than it receives in revenues. Implementing these measures helps put confidence back into the economy while helping restore some semblance of balance to government budgets.

Austerity measures indicate that governments are willing to take steps to bring some degree of financial health back to their budgets. As a result, creditors may be willing to lower interest rates on debt when austerity measures are in place. But there may be certain conditions on these moves.

For instance, interest rates on Greek debt fell following its first bailout. However, the gains were limited to the government having decreased interest rate expenses. Although the private sector was unable to benefit, the major beneficiaries of lower rates are large corporations. Consumers benefited only marginally from lower rates, but the lack of sustainable economic growth kept borrowing at depressed levels despite the lower rates.

Special Considerations

A reduction in government spending doesn’t simply equate to austerity. In fact, governments may need to implement these measures during certain cycles of the economy.

For example, the global economic downturn that began in 2008 left many governments with reduced tax revenues and exposed what some believed were unsustainable spending levels. Several European countries, including the United Kingdom, Greece, and Spain, turned to austerity as a way to alleviate budget concerns.

Austerity became almost imperative during the global recession in Europe, where eurozone members didn’t have the ability to address mounting debts by printing their own currency. Thus, as their default risk increased, creditors put pressure on certain European countries to aggressively tackle spending.

Types of Austerity

Broadly speaking, there are three primary types of austerity measures:

• Generating revenue generation through higher taxes. This method often supports more government spending. The goal is to stimulate growth with spending and capturing benefits through taxation.
• The Angela Merkel model. Named after the German chancellor, this measure focuses on raising taxes while cutting nonessential government functions.
• Lower taxes and lower government spending. This is the preferred method of free-market advocates.

Taxes

There is some disagreement among economists about the effect of tax policy on the government budget. Former Ronald Reagan adviser Arthur Laffer famously argued that strategically cutting taxes would spur economic activity, paradoxically leading to more revenue.

Still, most economists and policy analysts agree that raising taxes will raise revenues. This was the tactic that many European countries took. For example, Greece increased value-added tax (VAT) rates to 23% in 2010. The government raised income tax rates on upper-income scales, along with adding new property taxes.

Reducing Government Spending

The opposite austerity measure is reducing government spending. Most consider this to be a more efficient means of reducing the deficit. New taxes mean new revenue for politicians, who are inclined to spend it on constituents.

Spending takes many forms, including grants, subsidies, wealth redistribution, entitlement programs, paying for government services, providing for the national defense, benefits to government employees, and foreign aid. Any reduction in spending is a de facto austerity measure.

At its simplest, an austerity program that is usually enacted by legislation may include one or more of the following measures:

• A cut or a freeze—without raises—of government salaries and benefits
• A freeze on government hiring and layoffs of government workers
• A reduction or elimination of government services, temporarily or permanently
• Government pension cuts and pension reform
• Interest on newly issued government securities may be cut, making these investments less attractive to investors, but reducing government interest obligations
• Cuts to previously planned government spending programs such as infrastructure construction and repair, health care, and veterans’ benefits
• An increase in taxes, including income, corporate, property, sales, and capital gains taxes
• A reduction or increase in the money supply and interest rates by the Federal Reserve as circumstances dictate to resolve the crisis.
• Rationing of critical commodities, travel restrictions, price freezes, and other economic controls, particularly in times of war

Criticism of Austerity

The effectiveness of austerity remains a matter of sharp debate. While supporters argue that massive deficits can suffocate the broader economy, thereby limiting tax revenue, opponents believe that government programs are the only way to make up for reduced personal consumption during a recession. Cutting government spending, many believe, leads to large-scale unemployment. Robust public sector spending, they suggest, reduces unemployment and therefore increases the number of income-tax payers. 

Economists such as John Maynard Keynes, a British thinker who fathered the school of Keynesian economics, believe that it is the role of governments to increase spending during a recession to replace falling private demand. The logic is that if demand is not propped up and stabilized by the government, unemployment will continue to rise and the economic recession will be prolonged.

But austerity runs contradictory to certain schools of economic thought that have been prominent since the Great Depression. In an economic downturn, falling private income reduces the amount of tax revenue that a government generates. Likewise, government coffers fill up with tax revenue during an economic boom. The irony is that public expenditures, such as unemployment benefits, are needed more during a recession than a boom.

Examples of Austerity

United States

Perhaps the most successful model of austerity, at least in response to a recession, occurred in the United States between 1920 and 1921. The unemployment rate in the U.S. economy jumped from 4% to almost 12%. Real gross national product (GNP) declined almost 20%—greater than any single year during the Great Depression or Great Recession.

President Warren G. Harding responded by cutting the federal budget by almost 50%. Tax rates were reduced for all income groups, and the debt dropped by more than 30%. In a speech in 1920, Harding declared that his administration “will attempt intelligent and courageous deflation, and strike at government borrowing…[and] will attack high cost of government with every energy and facility.”

Greece

In exchange for bailouts, the EU and European Central Bank (ECB) embarked on an austerity program that sought to bring Greece’s finances under control. The program cut public spending and increased taxes often at the expense of Greece’s public workers and was very unpopular. Greece’s deficit has dramatically decreased, but the country’s austerity program has been a disaster in terms of healing the economy.

Mainly, austerity measures have failed to improve the financial situation in Greece because the country is struggling with a lack of aggregate demand. It is inevitable that aggregate demand declines with austerity. Structurally, Greece is a country of small businesses rather than large corporations, so it benefits less from the principles of austerity, such as lower interest rates. These small companies do not benefit from a weakened currency, as they are unable to become exporters.

While most of the world followed the financial crisis in 2008 with years of lackluster growth and rising asset prices, Greece has been mired in its own depression. Greece’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010 was $299.36 billion. In 2014, its GDP was $235.57 billion according to the United Nations. This is staggering destruction in the country’s economic fortunes, akin to the Great Depression in the United States in the 1930s.

Greece’s problems began following the Great Recession, as the country was spending too much money relative to tax collection. As the country’s finances spiraled out of control and interest rates on sovereign debt exploded higher, the country was forced to seek bailouts or default on its debt. Default carried the risk of a full-blown financial crisis with a complete collapse of the banking system. It would also be likely to lead to an exit from the euro and the European Union.

What Is an Available Balance?

The available balance is the balance in checking or on-demand accounts that is free for use by the customer or account holder. These are funds that are available for immediate use, and includes deposits, withdrawals, transfers, and any other activity that has already cleared to or from the account. A credit card account’s available balance is normally referred to as available credit.

An account holder’s available balance may be different from the current balance. The current balance generally includes any pending transactions that haven’t been cleared.

Understanding Available Balance

As noted above, the available balance represents the funds available for immediate use in a customer’s account. This balance is updated continuously throughout the day. Any activity that takes place in the account—whether that’s a transaction done through the teller, an automated teller machine (ATM), at a store, or online—affects this balance. It does not include any pending transactions that have yet to clear.

When you log into your online banking portal, you will normally see two balances at the top: The available balance and the current balance. The current balance is what you have in your account all the time. This figure includes any transactions that have not cleared such as checks.

Depending on both the issuing bank and the receiving bank’s policies, check deposits may take anywhere from one to two days to clear. This process may take much longer if the check is drawn on a non-bank or foreign institution. The time between when a check is deposited and when it is available is often called the float time.

A customer’s available balance becomes important when there is a delay in crediting funds to an account. If an issuing bank has not cleared a check deposit, for example, the funds will not be available to the account holder, even though they may show up in the account’s current balance.

Using the Available Balance

Customers can use the available balance in any way they choose, as long as they don’t exceed the limit. They should also take into consideration any pending transactions that haven’t been added or deducted from the balance. A customer may be able to withdraw funds, write checks, do a transfer, or even make a purchase with their debit card up to the available balance.

For example, your bank account balance can be $1,500, but your available balance may only be $1,000. That extra $500 may be due to a pending transfer to another account for $350, an online purchase you made for $100, a check you deposited for $400 that hasn’t cleared yet because the bank put it on hold, and a pre-authorized payment for your car insurance for $450. You can use any amount up to $1,000 without incurring any extra fees or charges from your bank. If you go beyond that, you may go into overdraft, and there may be issues with the pending transactions.

Available Balance and Check Holds

Banks may decide to place holds on checks under the following circumstances, which affect your available balance:

• If the check is above $5,000, the bank can place a hold on whatever amount exceeds $5,000. However, said amount must be made available within a reasonable time, usually two to five business days.
• Banks may hold checks from accounts that are repeatedly overdrawn. This includes accounts with a negative balance on six or more banking days in the most recent six-month period and account balances that were negative by $5,000 or more two times in the most recent six-month period.
• If a bank has reasonable cause to doubt the collectibility of a check, it can place a hold. This can occur in some instances of postdated checks, checks dated six (or more) months prior, and checks that the paying institution deemed it will not honor. Banks must provide notice to customers of doubtful collectibility.
• A bank may hold checks deposited during emergency conditions, such as natural disasters, communications malfunctions, or acts of terrorism. A bank may hold such checks until conditions permit it to provide the available funds.
• Banks may hold deposits into the accounts of new customers, who are defined as those who have held their accounts for less than 30 days. Banks may choose an availability schedule for new customers.

Banks may not hold cash or electronic payments, along with the first $5,000 of traditional checks that are not in question. On July 1, 2018, new amendments to Regulation CC—Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks—issued by the Federal Reserve took effect to address the new environment of electronic check collection and processing systems, including rules about remote deposit capture and warranties for electronic checks and electronic returned checks.

Special Considerations

There are cases that can affect your account balance—both negatively and positively—and how you can use it. Electronic banking makes our lives easier, allowing us to schedule payments and allow for direct deposits at regular intervals. Remember to keep track of all your pre-authorized payments—especially if you have multiple payments coming out at different times every month. And if your employer offers direct deposit, take advantage of it. Not only does it save you a trip to the bank every payday, but it also means you can use your pay right away.

What Was the Asian Financial Crisis?

The Asian financial crisis, also called the “Asian Contagion,” was a sequence of currency devaluations and other events that began in July 1997 and spread across Asia. The crisis started in Thailand when the government ended the local currency’s de facto peg to the U.S. dollar after depleting much of the country’s foreign exchange reserves trying to defend it against months of speculative pressure.

Just weeks after Thailand stopped defending its currency, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia were also compelled to let their currencies fall as speculative market pressure built. By October, the crisis spread to South Korea, where a balance-of-payments crisis brought the government to the brink of default.

Other economies also came under pressure, but those with solid economic fundamentals and hefty foreign exchange reserves fared much better. Hong Kong fended off several major but unsuccessful speculative attacks on its currency, which is pegged to the U.S. dollar via a currency board system and backed by massive U.S. dollar reserves. 

Impact of the Asian Financial Crisis

As the Thai baht fell, other Asian currencies fell—some precipitously. Across Asia, inflows of capital slowed or reversed.

The Thai baht had been trading at about 26 to the U.S. dollar before the crisis but lost half its value by the end of 1997, falling to 53 to the dollar by January 1998. The South Korean won fell from about 900 to the dollar to 1,695 by the end of 1997. The Indonesian rupiah, which had been trading at around 2,400 to the dollar in June 1997, plummeted to 14,900 by June 1998, less than one-sixth its precrisis level.

Some of the more heavily affected countries fell into severe recession. Indonesia’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth fell from 4.7% in 1997 to -13.1% in 1998. In the Philippines, it slid from 5.2% to -0.5% over the same period. Malaysia’s GDP growth similarly slid from 7.3% in 1997 to -7.4% in 1998, while South Korea’s contracted from 6.2% to -5.1%.

In Indonesia, the ensuing economic crisis led to the collapse of the three-decade-old dictatorship of President Suharto.

The crisis was alleviated by intervention from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and The World Bank, among others, which poured some $118 billion into Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea to bail out their economies.

As a result of the the crisis, affected countries restructured their economies, generally because the IMF required reform as a condition of help. The specific policy changes were different in each country but generally involved strengthening weak financial systems, lowering debt levels, raising interest rates to stabilize currencies, and cutting government spending.

The crisis also serves as a valuable case study for economists to understand how interwoven markets affect one another, especially as it relates to currency trading and national accounts management.

Causes of the Asian Financial Crisis

The crisis was rooted in several threads of industrial, financial, and monetary government policies and the investment trends that they created. Once the crisis began, markets reacted strongly, and one currency after another came under pressure. Some of the macroeconomic problems included current account deficits, high levels of foreign debt, climbing budget deficits, excessive bank lending, poor debt-service ratios, and imbalanced capital inflows and outflows.

Many of these problems were the result of policies to promote export-led economic growth in the years leading up to the crisis. Governments worked closely with manufacturers to support exports, including providing subsidies to favored businesses, more favorable financing, and a currency peg to the U.S. dollar to ensure an exchange rate favorable to exporters.

While this did support exports, it also created risk. Explicit and implicit government guarantees to bail out domestic industries and banks meant investors often did not assess the profitability of an investment but instead looked to its political support. Investment policies also created cozy relationships among local conglomerates, financial institutions, and the regulators who oversaw their industries. Large volumes of foreign money flowed in, often with little attention to potential risks. These factors all contributed to a massive moral hazard in Asian economies, encouraging major investment in marginal and potentially unsound projects.

As the crisis spread, it became clear that the impressive economic growth rates in these countries were concealing serious vulnerabilities. In particular, domestic credit had expanded rapidly for years, often poorly supervised, creating significant leverage along with loans extended to dubious projects. Rapidly rising real estate values (often fueled by easy access to credit) contributed to the problem, along with rising current account deficits and a buildup in external debt. Heavy foreign borrowing, often at short maturities, also exposed corporations and banks to significant exchange rate and funding risks—risks that had been masked by long-standing currency pegs. When the pegs fell apart, companies that owed money in foreign currencies suddenly owed a lot more in local currency terms, forcing many into insolvency.

Many Asian economies had also slid into current account deficits. If a country has a current account surplus, that means it is essentially a net lender to the rest of the world. If the current account balance is negative, then the country is a net borrower from the rest of the world. Current account deficits had grown on the back of heavy government spending (much of it directed to supporting continued export growth).

Response to the Asian Financial Crisis

The IMF intervened to stem the crisis with loans to stabilize the affected economies. The IMF and others lent roughly $118 billion in short-term loans to Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea. The bailouts came with conditions, though: Governments had to raise taxes, cut spending, and eliminate many subsidies. By 1999, many of the affected countries began to show signs of recovery.

Other financial institutions also intervened. For example, in December 1997, the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank brokered a deal under which U.S. banks owed money by South Korean companies on short-term loans voluntarily agreed to roll them over into medium-term loans.

Lessons from the Asian Financial Crisis

Many of the lessons of the Asian financial crisis remain relevant today. First, beware of asset bubbles, as they have a habit of bursting. Another is that governments need to control spending and pursue prudent economic development policies.

The Bottom Line

In 1997, decades of economic policy planning that featured close relationships among government policy planners, regulators, the industries they regulated, and financial institutions came to a head when markets began putting downward pressure on Asian currencies. The most vulnerable were those countries with high levels of debt and insufficient financing to pay it.

The IMF stepped in to bail out the most affected economies, but it imposed strict conditions in exchange for the help. Some measures included requiring governments to cut spending, raise taxes, eliminate subsidies, and restructure their financial systems.

The crisis also serves as a case study in asset bubbles and how quickly panic selling can trigger contagion that central bankers cannot control.

What Is the Automated Clearing House (ACH)?

The Automated Clearing House (ACH) is an electronic funds-transfer system run by Nacha. The Automated Clearing House traces its roots back to the late 1960s but was officially established in the mid-1970s. The payment system provides many types of ACH transactions, such as payroll deposits. It requires a debit or credit from the originator and a credit or debit on the recipient’s end.

How the Automated Clearing House (ACH) Works

The ACH Network is an electronic system that serves financial institutions to facilitate financial transactions in the U.S. It represents more than 10,000 financial institutions and ACH transactions totaled more than $72.6 trillion in 2021 by enabling over 29 billion electronic financial transactions.

The network essentially acts as a financial hub and helps people and organizations move money from one bank account to another. ACH transactions consist of deposits and payments, including:

Here’s how the system works. An originator starts a direct deposit or direct payment transaction using the ACH network via debit and credit. The originator’s bank, also known as the originating depository financial institution, takes the ACH transaction and batches it together with other ACH transactions to be sent out at regular times throughout the day.

An ACH operator, either the Federal Reserve or a clearinghouse, receives the batch of ACH transactions from the originating institution with the originator’s transaction. The ACH operator sorts the batch and makes transactions available to the bank or financial institution of the intended recipient, also known as the receiving depository financial institution. The recipient’s bank account receives the transaction, thus reconciling both accounts and ending the process.

Special Considerations

The ACH payment system is offered by Nacha. Formerly known as the National Automated Clearing House Association, it’s a self-regulating institution. The ACH network’s history dates back to 1968 but wasn’t officially established until 1974.

This network manages, develops, and administers the rules surrounding electronic payments. The organization’s operating rules are designed to facilitate growth in the size and scope of electronic payments within the network.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the ACH

Advantages

Because the ACH Network batches financial transactions together and processes them at specific intervals throughout the day, it makes online transactions extremely fast and easy. NACHA rules state that the average ACH debit transaction settles within one business day, and the average ACH credit transaction settles within one to two business days.

The use of the ACH network to facilitate electronic transfers of money has also increased the efficiency and timeliness of government and business transactions. More recently, ACH transfers have made it easier and cheaper for individuals to send money to each other directly from their bank accounts by direct deposit transfer or e-check.

ACH for individual banking services typically took two or three business days for monies to clear, but starting in 2016, NACHA rolled out in three phases for same-day ACH settlement. Phase 3, which launched in March 2018, requires RDFIs to make same-day ACH credit and debit transactions available to the receiver for withdrawal no later than 5 p.m. in the RDFI’s local time on the settlement date of the transaction, subject to the right of return under NACHA rules.

Disadvantages

Certain financial institutions may restrict the amount of money you can transfer. If you want to do a large transfer, you may have to do this in multiple steps. For instance, if you’re transferring money to your child who’s away in college, you may be limited to transfers of $1,000. If they need more for books and rent, you will be required to send more than one transfer.

Some banks charge fees for ACH transactions. And this can be a per-transaction fee. If you’re used to doing multiple transactions, this can add up and put a big dent in your bottom line.

The ACH network only works between U.S. accounts. This means that you can’t conduct any transactions that are meant for international transfers using this payment system. So if you want to send money to someone abroad, you must do so using a wire transfer or other similar payment processing network. As such, the transaction will not necessarily be executed on the same day.

The Bottom Line

Sending money to someone else used to be a big hassle. But the advent of electronic technology is making things much easier. The Automated Clearing House or ACH facilitates transfers between banks. This eliminates the need for withdrawing money from one account and depositing it into another. The network is updated to allow businesses and individuals to execute transactions on the same day. But keep in mind that there are restrictions—notably, that you can’t send money internationally. You may also be limited in how much you can transfer and you may end up incurring fees. Check with your bank about how it handles ACH transactions.