Advertisement

The EU Index of Integration Effort

Chapter
Part of the United Nations University Series on Regionalism book series (UNSR, volume 13)

Abstract

Diverging integration efforts or capacities may lead to more economic heterogeneity among countries, thereby challenging present and future steps of European integration. This is why the author measures the general integration efforts of the EU Member States by elaborating composite indicators. There are four dimensions to the indicators: acquis communautaire (measured by “EU Compliance”), Single Market integration (“EU Openness and EU Importance”), Economic and Monetary Union (“EU Symmetry”), and finally, economic convergence (“EU Homogeneity”). The results of the index (based on data for the post-2000 period) indicate an improvement in most of the dimensions, whereas economic convergence has slightly decreased. The analysis reveals that the EU has evolved into a multi-speed Europe, where there are relatively homogenous groups of countries (the core group, EMU opt-outs, CEECs and GIIPS) within a heterogeneous setting.

Keywords

EU EMU Indicators Integration effort Acquis communautaire 

References

  1. Badinger, H., & Breuss, F. (2011). The quantitative effects of European post-war economic integration. In M. N. Jovanovic (Ed.), International handbook on the economics of integration (Vol. III, pp. 285–315). Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  2. Balassa, B. (1961). The theory of economic integration. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin.Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin, R. (1989). The growth effects of 1992. Economic Policy, 9, 247–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boltho, A., & Eichengreen, B. (2008). The economic impact of European integration, CEPR Discussion Paper, (6820). London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.Google Scholar
  5. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cecchini, P., Catinat, M., & Jacquemin, A. (1988). The European challenge, 1992: The benefits of a single market. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
  7. Crowley, P. M. (2006). Is there a logical integration sequence after EMU? Journal of Economic Integration, 21, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Grauwe, P. (2013). The political economy of the Euro. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission. (2013). Internal market scoreboard, (26). Brussels.Google Scholar
  10. Frankel, J., & Rose, A. (1998). The endogeneity of the optimum currency area criteria. Economic Journal, 108, 1009–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hotelling, H. (1933). Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, 417–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ilzkovitz, F., Dierx, A., Kovacs, V., & Sousa, N. (2007). Steps towards a deeper economic integration: The internal market in the 21st century, European Economy – Economic Papers, (271). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  13. König, J., & Ohr, R. (2013). Different efforts in European economic integration: Implications of the EU Index. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51, 1074–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99, 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lockwood, B. (2004). How robust is the Kearney/Foreign policy globalization index? The World Economy, 27, 507–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lucas, R. (1990). Why doesn’t capital flow from rich to poor countries? American Economic Review, 80(2), 92–96.Google Scholar
  17. Molle, W. (2006). The economics of European integration. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  18. Mundell, R. (1961). A theory of optimum currency areas. American Economic Review, 51, 657–665.Google Scholar
  19. Ohr, R. (2009). European monetary union at ten: Had the German Maastricht critics been wrong? (Cege-Discussion Paper, 141).Google Scholar
  20. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and users guide. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  21. Pearson, K. (1901). On lines and places of closest fit to systems of points in space. Philosophical Magazine, 2(6), 559–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 1002–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70, 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spearman, C. (1904). ‘General intelligence’, objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Swan, T. W. (1956). Economic growth and capital accumulation. The Economic Record, 32, 334–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tinbergen, J. (1954). International economic integration. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Market Economy Foundation (Stiftung Marktwirtschaft)BerlinGermany
  2. 2.Georg-August-University of GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations