EMU, Euro and EU-Membership

An Evaluation from the Turkish Macroeconomic Perspective
  • Aykut Kibritçioğlu


The economic integration attempts of Turkey into the European Union (EU) economies have an older history than it is commonly believed in the rest of the world. The customs union, which is created between Turkey and the EU countries on January 1, 1996, was still an implication of both the Association Agreement from 1963 in Ankara and the Additional Protocol from 1970/73 defining a concrete timetable with measures aimed at the creation over a 22-year period. The planned three-stage transition-process in order to establish a customs union between the parts has been delayed several times due to the political, social and macroeconomic problems in Turkey, and the political resistance against Turkey in some of the EU countries. In 1989, after two years following the full-membership application of Turkey to the EU, the European Commission declared its negative opinion on the application. Therefore, Turkey has a unique position in the history of economic integration now: She is the first and only country in the whole world that is a part of a customs union but excluded from the full-membership process and decision mechanisms within the union. In other words, it is true that Turkey is still a part of a customs union, but she can not influence the foreign trade policies that are decided within the EU and imposed to her in order to realize as a part of the customs union.1


European Union Slovak Republic European Union Country Custom Union Nominal Exchange Rate 
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. Artis, M. J. and W. Zhang (1998), “Core and Periphery in EMU: A Cluster Analysis,” Paper presented at the 2nd International METU Congress on Economics, September 9, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. Bekx, P. (1998), “The Implications of the Introduction of the Euro for Non-EU Countries,” Euro Papers, no. 26.Google Scholar
  3. Benassy-Quere, A. and A. Lahreche-Revil (1998), “Pegging the CEEC’s Currencies to the Euro,” CEPII Working Papers, no. 98–04.Google Scholar
  4. Canevi, Y. (1998), “Here Comes the Euro,” Economic Dialogue–Turkey, no. 44, 12–7.Google Scholar
  5. Chauffeur, J.-P. and L. Stemitsiotis (1998), “The Impact of the Euro on Mediterranean Partner Countries,” Euro Papers, no. 24.Google Scholar
  6. Çavusoglu, M. S. (1998), “Euro Sans Tantmiyor (= Euro Gives No Chance),” TÜSÎAD Görüq, no. 36, 20–5.Google Scholar
  7. Ege, Y. (1998), “Euro’nun Did Ticaretimiz Üzerindeki Muhtemel Etkileri (= The Possible Effects of the Euro on Turkey’s Foreign Trade),” lktisat, 11letme ve Finans Dergisi, vol. 13, 7–11.Google Scholar
  8. Erçel, G. (1998a), “Merkez Bankas>’nm Euro Çahsmalari (= Preparations of the Turkish Central Bank Regarding the Introduction of the Euro),” Finans Dünyas:, no. 102, 72–3.Google Scholar
  9. Erçel, G. (1998b), “Minya Olarak Sabit Bir Kur Rejimine Giriyoruz (= The World as a Whole is Entering a Fixed Exchange Rate Regime),” Asomedya, July, 51–9.Google Scholar
  10. Erçel, G. (1998c), “Effects of the Euro on Emerging Market Economies: The Turkish Case,” Economic Dialogue–Turkey, no. 44, 6–10.Google Scholar
  11. Fischer, S.; Sahay, R. and C. A. Vegh (1998), “How Far is Eastern Europe from Brussels?” IMF Working Paper 98 /53.Google Scholar
  12. Funke, N. and M. Kennedy (1997), “International Implications of European Economic and Monetary Union,” OECD Working Papers, no. GD/97/61.Google Scholar
  13. International Monetary Fund (1997), World Economic Outlook, May 1997. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  14. Güvenen, O. (1998), “Avrupa Tek Para Sisteminin Türk Reel Kesimi Üzerindeki Etkileri ( Effects of the European Single Currency System on the Turkish Real Sector),” Paper presented at the TUSIAD Seminar on The European Single Currency System, May 22, 1998.Google Scholar
  15. Imren, A. (1997), “Euro Dolarm Yerini Alabilir mi? (= Can Euro Substitute the US Dollar?),” Finans Dünyasz, no. 93, 86–7.Google Scholar
  16. Kibritçioglu, A. (2000), “Euro’nun Türkiye Ekonomisi Üzerindeki Etkileri Hakkinda (= On the Effects of Euro on the Turkish Economy),” Collected Papers Presented at the Seminar on Euro in its First Year. Ankara: Central Bank of TRGoogle Scholar
  17. Nas, C. (1997), “The Enlargement Policy of the European Union and its Link with the External Dimension of Human Rights Policy with Special Emphasis on the Turkish Case,” Marmara Journal of European Studies, 5: 179–98.Google Scholar
  18. Nicholaides, P and S. R. Boean (1997), A Guide to the Enlargement of the European Union: Determinants, Process, Timing, Negotiations.“ Maastricht: European Institute of Public Administration, 97B/243.Google Scholar
  19. Oktay, S. Ü. F. (1997), “Kümeleme Analizi: istihdamm Sektörel Yapisi Açismdan Avrupa Ülkelerinin Karsilaetirilmast (= Cluster Analysis: A Comparison of the European Countries with Special Reference to the Sectoral Breakdown of Employment),” Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3: 50–9.Google Scholar
  20. Özbay, P. (1997), Avrupa Para Birligi ve Euro (= The European Monetary Union and the Euro),“ Central Bank of TR Discussion Paper no. 9702.Google Scholar
  21. Temprano-Arroyo, H. and R. A. Feldman (1998), “Selected Transition and Mediterranean Countries: An Institutional Primer on EMU and EU Relations,” IMF Working Papers, 98 /82.Google Scholar
  22. Tezel, Y. S. (1996), Türkiye Avrupa Birligi Jlifkileri ve Gümrük Birligi (= Relations between Turkey and the EU, and the Customs Union).“ Ankara: imaj Yayincilik.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aykut Kibritçioğlu
    • 1
  1. 1.Ankara UniversityTurkey

Personalised recommendations