Advertisement

Open Economies Review

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 221–250 | Cite as

A Small Macroeconomic Model of the EU-Accession Countries

  • Bruno Merlevede
  • Joseph Plasmans
  • Bas van Aarle
Article

Abstract

This paper develops a small macro-economic model of the CEECs to analyze various aspects of integration with the current EU and the role of monetary and exchange rate strategies during the (pre-) accession phase. The model gives insight into both the adjustment of the internal balance (as for output and employment) and the external balance (as for exports and competitiveness) in the accession countries. The model provides more insight into the basic macroeconomic relationships governing macroeconomic adjustment in the accession countries and also the role of the integration with the EU in that adjustment. We perform empirical simulations of different scenarios and analyze the resulting macroeconomic adjustment. In particular, we compare how a macroeconomic shock in the current EU is transmitted to the accession countries under flexible and fixed euro exchange rates, respectively.

EU accession macroeconomic modeling macroeconomic policy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arratibel, O., D. Rodríguez-Palenzuela, and C. Thimann (2002) “Inflation Dynamics and Dual Inflation in Accession Countries: A 'New Keynesian' Perspective.” ECB Working Paper no. 132, European Central Bank, Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  2. Buracas, A. and V. Sakalauskas (2001) “Exchange Rates and Structural Changes: Baltics in PreAccession.” mimeoGoogle Scholar
  3. Basdevant, O. (2000) “An Econometric Model of the Russian Federation.” Economic Modelling 17:305–336.Google Scholar
  4. Bofinger, P. and T. Wollmershaeuser (2001) “Is there a Third Way to EMU for the EU Accession Countries?” Economic Systems 25:253–274.Google Scholar
  5. Charemza,W. (1994) “LAM models for East European Economies: General description.” Discussion Paper, University of Gdansk.Google Scholar
  6. Douven, R. and J. Plasmans (1995) “SLIM, A Small Linear Interdependent Model of Eight EU-Member States, the USA and Japan.” Economic Modelling 13:185–233.Google Scholar
  7. Fair, R.C. (2001) “Estimates of the Effectiveness of Monetary Policy.” Yales Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper no. 1298, Yale University.Google Scholar
  8. Golinelli, R. and R. Rovelli (1999) “Monetary Policy and the Convergence to Low Inflation: A Small Macro Model for Hungary and Poland.” 1991–1998, mimeo.Google Scholar
  9. Hall, S., G. Myzon, and A. Welfe (2000) “Modelling Economies in Transition: An Introduction.” Economic Modelling 17(3):339–357.Google Scholar
  10. Juszczak, G., M. Kazmierska, N. Lapinska-Sobczak, and W. Welfe (1993) “Quarterly Model of the Polish Economy in Transition (with Special Emphasis on Financial Flows).” Economic Modelling 10(2):127–149.Google Scholar
  11. Klein, L., A. Welfe, and W. Welfe (1999) “Principles of Macroeconometric Modeling.” Advanced Textbooks in Economics vol. 36. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science BV.Google Scholar
  12. Lättemä, R. and R. Pikkani (2001) “Monetary Transmission Mechanism under Currency Board Arrangement. Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Estimation on Estonian Data.” Bank of Estonia, Central Banking Policy Department and Research Department.Google Scholar
  13. Nenovsky, N., V. Yotzov, and K. Hristov (2000) “Inflation under a Currency Board. The Case of Bulgaria.” mimeo.Google Scholar
  14. OENB (1997) “Monetary Policy in Transition in East and West: Strategies, Instruments and Transmission Mechanisms.” Vienna: Austrian National Bank.Google Scholar
  15. Orlowski, L. (2001) “From Inflation Targeting to the Euro-Peg. A Model of Monetary Convergence for Transition Economies.” Economic Systems 25:233–251.Google Scholar
  16. Plasmans, J. (1999) “Towards a Strategic Multi-Country Model for Trade and Employment in the Baltics.” mimeo.Google Scholar
  17. Schoors, K. (2002) “Should the Central and Eastern European Accession Countries Adopt the Euro Before or After Accession.” Economics of Planning 35:47–77.Google Scholar
  18. Taylor, J. B. (1993) “Discretion versus Policy rules in Practice.” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 39:195–214.Google Scholar
  19. Vinhas de Souza, L. (1999) “Strategies of Exchange Rate Linkages of EU Application Countries and Their Likely Future Developments.” mimeo.Google Scholar
  20. Vinhas de Souza, L. and E. Ledrut (2001) “Alternative Exchange Rate Regimes for pre-EMU Integration: Individual Estimations for the Accession Countries.” mimeo.Google Scholar
  21. Vinhas de Souza, L. (2002) “Integrated Monetary and Exchange Rate Frameworks: Are There Empirical Differences?” Working Paper no. 2 Bank of Estonia.Google Scholar
  22. von Hagen, J. and J. Zhou (2002) “The Choice of Exchange Rate Regimes: An Empirical Analysis for Transition Economies.” CEPR Discussion Paper No. 3289.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno Merlevede
    • 1
  • Joseph Plasmans
    • 1
  • Bas van Aarle
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.LICOSCatholic University LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Applied EconomicsUniversity of NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations