Advertisement

Intereconomics

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 3–9 | Cite as

The economics of enlarging the European Union: Policy reform versus transfers

  • Phedon Nicolaides
Eastern Enlargement

Abstract

While the European Union will hardly be in a position to receive new members without extensive policy and financial reform, the discussion so far has exaggerated the link between reform and enlargement. It has also tended to neglect the economic benefits to be expected from integrating the CEECs into the EU and has been dominated by concerns about intra-EU transfers. In an attempt to placate those member states which have complained that they pay too much, recent proposals could give rise to more inefficiencies and disparities within the Union.

Keywords

Member State Policy Reform Structural Fund Partner Country Trade Diversion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 2.
    R. Baldwin, J. Francols, R. Portes: The Costs and Benefits of Eastern Enlargement, in: Economic Policy, April 1997, pp. 127–176.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    European Commission: Agenda 2000 for a Stronger and Wider Union, July 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Economic Impact Analyses of CAP Reform Proposals, IP/98/892, 15 October 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    For a review and assessment of the proposals in Agenda 2000 see M. Soveroski (ed.): Agenda 2000: An Appraisal of the Commission's Blueprint for Enlargement, Current European Issues, European Institute of Public Administration, Maastricht 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    For a thorough appraisal of the EU's structural operations see the European Commission's First Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, November 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    For a critical view of the latest proposals see F. Bollen: Reform of the EU Structural Funds: Ten Questions on the Magnitude and Direction of Reform, Briefing Paper, European Institute of Public Administration, September 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    European Commission, Financing the European Union: Report on the Operation of the Own Resources System, 7 October 1998.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    For a critical appraisal of the EU financial system see B. Laffan, M. Shackleton: The Budget, in H. Wallace, W. Wallace (eds.): Policy-Making in the European Union, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1996; G. Denton: An EU Perspective on Financial Transfers, paper presented at the conference on ‘Negotiating for Effectual Enlargement’, European Institute, Lodz (PL), 18–20 June 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    See European Commission: First Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, op. cit. November 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    See European Commission: First Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, op. cit. November 1996, and G. Denton, op. cit. An EU Perspective on Financial Transfers, paper presented at the conference on ‘Negotiating for Effectual Enlargement’, European Institute, Lodz (PL), 18–20 June 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Court of Auditors: Special Report on the System of Own Resources Based on VAT and GNP, No 6/98, July 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© HWWA and Springer-Verlag 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phedon Nicolaides
    • 1
  1. 1.MaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations