IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/perwir/v1y2000i2p115-141.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Die Osterweiterung der EU aus der Sicht bestehender Mitgliedsländer: Was lehrt uns die Theorie der ökonomischen Integration?

Author

Listed:
  • Wilhelm Kohler

Abstract

Eastern enlargement will be costly to incumbent EU countries, as the new members will all be net recipients of EU funds. A balanced view requires that the gains from integration be set against this cost. Drawing on established theories of economic integration, this paper first identifies typical fallacies present in policy‐oriented thinking about gains from trade liberalization and the role of preferential trading blocs like the EU. Using detailed data on east‐west trade for each of the present member states, as well as the relevant trade barriers of the EU and applicant countries, it then presents empirical estimates on the likely orders of magnitude for integration gains. Comparing these to country‐specific estimates of the fiscal burden from enlargement, it identifies likely winner and loser countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Wilhelm Kohler, 2000. "Die Osterweiterung der EU aus der Sicht bestehender Mitgliedsländer: Was lehrt uns die Theorie der ökonomischen Integration?," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 1(2), pages 115-141, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:perwir:v:1:y:2000:i:2:p:115-141
    DOI: 10.1111/1468-2516.00008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2516.00008
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1468-2516.00008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pravin Krishna, 1996. "Regionalism and Multilateralism: A Political Economy Approach," Working Papers 96-5, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    2. André Sapir, 1996. "Comment on Austria in the European Union: dynamic gains from integration and distributional implications," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/8330, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Casella, Alessandra, 1996. "Large countries, small countries and the enlargement of trade blocs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 389-415, February.
    4. Baldwin, Richard E. & Venables, Anthony J., 1995. "Regional economic integration," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 31, pages 1597-1644, Elsevier.
    5. Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W, 1998. "Will Preferential Agreements Undermine the Multilateral Trading System?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(449), pages 1162-1182, July.
    6. Christian Keuschnigg & Wilhelm Kohler, 2002. "Eastern Enlargement of the EU: How Much Is It Worth for Austria?," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(2), pages 324-342, May.
    7. Keuschnigg, Christian & Kohler, Wilhelm, 1996. "Commercial policy and dynamic adjustment under monopolistic competition," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(3-4), pages 373-409, May.
    8. Robert W. Staiger & Kyle Bagwell, 1999. "An Economic Theory of GATT," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 215-248, March.
    9. Pravin Krishna, 1998. "Regionalism and Multilateralism: A Political Economy Approach," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(1), pages 227-251.
    10. Levy, Philip I, 1997. "A Political-Economic Analysis of Free-Trade Agreements," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(4), pages 506-519, September.
    11. Arvind Panagariya & Jagdish Bhagwati, 1996. "The Economics of Preferential Trade Agreements," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 51856, September.
    12. Ethier, Wilfred J, 1998. "The New Regionalism," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(449), pages 1149-1161, July.
    13. Bhagwati, Jagdish & Greenaway, David & Panagariya, Arvind, 1998. "Trading Preferentially: Theory and Policy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(449), pages 1128-1148, July.
    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. Friedrich Schneider & Alexander F. Wagner & Mathias Dufour, 2003. "Satisfaction not guaranteed-Institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe," Economics working papers 2003-03, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    2. Friedrich Schneider & Alexander F. Wagner, 2003. "Tradeable permits - Ten key design issues," Economics working papers 2003-04, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    3. Friedrich Schneider & Kausik Chaudhuri & Sumana Chatterjee, 2003. "The Size and Development of the Indian Shadow Economy and a Comparison with other 18 Asian Countries: An Empirical Investigation," Economics working papers 2003-02, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    4. Daniel Piazalo, 2000. "Poland's Membership in the European Union: An Analysis with a Dynamic Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Model," LICOS Discussion Papers 8900, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    5. Marc Piazolo, 2002. "Regional Integration In Southern Africa," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 70(8), pages 1198-1221, December.

    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. Wilhelm Kohler, 2000. "Die Osterweiterung der EU aus der Sicht bestehender Mitgliedsländer: Was lehrt uns die Theorie der ökonomischen Integration?," Economics working papers 2000-01, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    2. Horn, Henrik & Mavroidis, Petros C., 2001. "Economic and legal aspects of the Most-Favored-Nation clause," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 233-279, June.
    3. Richard E. Baldwin, 2011. "Multilateralising Regionalism: Spaghetti Bowls as Building Blocks on the Path to Global Free Trade," Chapters, in: Miroslav N. Jovanović (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Integration, Volume I, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Ben Zissimos, 2011. "Why are Trade Agreements Regional?," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 32-45, February.
    5. Bagwell,K. & Staiger,R.W., 2000. "GATT-think," Working papers 19, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
    6. Baybars Karacaovali & Nuno Limão, 2018. "The clash of liberalizations: Preferential vs. multilateral trade liberalization in the European Union," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Policy Externalities and International Trade Agreements, chapter 14, pages 373-401, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. David Vines & Monika Mrazova, 2008. "Is the WTO's Article XXIV Bad?," Economics Series Working Papers 417, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    8. Guyslain K. Ngeleza & Andrew Muhammad, 2015. "Preferential Trade Agreements Between the Monetary Community of Central Africa and the European Union: Stumbling or Building Blocks? A General Equilibrium Approach," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 251-272, March.
    9. Maggi, Giovanni, 2014. "International Trade Agreements," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 317-390, Elsevier.
    10. Furusawa, Taiji & Konishi, Hideo, 2007. "Free trade networks," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 310-335, July.
    11. Panagariya, Arvind & Duttagupta, Rupa, 2002. "Politics of free trade areas: tariffs versus quotas," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 413-427, December.
    12. Jiandong Ju & Kala Krishna, 2005. "Firm behaviour and market access in a Free Trade Area with rules of origin," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 290-308, February.
    13. Ana Mauleon & Huasheng Song & Vincent Vannetelbosch, 2010. "Networks of Free Trade Agreements among Heterogeneous Countries," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 12(3), pages 471-500, June.
    14. Nuno Limão & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2018. "Trade Preferences to Small Developing Countries and the Welfare Costs of Lost Multilateral Liberalization," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Policy Externalities and International Trade Agreements, chapter 15, pages 403-426, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Cadot, Olivier & de Melo, Jaime & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2001. "Can bilateralism ease the pains of multilateral trade liberalization?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 27-44, January.
    16. Jagdambe, Subhash & Kannan, Elumalai, 2020. "Effects of ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement on agricultural trade: The gravity model approach," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    17. Cole, Matthew T. & Lake, James & Zissimos, Ben, 2021. "Contesting an international trade agreement," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    18. Subhayu Bandyopadhyay & Sajal Lahiri & Howard J. Wall, 2009. "Cross-border lobbying in preferential trading agreements: implications for external tariffs," Working Papers 2009-041, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
    19. Marco Fugazza & Frédéric Robert-Nicoud, 2014. "The “Emulator Effect” of the Uruguay Round on US Regionalism," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 1049-1078, November.
    20. Anne O. Krueger, 1999. "Are Preferential Trading Arrangements Trade-Liberalizing or Protectionist?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 105-124, Fall.

    More about this item

    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:bla:perwir:v:1:y:2000:i:2:p:115-141. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfsocea.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.