IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331166.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

European Integration, Deepening and Widening Economic Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Pelkmans, Jacques

Abstract

The European Union can be said to be 52 years old, or 47 or 12. The seminal Paris treaty of 1951 establishing the European Coal and Steel Community has already expired in 2002 but is meanwhile incorporated into the EC treaty. The Rome treaty of 1957 is still alive and kicking after no less than four revisions. Legally, the EU was founded in Maastricht in 1991 and encompasses the other treaties. Soon , all this might be overtaken by what is called a “constitution”. In a nutshell this illustrates the seemingly incessant, inner dynamics of European integration. The EU has been deepening its integration in a regular though somewhat cyclical fashion. It has widened the scope of powers in the economic arena and beyond. And it has enlarged its membership already five times, not counting the inclusion of East Germany. Next year May the Union will count 25 members and three official candidates will remain deeply involved in so-called pre-accession reforms. Another group of countries is waiting in the wings and the first one – Croatia - has already officially applied for EU membership. However, the economic influence of the EU spreads beyond the club. Norway and Switzerland are de facto members of the internal market, with some firm exceptions, and even collaborate with the Schengen system of persons controls over frontiers. The MED agreements have begun to spread regulatory and competition elements to the southern neighbours. The Commission has just proposed a new , ambitious “near neighbours “ policy as a corollary of enlargement which might well have wide-ranging implications for countries such as Russia, Ukraine and Georgia. In a conference of eminent specialists on Global Economic Analysis it would seem to be appropriate to pause and reflect a little on this curious and ever changing creature called the European Union. I shall assume a broad economic perspective and raise a number of , what are in my view, critical analytical questions for further research on European integration. This approach does not mean to disregard a well-known premise that focus and well-formulated research questions are necessary conditions for good analysis and verifiable results. Indeed, the economic library of specific studies on all kinds of aspects of the EU has meanwhile reached an enormous size. Nonetheless, a collection of many too-partial approaches might not necessarily add up to a better understanding of the whole and the underlying processes. Already in 1970 Charles Pentland, trying to understand European integration as a political scientist, likened it to an elephant touched by many blindfolded analysts who each described the small part they scanned by hand. Perhaps there may be some benefit in getting a generalist to go beyond “pars-pro-toto” and attempt to think about a wider picture. I shall venture to do this today, with all the caveats you might imagine. I shall very briefly touch upon what is probably the starting point for you as applied trade analysts, the EU as a customs union with a centralized trade policy, only to switch quickly to the internal market. Yet, the internal market is so vast a subject area that there seems to be no practical way to address it in a single step , not even in the inevitably superficial and selective treatment for a speech. So, in section 2 there is a reminder of the stimulus the single market initiative has given to more advanced empirical analysis and a selection of wishes which are not yet fulfilled. Section 3 inspects a little closer the main ‘business’ of the Union today which is regulation, of course always in combination with liberalisation. The EU is essentially a regulator, only the CAP and ‘cohesion’ is about money. This implies that it is crucial for the EU to get it right in terms of liberalisation and regulation. Unfortunately, economists have done preciously little empirical analysis about this core ‘business’ of the Union. I hope to provide indications that the design of today’s EU regulatory regime helps to keep the costs in check and that further initiatives in this respect ought to be encouraged, including firm analytical economic underpinning. Section 4 addresses the macro-economic design of the Union, that is EMU and Euroland. This design combines federal and pre-federal properties and the queries are whether it is stable and whether or not it is costly and for whom. The final section will look at constitutional issues, in particular the economics of subsidiarity and a few institutional issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Pelkmans, Jacques, 2003. "European Integration, Deepening and Widening Economic Analysis," Conference papers 331166, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331166
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331166/files/1443.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Copeland, Brian R. & Taylor, M. Scott, 1999. "Trade, spatial separation, and the environment," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 137-168, February.
    2. Dean, Judith M., 1992. "Trade and the environment : a survey of the literature," Policy Research Working Paper Series 966, The World Bank.
    3. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1994. "North-South Trade and the Global Environment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 851-874, September.
    4. Lisandro Abrego & Carlo Perroni & John Whalley & Randall M. Wigle, 2001. "Trade and Environment: Bargaining Outcomes from Linked Negotiations," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 414-428, August.
    5. Suri, Vivek & Chapman, Duane, 1998. "Economic growth, trade and energy: implications for the environmental Kuznets curve," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 195-208, May.
    6. DeBellevue, Edward B. & Hitzel, Eric & Cline, Kenneth & Benitez, Jorge A. & Ramos-Miranda, Julia & Segura, Olman, 1994. "The North American Free Trade Agreement: An ecological-economic synthesis for the United States and Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 53-71, January.
    7. M.A. Cole & A.J. Rayner & J.M. Bates, 1998. "Trade Liberalisation and the Environment: The Case of the Uruguay Round," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 337-347, May.
    8. Grossman, G.M & Krueger, A.B., 1991. "Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement," Papers 158, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
    9. Michael Ferrantino & Linda Linkins, 1999. "The effect of global trade liberalization on toxic emissions in industry," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 135(1), pages 128-155, March.
    10. Batra, Ravi & Beladi, Hamid & Frasca, Ralph, 1998. "Environmental pollution and world trade," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 171-182, November.
    11. Pan-Long Tsai, 1999. "Is trade liberalization harmful to the environment? An alternative view," Journal of Economic Studies, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 26(3), pages 201-209, September.
    12. Selden Thomas M. & Song Daqing, 1994. "Environmental Quality and Development: Is There a Kuznets Curve for Air Pollution Emissions?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 147-162, September.
    13. Beghin, John C. & Bowland, Bradley J. & Dessus, Sébastien & Roland-Holst, David & Mensbrugghe, Dominique van der, 2002. "Trade integration, environmental degradation, and public health in Chile: assessing the linkages," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 241-267, May.
    14. Adam B. Jaffe et al., 1995. "Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 132-163, March.
    15. Harrison, Ann, 1996. "Openness and growth: A time-series, cross-country analysis for developing countries," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 419-447, March.
    16. Rothman, Dale S., 1998. "Environmental Kuznets curves--real progress or passing the buck?: A case for consumption-based approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 177-194, May.
    17. Agras, Jean & Chapman, Duane, 1999. "A dynamic approach to the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 267-277, February.
    18. John Beghin & Sebastien Dessus & David Roland‐Hoist & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 1997. "The trade and environment nexus in Mexican agriculture. A general equilibrium analysis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(2-3), pages 115-131, December.
    19. Ulph, A., 1994. "Environmental policy and international trade: a survey of recent economic analysis," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 9423, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
    20. Lee, Hiro & Roland-Holst, David, 1997. "The environment and welfare implications of trade and tax policy," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 65-82, February.
    21. Ekins, Paul & Folke, Carl & Costanza, Robert, 1994. "Trade, environment and development: the issues in perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, January.
    22. Magee, Stephen P & Ford, William F, 1972. "Environmental Pollution, the Terms of Trade and Balance of Payments of the United States," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 101-118.
    23. Lopez, Ramon, 1997. "Environmental externalities in traditional agriculture and the impact of trade liberalization: the case of Ghana," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 17-39, June.
    24. Werner Antweiler & Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2001. "Is Free Trade Good for the Environment?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 877-908, September.
    25. Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 1994. "North-South Trade and the Environment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 109(3), pages 755-787.
    26. Barrett, Scott, 1997. "The strategy of trade sanctions in international environmental agreements," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 345-361, November.
    27. Stephen P. Magee & William Freithaler Ford, 1972. "Environmental Pollution, The Terms Of Trade And Balance Of Payments Of The United States," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 101-118, February.
    28. Fredriksson, P.G., 1999. "Trade, Global Policy, and the Environment," World Bank - Discussion Papers 402, World Bank.
    29. Edwards, Sebastian, 1992. "Trade orientation, distortions and growth in developing countries," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 31-57, July.
    30. Low, P., 1992. "International Trade and the Environment," World Bank - Discussion Papers 159, World Bank.
    31. Rauscher, Michael, 1994. "On Ecological Dumping," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(0), pages 822-840, Supplemen.
    32. Xu, Xinpeng, 2000. "International trade and environmental policy: how effective is 'eco-dumping'?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 71-90, January.
    33. Abler, David G. & Rodrã Guez, Adriã N G. & Shortle, James S., 1999. "Trade liberalization and the environment in Costa Rica," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 357-373, July.
    34. Dollar, David, 1992. "Outward-Oriented Developing Economies Really Do Grow More Rapidly: Evidence from 95 LDCs, 1976-1985," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(3), pages 523-544, April.
    35. Lee, James R., 1996. "Basic attributes of trade and environment: What do the numbers tell us?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 19-33, October.
    36. Alpay, Savas, 2000. "Does Trade Always Harm the Global Environment? A Case for Positive Interaction," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 52(2), pages 272-288, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jayadevappa, Ravishankar & Chhatre, Sumedha, 2000. "International trade and environmental quality: a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 175-194, February.
    2. Haixiao Huang, Walter C. Labys, 2002. "Environment and trade: a review of issues and methods," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1/2), pages 100-160.
    3. Anriquez, Gustavo, 2002. "Trade And The Environment: An Economic Literature Survey," Working Papers 28598, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    4. Dinda, Soumyananda, 2004. "Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 431-455, August.
    5. Jeffrey A. Frankel & Andrew K. Rose, 2005. "Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment? Sorting Out the Causality," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(1), pages 85-91, February.
    6. He, Jie, 2010. "What is the role of openness for China's aggregate industrial SO2 emission?: A structural analysis based on the Divisia decomposition method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 868-886, February.
    7. Jie HE, 2005. "Economic Determinants for China’s Industrial SO2 Emission: Reduced vs. Structural form and the role of international trade," Working Papers 200505, CERDI.
    8. Hakimi, Abdelaziz & Hamdi, Helmi, 2016. "Trade liberalization, FDI inflows, environmental quality and economic growth: A comparative analysis between Tunisia and Morocco," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1445-1456.
    9. He, Jie, 2005. "Estimating the economic cost of China's new desulfur policy during her gradual accession to WTO: The case of industrial SO2 emission," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 364-402.
    10. Frankel, Jeffrey A., 2009. "Environmental Effects of International Trade," Scholarly Articles 4481652, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    11. Rothman, Dale S., 1998. "Environmental Kuznets curves--real progress or passing the buck?: A case for consumption-based approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 177-194, May.
    12. Muradian, Roldan & Martinez-Alier, Joan, 2001. "Trade and the environment: from a 'Southern' perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 281-297, February.
    13. Amjad Ali & Marc Audi & Ismail Senturk & Yannick Roussel, 2022. "Do Sectoral Growth Promote CO2 Emissions in Pakistan? Time Series Analysis in Presence of Structural Break," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 12(2), pages 410-425, March.
    14. Haider Mahmood & Maham Furqan & Muhammad Shahid Hassan & Soumen Rej, 2023. "The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) Hypothesis in China: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-32, April.
    15. Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2004. "Trade, Growth, and the Environment," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(1), pages 7-71, March.
    16. Blackman, Allen & Mathis, Mitchell & Nelson, Peter, 2001. "The Greening of Development Economics: A Survey," Discussion Papers 10662, Resources for the Future.
    17. Jeffrey A. Frankel, 2003. "The Environment and Globalization," NBER Working Papers 10090, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Pandelis Mitsis, 2012. "Is there an Environmental Kuznets Curve in the Carbon Dioxide Emissions?," University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics 16-2012, University of Cyprus Department of Economics.
    19. Bilgili, Faik & Koçak, Emrah & Bulut, Ümit, 2016. "The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions: A revisited Environmental Kuznets Curve approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 838-845.
    20. Heinz Jansen, 2001. "Induced Institutional Change in the Trade and Environment Debate," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 18(2), pages 149-172, February.

    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:ags:pugtwp:331166. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.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.