IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bas/econth/y2001i4p24-61.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Positive and Negative Effects from the Integration of Bulgaria to European Union

Author

Listed:
  • Ivan Angelov

Abstract

The economic implications of liberalization of integration flows during the past ten years, and the prospects for the coming ten years are investigated. The conclusion is that only goods and capital flows have been liberalized, while labour flows are blocked and likely to stay blocked. This pattern of liberalization is unfavourable for the applicant countries. Several dimensions of asymmetries have been identified: between different integration flows; between timing of costs and benefits for EU members and for applicants: between timing of net effects; between timing of liberalization and access to EU funds; between treatment of the applicant countries for the Southern and the Eastern enlargement, etc. The EU countries first reap the benefits and only later incur costs. The opposite is true for the applicant countries. A major finding is that the overall net effects for the candidate countries are negative in the short- and medium term, and may evolve into positive effects only in the long term. For Bulgaria this period is 12-14 years. The overall net effects for the EU members are positive throughout. In order to assure the accession of well-prepared countries only, EU members and the applicant countries must identify an appropriate mix among the three key variables: deadlines for accession, pre-accession transfers and transitional arrangements. Under the presently expected deadlines for accession and meager pre-accession transfers most of the candidate countries will be ill- prepared to join during the coming 5-10 years. The accession preparation costs are unbearable for Bulgaria and other applicant countries if they are to comply with EU standards within 10 years. The decisions for accession must be taken only on the basis of solid economic fundamentals, supplemented by political considerations, and not vice-versa as was the case with the invitations for negotiation. Important recommendations are made to the Bulgarian government, the governments of other CEECs, to the European Commission and the governments of the EU members. The author substantiates a major conclusion, that Bulgaria and the other CEECs have no viable alternative to accession in the European Union.

Suggested Citation

  • Ivan Angelov, 2001. "Positive and Negative Effects from the Integration of Bulgaria to European Union," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 4, pages 24-61.
  • Handle: RePEc:bas:econth:y:2001:i:4:p:24-61
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/issuedetails.aspx?issueid=aab42ba0-a2d0-41fb-bb12-5b13fe7edfe7&articleid=54c637a2-891e-4850-b667-955de00b7cd3#a54c637a2-891e-4850-b667-955de00b7cd3
    Download Restriction: Fee access
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Reiner Martin, 1998. "Financing EU cohesion policy in Central and Eastern Europe," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 33(3), pages 103-111, May.
    2. Sandor Richter, 2000. "EU Eastern Enlargement: the case of the former 'second-wave' applicant countries," wiiw Research Reports 270, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    3. Hans‐Werner Sinn, 2000. "EU Enlargement, Migration, and Lessons from German Unification," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 1(3), pages 299-314, August.
    4. Vladimir Gligorov, 2000. "Delaying Integration. The impact of EU eastern enlargement on individual CEECs not acceding or acceding only later," wiiw Research Reports 267, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    5. Michael Landesmann, 2000. "Structural Change in the Transition Economies, 1989 to 1999," wiiw Research Reports 269, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    6. Gabor Hunya, 2000. "International Competitiveness Impacts of FDI in CEECs," wiiw Research Reports 268, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bozhilova, Diana, 2010. "When foreign direct investment is good for development: Bulgaria’s accession, industrial restructuring and regional FDI," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 27673, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Diana Bozhilova, 2010. "When Foreign Direct Investment is Good for Development: Bulgaria’s accession, industrial restructuring and regional FDI," GreeSE – Hellenic Observatory Papers on Greece and Southeast Europe 33, Hellenic Observatory, LSE.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Svetla Boneva, 2005. "Classification of the Main Economic Costs and Benefits of the EU Enlargement," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 1, pages 86-99.
    2. Sandor Richter, 2000. "HUNGARY: Medium-term Forecast and Risk Assessment," wiiw Analytical Forecasts 11-2000, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    3. Fidrmuc, Jan, 2001. "Migration and adjustment to shocks in transition economies," ZEI Working Papers B 23-2001, University of Bonn, ZEI - Center for European Integration Studies.
    4. Majcen, Boris & Radosevic, Slavo & Rojec, Matija, 2009. "Nature and determinants of productivity growth of foreign subsidiaries in Central and East European countries," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 168-184, June.
    5. Sebastian Böhm, 2012. "The Effects of Factor Market Integration on the Macroeconomic Development in Unified Germany," DEGIT Conference Papers c017_023, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
    6. Vladimir Gligorov & Mario Holzner & Michael A Landesmann, 2004. "Prospects for Further (South-) Eastern EU Enlargement: From Divergence to Convergence?," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Michael A Landesmann & Dariusz K Rosati (ed.), Shaping the New Europe, chapter 12, pages 315-345, Palgrave Macmillan.
    7. Zoltan Adam, 2004. "Autonomy and capacity: a state-centred approach to post-communist transition in Central Europe," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 40, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    8. repec:zbw:rwidps:0020 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Olivera Kostoska & Pece Mitrevski, 2013. "Estimating the FDI Impact on Economic Growth and Export Performances of the European Economies in Transition," Papers 1310.1342, arXiv.org.
    10. Delia Popescu & Iulia Monica Oehler-Sincai & Daniel Bulin & Ion Alexandru Tanase, 2018. "Cee-16: A Cluster Analysis Based on Tourism Competitiveness and Correlations With Major Determinants," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 20(S12), pages 833-833, November.
    11. Desislava Kolarova, 2003. "Business Services in the Economies of France and Bulgaria," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 85-101.
    12. Assaf Razin & Efraim Sadka & Benjarong Suwankiri, 2009. "Migration and the welfare state: Dynamic Political-Economy Theory," NBER Working Papers 14784, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Peter Huber, 2001. "Regionale Arbeitsmarktwirkungen der Ostintegration," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 74(11), pages 667-676, November.
    14. Katerina Arnostova & Oxana Babecka Kucharcukova & Jan Babecky & Vojtech Belling & Sona Benecka & Jan Bruha & Martin Gurtler & Tomas Holub & Eva Hromadkova & Lubos Komarek & Zlatuse Komarkova & Petr Kr, 2016. "Analyses of the Czech Republic's Current Economic Alignment with the Euro Area 2016," Occasional Publications - Edited Volumes, Czech National Bank, number as16 edited by Katerina Arnostova & Lucie Matejkova, January.
    15. Charaia Vakhtang & Chochia Archil & Lashkhi Mariam, 2020. "The Impact of FDI on Economic Development: The Case of Georgia," Baltic Journal of European Studies, Sciendo, vol. 10(2), pages 96-116, September.
    16. Fertig, Michael & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2000. "Aggregate-Level Migration Studies as a Tool for Forecasting Future Migration Streams," IZA Discussion Papers 183, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Jože Damijan & Črt Kostevc & Matija Rojec, 2013. "Global Supply Chains at Work in Central and Eastern European Countries:Impact of FDI on export restructuring and productivity growth," Working Papers of VIVES - Research Centre for Regional Economics 37, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), VIVES - Research Centre for Regional Economics.
    18. Hans-Werner Sinn & Martin Werding, 2001. "Immigration Following EU Eastern Enlargement," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 2(2), pages 40-47, October.
    19. International Monetary Fund, 2013. "Turkey: Selected Issues Paper," IMF Staff Country Reports 2013/364, International Monetary Fund.
    20. Renzo Orsi & Katarzyna Zukrowska, 2004. "Policy Advice: Markets and Policies," Eastward Enlargement of the Euro-zone Working Papers wp20, Free University Berlin, Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, revised 01 Feb 2004.
    21. Burda, Michael C., 2008. "What kind of shock was it? Regional integration and structural change in Germany after unification," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 557-567, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O12 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
    • O19 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - International Linkages to Development; Role of International Organizations
    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • F36 - International Economics - - International Finance - - - Financial Aspects of Economic Integration

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bas:econth:y:2001:i:4:p:24-61. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Diana Dimitrova (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ikbasbg.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.