Advertisement

Intereconomics

, Volume 35, Issue 6, pp 264–273 | Cite as

EU integration of transition countries: Overlap of requisites and remaining tasks

  • Daniel Piazolo
EU Enlargement

Abstract

Transition and reorientation towards Western Europe have been the two decisive challenges for the Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) since 1989. Whereas in the early 1990s the transition from the central planning system to a market economy was the main goal of economic policies, the requirements for closer integration with the Western European countries have since then increasingly gained in importance. How do the two processes overlap? What requirements remain to be met before the candidate countries can join the European Union?

Keywords

Gross Domestic Product Eastern European Country Free Trade Agreement Transition Country Candidate Country 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 2.
    H. Siebert: The New Economic Landscape in Europe, Basil Blackwell, Oxford 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    H. Siebert: The World Economy, Routledge, Cambridge 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    The link between institutional reforms and economic growth as well as the progress in transition towards a market economy in 25 transition countries is discussed more closely in D. Piazolo: Growth Effects of Institutional Change and European Integration, in: Economic Systems, Vol. 23, No. 4, 1999, pp. 305–330. A more fundamental description of the overall societal effects of the transition from socialism to capitalism is offered by J. Kornai: What the Change of Systems from Socialism to Capitalism does and does not mean, in: Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2000, pp. 27–42.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    European Commission: Towards greater Economic Integration— Central and Eastern Europe: Trade, Investment and Assistance of the European Union, Brussels 1999.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Consequently, D. Gros, M. Suhrcke: Ten Years After: What is Special about Transition Countries?, HWWA Discussion Paper No. 86, Hamburg Institute of International Economics, Hamburg 2000, conclude that transition has apparently been accomplished in Central Europe. However, as the latest annual reports from the European Commission (European Commission: 1999 Regular Report from the Commission on Progress towards Accession— Overall Report, Brussels 1999; European Commission: 1999 Regular Report from the Commission on Progress towards Accession—Single Country Reports, Brussels 1999) on the CEECs' progress towards accession discuss, the CEECs still have to advance in their reform process. In this perspective, the transition towards a market economy that can stand the competitive pressures within a common market of advanced industrialized economies still continues.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    The preambles mentioned only the CEECs' desire for full EU membership (cf. R. J. Langhammer: Die Assoziierungsabkommen mit der CSFR, Polen und Ungarn: wegweisend oder abweisend?, Kiel Discussion Papers No. 182, Institute of World Economics, Kiel 1992, p. 3).Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Cf. European Commission: Towards greater Economic Integration … op. cit. Central and Eastern Europe: Trade, Investment and Assistance of the European Union, Brussels 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Poland has been granted an exception for certain products of the car industry, allowing the gradual reduction of the tariffs over a longer time period. Similarly, Hungary has obtained an exception for steel products (cf. European Commission, ibid. Cf. European Commission: Towards greater Economic Integration … op. cit. Central and Eastern Europe: Trade, Investment and Assistance of the European Union, Brussels 1999.).Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Cf. B. Kaminski: The EU Factor in the Trade Policies of Central European Countries, Policy Research Working Paper No. 2239, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. 1999. The breakdown of intra-CMEA trade and the striking trade (re-)orientation of the CEECs towards the EU are examined in D. Piazolo: Trade Integration between Eastern and Western Europe: Policies Follow the Market, in: Journal of Economic Integration, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1997, pp. 259–297.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Cf. H. Siebert: The World Economy, op. cit.. p. 189.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    Cf. C. Preston, op. cit.Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    Cf. C. Preston, op. cit.Google Scholar
  13. 15.
    Cf. Negotiation Delegation (Delegation for Cyprus-EU Accession Negotiations): The Negotiation Procedure: The Acquis Communautaire, http://www.cyprus-eu.org.cy/eng/04_negotiation_procedure/acquis_communautaire.htm, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 16.
    This has been examined, for example, by the World Bank for the case of Poland (World Bank: Poland—Country Economic Memorandum: Reform and Growth on the Road to the EU, Report No. 16858-Pol, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region, World Bank, Washington, D.C. 1997). Extending this World Bank study, J. Bucknall: Poland: Complying with EU Environmental Legislation, World Bank Technical Paper No. 454, World Bank, Washington, D.C. 1999, examines the costs of Poland's compliance with EU environmental standards as ascertained by the acquis.Google Scholar
  15. 17.
    Cf. European Commission: 1999 Regular Report from the Commission on Progress towards Accession—Overall Report, Brussels 1999; European Commission: 1999 Regular Report from the Commission on Progress towards Accession—Single Country Reports, Brussels 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 18.
    Cf. European Commission: 1999 Regular Report from the Commission on Progress towards Accession—Overall Report, Brussels 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© HWWA and Springer-Verlag 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Piazolo
    • 1
  1. 1.Kiel Institute of World EconomicsGermany

Personalised recommendations