Regional Integration

  • Peter Coffey
Part of the International Handbooks on Economic Integration book series (IHEI, volume 2)

Abstract

Ever since the creation of the European Economic community (EEC), in 1958, regional groupings, have despite the reservations of many economists, become ever more popular. In fact, one has the impression that the world is turning into a mass of regional groupings. These may take any of the following forms, a co-operation agreement, a free trade agreement, a customs union, a common market and/or an economic and monetary union (EMU).

Keywords

Europe Income Expense Argentina Hine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Viner, Jacob. The Customs Union Issue. New York: Canegie Endowment for International Peace, 1950.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    El-Agraa, Ali M. The Theory and Measurement of International Economic Integration. New York: St. Martin’ s Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhagwati, Jagdish. Regionalism and Multilateralism — An Overview. Washington D. C.: World Bank, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lipsey, RG. The Theory of Customs Unions: A General Survey. The Economic Journal, 1960; 70Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meade, JE. The Theory of Customs Unions. New York: North Holland Publishing Co., 1956.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lipsey, RG, Lancaster KJ. The Theory of the Second Best. Review of Economic Studies, 1956-57; 24Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lipsey, RG. Op. cit.Google Scholar
  8. 3.
    Johnson, HG. An Economic Theory of Protectionism, Tariff Bargaining, and the Formation of Customs Unions. Journal of Political Economy, June, 1965; 73Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scitovsky, Tibor. Economic Theory and Western European Integration. London: George Allen and UNWIN, 1958.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Belassa, Bela. The Theory of Economic Integration. London: George Allen and UNWIN, 1962.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Belgium, France, Germany (West), Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    The basic aims of the Treaty of Rome are the following: 1. The removal of tariffs and quantitative restrictions on internal movements of goods. 2. The establishment of a CET and common commercial policy towards third parties. 3. The removal of obstacles toward movement of: persons, goods, capital, and services. 4. Common Agricultural Policy 5. Common Transport Policy 6. Establishment of a system ensuring that competition shall not be distorted. 7. Coordination of economic policies of Member States and remedy Balance of Payments disequilibria. 8. Approximation of respective municipal law. 9. Creation of a European Social Fund. 10. Establishment of a European Investment Bank. 11. The association of overseas territories and countries with the Community, with a view to increasing trade and to pursuing jointly their efforts towards economic and social development.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Williamson, John. On Estimating the Income Effects of British Entry to the EEC. Warwick: Survey Papers in Economics, 1971.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mayes, David G. “The Effects of Economic Integration on Trade.” In European Internal Market. Alexis Jacquemin and André Sapir, ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peireira, Lia Valls. In MERCOSUL — Perspectivas da Integração, A. Salazar, P. Brandão, L.V. Pereira, eds. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getulio Vargas, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coffey, P. Latin America and MERCOSUR. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998. According to Jorge Lucángeli, the specific aims of the MERCOSUR are: 1. The Free movement of goods, services and productive factors by, among other measures, the elimination of customs duties and non-tariff barriers and any other equivalent measures on the movements of goods. 2. The establishment of a Common External Tariff and the adoption of a common trade policy for third party countries or groups of countries and the coordination of policy stances adopted in regional and international economic and trade forums. 3. The coordination of macroeconomic and sectoral policies between Member States: in fields that include foreign trade, agriculture, industry, fiscal and monetary policies, foreign exchange and capital movements, services, customs, transport and communication, and others to be agreed on, in order to ensure adequate competitive conditions between member states. 4. The commitment to harmonize legislation of member countries in pertinent areas, to reinforce completion of the integration process.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Graham, WC. NAFTA vis-à-vis the EU. Canada-US Law Journal, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    As a trading bloc, however, it is the EU that is the main trading partner and source of investment of the United States.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cameron, Duncan and Mel Watkins. Canada Under Free Trade. Toronto: James Lorimer and Co., 1993.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    One of the best discussions about the polemics surrounding the creation of NAFTA may be found in, Orme, Jr., William A. Understanding NAFTA. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    This criterion establishes that such products must be made with fabrics produced with yarns originating in NAFTA Member States. Furthermore, they must be cut and sewn in NAFTA countries.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ojeda, Raul Hinojosa (and others). North American Integration — Three Years After NAFTA. Los Angeles: North American Integration and Development Center, University of California Los Angeles, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hine, Robert C. Regionalism and the Integration of the World Economy. Journal of Common Market Studies, June 1992; vol. XXX, no. 2Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bhagwati, Jagdish. Op. Cit.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vernon, R. Passing Through Regionalism: The Transition to Global Markets. The World Economy, November 1996; vol. 19, no. 2Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Agreement between the Government of the USA and the Commission of the European Communities Regarding the Application of their Competition Laws, 3 September, 1991, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    European Commission, New Transatlantic Market, Brussels, March 1998.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Interregional Framework Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Southern Common Market and its Party States, of the Other Part. Official Journal of the European Communities, 19 March, 1996, Brussels.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Coffey

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations