Abstract
Determination, anxiety, resolution: the ambitions were high, and were made quite clear in both treaties. The Treaty on European Union (Maastricht), that laid the foundations of the European Monetary Union, made the objectives even more explicit: “strengthening” and “convergence” of the member states’ economies. In almost six decades, the European Community — now EU — has attracted most countries on the continent, enlarging membership from the six founding countries to 28; and in this long time span, there have indeed been major improvements in average standards of living throughout the EU. In particular, those countries that had not, for various reasons, benefited much from the three decades of fast economic growth that followed World War II in Western Europe, did catch up after adhesion: it has been so for Greece, Spain, Portugal and even more for Ireland during the 1980s and 1990s, and more recently for most new members from Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean islands (Malta and Cyprus), at least up to onset of the Great Recession.
…to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it.
Treaty of Rome , 1957
Resolved to achieve the strengthening and the convergence of their economies and to establish an economic and monetary union including, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, a single and stable currency.
Treaty of Maastricht , 1992
Determined to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe.
Anxious to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions.
Article 2
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Balassa, B. (1964) “The Purchasing Power Parity Doctrine: A Reappraisal”. Journal of Political Economy 72 (6): 584–596.
Balassa, B. (1967) “Trade Creation and Trade Diversion in the European Common Market”. The Economic Journal : 77, 1–21.
Cecchini, P. (1988) The European Challenge, Commission of the European Communities, Brookfield, Gower Press.
EU Commission (1988) “Cecchini Report”.
Fitoussi, J.P. and Le Cacheux, J. (eds) (2010) Report on the State of the European Union, Vol.3, Crisis in the EU Economic Governance, London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Krugman, P. (1992) Geography and Trade , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Laurent, É. and Le Cacheux, J. (2006) “Integrity and Efficiency in the EU: The Case Against the European Economic Constitution”. Centre for European Studies Working Paper Series (130), Harvard University, February.
Le Cacheux, J. (ed.) (1996) Europe, La nouvelle vague . Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
Le Cacheux, J. (2009) “The Challenges and Trappings of Convergence”. L’Europe en formation, Journal of Studies on European Integration and Federalism 351, March: 35–47.
Samuelson, P. (1994) “Facets of Balassa-Samuelson Thirty Years Later”. Review of International Economics 72 (3): 201–226.
Viner, J. (1950) The Customs Union Issue , Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Reprinted (2014), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2015 Jacques Le Cacheux and Eloi Laurent
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Le Cacheux, J., Laurent, E. (2015). Inequality between Countries: An Ever More Heterogeneous Union?. In: Report on the State of the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137451088_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137451088_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-49719-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-45108-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)