Central and Eastern European Countries and the Advent of the Euro: Is Euro-isation a Good Idea ?

  • Koen Schoors


The Euro will affect CEEC (Central and Eastern European countries) well before their accession to the EU. There has been some speculation about the question whether the CEEC first wave entrants (the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia) should enter the EMU at the occasion of their accession to the EU. There has been suggested that the EU should not expect EMU-accession right away. The European Commission itself mentions that “… they are not expected to join the European Monetary Union directly, because of formal and substantial reasons” (European Commission, 1998, p. 135). Therefore we do not limit ourselves to the accession of the CEEC to the EU and EMU but also focus on the question how the CEEC should react on the advent of the Euro. Section 2 focuses on the question whether the CEEC should link their respective currencies to the Euro or not. In section 3 we analyse whether it might be interesting and feasible for some CEEC to adopt the Euro unilaterally, before accession or even without reference to accession at all. We address the question what role the EU could should play in this process and show that there is scope for a gamble for sustainable Euro-isation. Section 4 summarises and concludes.


Exchange Rate Monetary Policy Real Exchange Rate Default Risk Monetary Union 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Backe, P., 1997, “Interlinkages Between European Monetary Union and a Future EU Enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe”, Review of Economies in Transition, No. 2/97, Bank of Finland.Google Scholar
  2. Backe, P., Radzyner, O., 1998, “The Introduction of the Euro: Implications for Central and Eastern Europe. The Case of Hungary and Slovenia”, Focus on Transition, Oesterreichische Nationalbank, Vienna, No. 1/98.Google Scholar
  3. Bayoumi, B., Eichengreen, B., 1992, “Is there a conflict between EC enlargement and European monetary unification?”, CEPR Discussion Paper, No. 646, May 1992.Google Scholar
  4. Bayoumi, B., Eichengreen, B., 1993, “Shocking aspects of European monetary integration”, in Giavazzi F. and Torres F., eds., Adjustment and growth in the European Monetary Union, Cambridge University press, Cambridge, pp. 193–230.Google Scholar
  5. Bayoumi, B., Eichengreen, B., 1994, “One Money or Many? Analyzing the prospects for Monetary Unification in Various Parts of the World”, Princeton Studies in International Finance, No. 76, September 1994, Princeton.Google Scholar
  6. Bayoumi, B., Masson, P., 1995, “Fiscal Flows in the United Stated and Canada: Lessons for Monetary Union in Europe”, European Economic Review, Vol. 39, pp. 253–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bekx, P., 1998, “The Implications of the Introduction of the Euro for non-EU countries”, European Commission Euro papers, No. 26, July 1998.Google Scholar
  8. Benassy-Quere, A., Lahreche-Revil, A., 1998, “Pegging the CEEC’s Currencies to the Euro”, CEPII Document de Travail, No. 98–04.Google Scholar
  9. Berg, A., Borensztein, M., 2000, “The Pros and Cons of Full Dollarization”, IMF Policy Discussion Paper, No. WP/00/50, March 1, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. Boone, L., Maurel, M., 1999, “Economic Convergence of the CEECs with the EU”, CEPR Discussion Paper, No. 2018, London.Google Scholar
  11. Boone, L., Maurel, M., 1999a, “An OCA perspective of the EU enlargement to the CEEC’s”, Paper presented at the EEA Congress, September 1999, Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
  12. Boone, L., Maurel, M., 1999b, “L’;Ancrage de 1’;Europe centrale et orientale a l’Union europeenne”, Revue Economique, a paraitre.Google Scholar
  13. Bogetic, Z., Schuler, K., 1999, “Official Dollarization”, IMF, April 20, mimeo.Google Scholar
  14. Borensztein, E., Masson, P.R., 1993, “Financial Sector Reforms and Exchange Arrangements in Eastern Europe, Part II: Exchange Arrangements of Previously Centrally planned Economies”, IMF Occasional Paper, No. 102, February 1993.Google Scholar
  15. Bratkowski, A., Rostowski, J., 1999, “Unilateral adoption of the Euro by EU applicant countries: the macroeconomic aspects”, CASE-CEU Working Papers, No. 26.Google Scholar
  16. Buiter, W.H., 1999, “The EMU and the NAMU: what is the case for North American Monetary Union?”, CEPR Discussion Paper, no. 2181, London, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. Calvo, G., 1999, “Argentina’s Dollarization Project: A Primer, available online: Scholar
  18. Canzoneri, M., Valles, J., Vinals, J., 1996, “Do Exchange Rates Move to Address International Macroeconomic Imbalances?”, CEPR Discussion Paper, No. 1498, London, October 1996.Google Scholar
  19. Chamie N., De Serres A., et Lalande R., 1994, “Optimum currency areas and Shock asymmetry: a comparison of European and the United States”», Bank of Canada Working Paper, No 94/1, January 1994.Google Scholar
  20. De Grauwe, P., 1992, The economics of Monetary Integration, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Eichengreen, B., 1992, “Should the Maastricht Treaty Be Saved?”, Princeton Studies in International Finance, No. 74, Princeton University, December.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission, 1997, “Economic Policy in EMU. Part B: Specific Topics”, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, Economic papers, No. 126, November 1997.Google Scholar
  23. European Commission, 1998a, The Euro: Explanatory Notes, Directorate General II, Economic and Financial Affairs, February 1998.Google Scholar
  24. Forni, M., Reichlin, L., 1997, “National Policies and local economies: Europe and the United States”, CEPR Discussion Paper, No. 1632.Google Scholar
  25. Frankel, J., Rose, A.K., 1997, “Is EMU More Justifiable Ex Post Than Ex Ante?”, European Economic Review, Vol. 41, No. 3–5, April 1997, 753–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frankel, J., Rose, A.K., 1998, “The endogeneity of the Optimum Currency Area Criteria”, Economic Journal, Vol. 108, No. 449, 1009–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frankel, J., 1999, “No single currency regime is right for all countries or at all times”, NBER Working Paper, No. 7338, September 1999.Google Scholar
  28. Freudenberg, M., Lemoine, F., 1999, “Central and Eastern European Countries in the international division of labour in Europe”, CEPII Document de Travail, No. 99–05.Google Scholar
  29. Grassinger, R., 1999, “From EMS to EMU, The cost of relinquishing nominal exchange rates”, paper presented at the EEA-congress, Santiago de Compostela, September 1999.Google Scholar
  30. Gros, 2000, Who needs an external anchor?, unpublished manuscript, May 2000.Google Scholar
  31. Hanke, S. H., Schuler, K., 1999, “A Monetary Constitution for Argentina: Rules for Dollarization,” Cato Journal, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 405–19.Google Scholar
  32. IMF, 1996, “Progress Toward EMU - Developments and Selected Issues”, Staff Paper, No. SM/96/41, Washington D.C., February 1996.Google Scholar
  33. IMF, 1997, World Economic Outlook, Washington D.C., October 1997.Google Scholar
  34. Institut fur europaische Politik, 1998, Enlargement/ Agenda 2000 - Watch, Pilot Issue, October 1998, Bonn.Google Scholar
  35. Kohler, H., Wes, M., 1999, “Implications of the Euro for the integration process of the transition economies in central and eastern Europe”, EBRD Working Paper, No. 38, March 1999.Google Scholar
  36. Kopits, G., 1999, “Implications of EMU for Exchange Rate Policy in Central and Eastern Europe”, IMF Working Paper, No. WP/99/9, January 1999.Google Scholar
  37. Krugman, P., 1993, “Lessons from Massachusetts for EMU”, in F. Giavazzi and F. Torres, eds., The Transition to Economic and Monetary Union in Europe, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 241–261.Google Scholar
  38. Lamdany, R., Dorlhiac, J., 1987, “The Dollarization of a Small Economy”, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol. 89, No. 1, pp. 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lane, T., 1991, “Inflation Stabilization and Economic Transformation in Poland: The First Year”, IMF Working Paper, No. WP/91/70, July 1991.Google Scholar
  40. Masson, P.R., Taylor, M.P., 1992, “Common Currency Areas and Currency Unions: An analysis of the Issues”, CEPR Discussion Paper, No. 644.Google Scholar
  41. Masson, P.R., 1999, “Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy of Transition Economies of Central and Eastern Europe after the Launch of EMU”, IMF Policy Discussion Paper, No. PDP/99/5, July 1999.Google Scholar
  42. Mc Kinnon, R.I., 1963, “Optimum Currency Areas”, American Economic Review, Vol. 53, pp. 717–725.Google Scholar
  43. Mundell, R.A., 1961, “A Theory of Optimum Currency Areas’s”, American Economic Review, Vol. 51, pp. 657-675.Google Scholar
  44. Temprano-Arroyo, H., Feldman, R., 1998, “Selected Transition and Mediterranean Countries: An Institutional Primer on EMU and EU Relations”, IMF Working Paper, No. WP/98/82, June 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Koen Schoors
    • 1
  1. 1.Ghent UniversityBelgium

Personalised recommendations