Advertisement

An Evaluation of the EU’s Fifth Enlargement with Special Focus on Bulgaria and Romania

  • Fritz Breuss
Chapter

Abstract

The fifth EU enlargement in 2004 and 2007 not only extended the Single European Market, but it also led to the enlargement of the euro zone, which since 2009, encompasses 16 out of 27 EU Member States. Moreover, the Schengen area has also been expanded to include 25 European countries (22 EU Member States). A first evaluation shows that the new member countries have already been able to benefit noticeably from their participation in the single market (SM), despite being not yet fully integrated labour markets. However, the international financial crisis also shadows onto the economies of the new Member States. After an ex post evaluation, the possible future integration effects of EU’s 2007 enlargement by Bulgaria and Romania are simulated with a simple macro-economic integration model able to encompass as many of the theoretically predicted integration effects as possible. The direct integration effects of Bulgaria and Romania spill-over to the old Member States, including Austria and the ten new Member States of the 2004 EU enlargement. The pattern of the integration effects is qualitatively similar to those of EU’s 2004 enlargement by ten new Member States. Bulgaria and Romania gain much more from EU accession than the incumbents, in the proportion of 20:1. In the medium-run up to 2020, Bulgaria and Romania can expect a sizable overall integration gain, amounting to an additional 1/2% point real GDP growth per annum. Among the incumbent EU Member States, Austria will gain somewhat more (+0.05%) than the average of EU-15 (+0.02%) and the ten new EU Member States (+0.01%), which joined the EU in 2004.

Keywords

Member State Euro Area Trade Cost Grand Unify Theory Single Market 
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.

References

  1. Altzinger, W. (5–6 May 2006). On the earnings of Austrian affiliations in the new EU member countries. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Austrian Economic Association, NOeG 2006, Vienna.Google Scholar
  2. Badinger, H. (2005). Growth effects of economic integration: evidence from the EU member states. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 141(1), 50–78.Google Scholar
  3. Badinger, H. (2007). Has the EU’s single market programme fostered competition? Testing for a decrease in mark-up ratios in EU industries. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(4), 497–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Badinger, H., & Breuss, F. (2006). Country size and the gains from trade bloc enlargement: an empirical assessment for the European Community. Review of International Economics, 14(4), 615–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Badinger, H., & Breuss, F. (2008a). Trade and productivity: an industry perspective. Empirica, 35(2), 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Badinger, H., & Breuss, F. (2008b). Country size and the trade effects of the euro. Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), 145(2), 207–223.Google Scholar
  7. Baldwin, R. (2006a). In or out: does it matter? An evidence-based analysis of the euro’s trade effects. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR). 2006.Google Scholar
  8. Baldwin, R. (August 2006b). Multilateralising regionalism: spaghetti bowls as building blocs on the path to global free trade. CEPR, Discussion Paper, No. 5775, London.Google Scholar
  9. Baldwin, R., & Venables, A. J. (1995). Regional economic integration. In G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (Eds.), Handbook of international economics (Vol. III, pp. 1597–1644). Amsterdam, Lausanne, New York, Oxford, Shannon, Tokyo: Elsevier Science B.V.Google Scholar
  10. Belke, A., & Spies, J. (18–19 May 2007). Enlarging the EMU to the east: what effects on trade? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Austrian Economic Association (NOeG 2007), Klagenfurt University.Google Scholar
  11. Bhagwati, J. N. (1995). U.S. trade policy: the infatuation with free trade areas. In J. N. Bhagwati & A. O. Krueger (Eds.), The fangerous drift to preferential trade agreements (pp. 1–18). Washington, DC: The AEI Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bond, E. W., Riezman, R. G., & Syropoulos, C. (2004). A strategic and welfare theoretic analysis of free trade areas. Journal of International Economics, 64(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Borjas, G. J. (1995). The economic benefits from immigration. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Breuss, F. (2002). Benefits and dangers of EU enlargement. Empirica, 29(3), 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Breuss, F. (Ed.). (2007a). The stability and growth pact: experiences and future aspects. Wien, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Breuss, F. (2007b). Erweiterungs- und nachbarschaftspolitik der EU. WIFO-Monatsberichte, 8(2007), 641–660.Google Scholar
  17. Breuss, F. (2007c). Erfahrungen mit der fünfte EU-erweiterung. WIFO-Monatsberichte, 12(2007), 933–950.Google Scholar
  18. Breuss, F. (2007d). Globalization, EU enlargement and income distribution. WIFO Working Papers, No. 296, June 2007 and FIW Working Papers, No. 008, http://www.fiw.ac.at.
  19. Breuss, F. (2008a). Die Zukunft Europas. Beitrag zum Außenwirtschaftsleitbild des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Arbeit (BMWA), Wien, Mai.Google Scholar
  20. Breuss, F. (2008b). EU und Globalisierung. Wirtschaftspolitische Blätter, 55. Jg., 3/2008, 561–578.Google Scholar
  21. Breuss, F. (2009). An evaluation of the EU’s fifth enlargement: with special focus on Bulgaria and Romania. European Economy, Economic Papers, 361.Google Scholar
  22. Breuss, F., Fink, G., & Griller, S. (Eds.). (2008). Services liberalisation in the internal market. Wien, New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Casella, A. (1996). Large countries, small countries and the enlargement of trade blocs. European Economic Review, 40(2), 389–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Corden, M. W. (1972). Economies of scale and customs union theory. Journal of Political Economy, 80(3), 465–475. Part 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Crawford, J.-A., & Fiorentino, R.V. (2005). The changing landscape of regional trade agreements. Discussion Paper, No. 8, Geneva: World Trade Organization.Google Scholar
  26. D’Auria, F., Mc Morrow, K., Pichelmann, K. (2008). Economic impact of migration flows following the 2004 EU enlargement process: a model based analysis. European Economy, Economic Papers, 349.Google Scholar
  27. Dimaranan, B. V. (Ed.). (2006). Global trade, assistance, and production: the GTAP 6 data base. Center for global trade analysis. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.Google Scholar
  28. European Commission (2006). Enlargement, two years after: an economic evaluation. European Commission, European Economy, Occasional Papers, No. 24, Brussels.Google Scholar
  29. European Commission (2009). European economic forecast: autumn 2009, European Economy 10/2009.Google Scholar
  30. Frankel, J. A., & Romer, D. (1999). Does trade cause growth? The American Economic Review, 89(3), 279–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fuchs, M. (2006). Österreich als aktiver Investor in der globalisierten Wirtschaft: Zahlungsbilanz im Jahr 2005. Statistiken Q3/06, Oesterreichische Nationalbank (OeNB), Wien.Google Scholar
  32. Grossman, G., & Helpman, E. (1991). Innovation and growth in the world economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  33. Kemp, M., & Wan, H. Y. (1976). An elementary proposition concerning the formation of customs unions. Journal of International Economics, 6(1), 95–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kennan, J., & Riezman, R. (1990). Optimal tariff equilibria with customs unions. Canadian Journal of Economics, 23(1), 70–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kohler, W. (2004). Eastern enlargement of the EU: a comprehensive welfare assessment. Journal of Policy Modeling, 26(7), 865–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krugman, P. R. (1991). Geography and trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  37. Lewer, J. J., & Van den Berg, H. (2003). How large is international trade’s effect on economic growth. Journal of Economic Surveys, 17(3), 363–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lloyd, P. J. (1982). 3×3 theory of customs unions. Journal of International Economics, 12, 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Neck, R. &. Weyerstrass, K. (18–19 May 2007). Macroeconomic effects of Slovenia’s euro area integration. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Austrian Economic Association, NOeG 2007, Klagenfurt University.Google Scholar
  40. Ohyama, M. (2004). Free trade agreements and economic welfare: beyond the KempWan theorem. Keio University, KUMQRP Discussion Paper Series, DP2003-11, February.Google Scholar
  41. Richardson, M. (1995). On the interpretation of the Kemp/Wan theorem. Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, 47(4), 696–703.Google Scholar
  42. Rivera-Batiz, L. A., & Romer, P. M. (1991). Economic integration and endogenous growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, CVI(2), 531–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71–S102. Part II.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Viner, J. (1950). The customs union issue. New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fritz Breuss
    • 1
  1. 1.Vienna University of Economics and BusinessViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations