Advertisement

Enlargement: Not Enough Support for the New Members

  • Jörg Huffschmid

Abstract

There is no doubt that the 2004 enlargement was justified by a number of very good reasons: (1) the intention to take up the original European agenda to unite the countries for a more peaceful and prosperous future; (2) the ambition to create a large and powerful economic area able to compete with the United States in economic terms; (3) the will to balance the increasing hegemonic behaviour of the United States by a second superpower; (4) the hope that integration of eastern European countries would make it very difficult for a further ‘Yugoslavia’ to occur, that is another regional war among former Soviet-dominated states and neighbouring countries in Europe. On the other hand in the accession countries the issue of EU membership was associated with contradictory and vague expectations, with fear and hope. But the specific constellation of economic, political and ideological powers during the accession years resulted in an institutional framework conducive to a suboptimal development in the CEECs. It will be argued that the economic evolution in the former socialist countries2 exhibits a number of severe deficits which partly have their origin in EU policies.

Keywords

Monetary Policy Current Account Transition Economy Real Term Regional Disparity 
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. Barba-Navaretti, G. and A. J. Venables with F. Barry, K. Ekholm, A. Falzoni, J. Haaland, K-H. Midelfart and A. Turrini, Multinational Firms in the World Economy (Princeton University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
  2. Bohle, D., ‘Erweiterung und Vertiefung der EU: Neoliberale Restrukturierung und transnationales Kapital’, Prokla. Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialwissenschaft, Vol. 32, No. 128 (September 2002).Google Scholar
  3. Chang, H.-J., Kicking Away the Ladder — Development Strategy in Historical Perspective (Anthem Press, 2002).Google Scholar
  4. Dupuch, S., H. Jennequin and El Mouhoub Mouhoud, ‘EU Enlargement: What does it Change for the European Economic Geography?’, Revue de l’OFCE, Special issue edited by J. Creel and S. Levasseur, ‘The New European Enlargement’ (April 2004) pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
  5. Dymarski, W., ‘Failure of the Liberal Economic Policy, the Case of Poland 1998–2001’, Paper presented to the 7th Workshop on Alternative Economic Policy in Europe (Brussels, 28–31 September 2001).Google Scholar
  6. Dymarski, W., ‘Labour Market in Poland on the Eve of Entering the EU’, Paper presented to the 9th Workshop on Alternative Economic Policy in Europe (Brussels, 26–28 September 2003).Google Scholar
  7. Europäische Kommission, Haushaltsvademekum (Luxembourg, 2000).Google Scholar
  8. Havlik, P. et al., ‘Transition Countries in 2003: Reforms and Restructuring Keep the Global Economic Slowdown at Bay’, wiiw Research Reports, No. 297 (July 2003) (Special Issue on the Transition Economies).Google Scholar
  9. Huffschmid, J., ‘Economic Policy Challenges of Enlargement’, in: W. Blaas (ed.), Eastern Enlargement as an All European Development Project. Conference Reader, Special Edition of Der Öffentliche Sektor — Forschungsmemoranden, Vol. 28, Nos 3–4 (2002) pp. 5–10.Google Scholar
  10. Kregel, J., E. Matzner and G. Grabher (eds), The Market Shock. An Agenda for the Economic and Social Reconstruction of Central and Eastern Europe (Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences, 1992).Google Scholar
  11. Krueger, A., ‘Regional Gross Domestic Product in the European Union 2001’, Statistics in Focus, Theme 1, 1/2004 (2004a) pp. 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krueger, A., ‘Regional Gross Domestic Product in the Candidate Countries 2001’, Statistics in Focus, Theme 1, 2/2004 (2004b) pp. 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lucas, C. and C. Hines, ‘From Seattle to Nice. Challenging the Free Trade Agenda at the Heart of Enlargement’ (2000) (http://mirror.greenparty.org.uk/reports/2000/meps/enlargementreport_p.htm).Google Scholar
  14. Martin, B., ‘The Social and Employment Consequences of Privatization in Transition Economies: Evidence and Guidelines’, ILO Working Paper IPPRED-4 (1997).Google Scholar
  15. Matzner, E., ‘Trying to Catch Up: the Transformation Countries and the Treacherous Playing Fields of the Global Market’, in: W. Blaas (ed.), ‘Eastern Enlargement as an All European Development Project. Conference Reader’, Special Edition of Der Öffentliche Sektor — Forschungsmemoranden, Vol. 28, Nos 3–4 (2002) pp. 98–100.Google Scholar
  16. Megginson, W. L. and J. M. Netter, ‘From State to Market: a Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization’, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 39 (June 2001) pp. 321–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mencinger, J., ‘Slovenia: Alternative Economic Policies in Action’, in: W. Blaas (ed.), ‘Eastern Enlargement as an All European Development Project. Conference Reader’, Special Edition of Der Öffentliche Sektor — Forschungsmemoranden, Vol. 28, Nos 3–4 (2002) pp. 58–63.Google Scholar

Statistical sources

  1. Data bank of the Austrian Institute for Economic Research (wifo-databank).Google Scholar
  2. Handbook of Statistics of the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (wiiw).Google Scholar
  3. Österreichische Nationalbank, CEEC Research Platform.Google Scholar
  4. Central Statistical Office in Warsaw (http://www.stat.gov.pl/english/index.htm).

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Huffschmid
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BremenGermany

Personalised recommendations