, Volume 36, Issue 5, pp 235–243 | Cite as

Double talk—The political economy of eastward enlargement of the EU

  • László Csaba


There is an inherent ambiguity in the attitude of the EU towards eastern enlargement. On the one hand, since the Gothenburg Council of June 2001 the EU appears to be at last on the brink of a first round of eastward enlargement. On the other hand, the major internal reforms in the EU which are essential if enlargement is to take place have so far made only unsatisfactory progress. What are the reasons for this situation? What are the perspectives?


Security Policy World Economic Forum Candidate Country Accession Country Eastern Enlargement 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    The chairman of the committee on foreign affairs of the European Parliament labelled the Treaty a “catastrophe”: cf. E. Brok: Post-Nice state of the preparations for EU enlargement, in: INTERECONOMICS, 2001, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 7–11, here p. 7; an Italian counsellor on foreign affairs saw it as a thinly veiled attempt to enhance entry barriers to new entrants: L.V. Ferraris: Ostmitteleuropa: ein neuer Politik-Stil in der EU?—presentation to the 10th anniversary conference of Europa Universitaet Viadrina entitled “Der Beitrag der Ostmitteleuroaeischen Staaten zur erweiterten Europaeischen Union”, Frankfurt an der Oder, 13–14 July 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cf. in detail L. Csaba: Az EU fogadókészsége a Nizzai Szerzödés után (Eastward enlargeability of the EU after the Nice Treaty), in: Európai Tükör, Vol. 6, Nos. 2–3, 2001, pp. 30–50.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Baldwin, E. Berglöf, F. Giavazzi, M. Widgren: Nice Try: Should the Treaty of Nice Be Ratified?, in: Monitoring European Integration series, No. 11, CEPR, London, June 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    P. Barnevik, H. Grabbe, E. Vaes: Opening up: the business opportunities of EU enlargement, Message of the European Round Table of Industrialists to the Gothenburg Council and the World Economic Forum, June 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    D. Moisi: Caught between enlargement and globalisation, in: Financial Times, 15 January 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    D. McCoy, J. McHale: Ireland's example to the east, in: Financial Times, 3 July 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    G. Howe: A middle way for Europe, in: Financial Times, 28 November 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    R. Bates, A. O. Krueger: Generalisations arising from the country studies, in: R. Bates, A. O. Krueger (eds.): Political and Economic Interactions in Economic Policy Reform, Oxford etc. 1992, Basil Blackwell, pp. 444–472, here pp. 457 f.Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    J. Nötzold: Der EU-Beitritt Polens: die Bereiche Freizügigkeit, Landwirtschaft, industrielle Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, in: Integration, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2000, pp. 198–208.Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    Cf. L. Csaba: Mitteleuropa auf dem Weg zum EU-Beitritt. in: H.-J. Wagener, H. Fritz (eds): Im Osten was Neues. Aspekte der EU-Osterweiterung, Bonn 1998. Dietz Verlag für SEF, pp. 44–67.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    As reported in: Világgazdaság, 11 July, 2001.Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    B. Huber: Eine neue EU-Steuer? Nein, danken, in: Handelsblatt, 10 July 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 15.
    F. Bolkestein, A. Diamantopoulou: Workers without futures, in: Financial Times, 29 January 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 16.
    F. Fischler: The CAP Must Continue to Adapt to Society's Evolving Expectations, in: INTERECONOMICS, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2001, pp. 115–118, here p. 117.Google Scholar
  15. 17.
    U. Koester: How Good Are the Prospects for a Genuine Policy Reform?, in: INTERECONOMICS, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2001, pp. 125–130, here p. 129.Google Scholar
  16. 18.
    R. C. Berschens: EU Parlament verlangt mehr Mitsprache, in: Handelsblatt, 26 March 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 19.
    Cf. Financial Times, 28 March, 2001 and Handelsblatt, 26 March, 2001.Google Scholar
  18. 21.
    G. Verheugen: Die EU-Erweiterungsverhandlungen: Stand und Ausblick, in: Integration, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2000, pp. 221–228, here p. 221.Google Scholar
  19. 22.
    H. Grabbe: Profiting from EU enlargement, London 2001, Centre for European Reform, pp. 55–60.Google Scholar
  20. 23.
    M. Maier: Haiders Schatten über Europa. Lehren aus de EU-Boykott gegen Österreich, in: Internationale Politik, Vol. 55, No. 4, 2000, pp. 29–35.Google Scholar
  21. 24.
    P. Majoros: The role of CEFTA in “member states” EU integration efforts, in: EU Working Papers, No. 2, Budapest 1998, College of Foreign Trade.Google Scholar
  22. 25.
    J. Reed: Polish EU negotiator prefers the long game, in: Financial Times, 3 July 2001.Google Scholar
  23. 26.
    G. Urkuti: A bövítés elsö körének lebegtetése (The floating of the first round of EU enlargement), in: Világgazdaság, 29 March 2001.Google Scholar
  24. 27.
    C. Grant: The perils of European enlargement, in: Financial Times, 28 June 2001.Google Scholar
  25. 28.
    Cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 14 July 2001.Google Scholar
  26. 29.
    H. Grabbe, op. cit. Profiting from EU enlargement, London 2001, Centre for European Reform, p. 61.Google Scholar
  27. 30.
    A. Nagy: Lessons drawn from the EU accession of three southern European states and its effect on foreign trade, in: Acta Oeconomica, Vol. 50, Nos. 3–4, 1999, pp. 385–412.Google Scholar
  28. 31.
    A. Boltho: What matters for economic success? Greece and Ireland compared, in: Z. Bara and L. Csaba (eds.): Small Economies' Adjustment to Global Tendencies, Budapest 2000, Aula Publ. Co. for the European Association for Comparative Economic Studies, pp. 151–170.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© HWWA and Springer-Verlag 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • László Csaba
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Central European UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Budapest University of Economics and Public AdministrationHungary
  3. 3.Universitas DebrecenHungary

Personalised recommendations