IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulb/ulbeco/2013-311511.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The effects of enlargement in imperfect labour markets

Author

Listed:
  • Etienne Wasmer

Abstract

Etienne Wasmer A panel discussion shares some of the features of a Nash equilibrium, in the sense that panellists need to prepare their speeches taking into account what others will do. To avoid repetition and to deal in advance with some of the emphasis put on the gains provided by enlargement, and on the minimization of its costs, it is tempting to take a view slightly different from the consensus (a very clear exposition can be found in Boeri and Brücker, 2001). Let us first notice that enlargement was primarily and almost exclusively a political decision. This decision was reached in the years following the fall of the Berlin Wall for geo-strategic reasons: (a) to bring political stability to the eastern part of the continent and (b) as a symbol of the political and economic victory of democracies and market economies over the former Eastern bloc. Twelve applications (ten from former Communist countries, plus those of Malta and Cyprus) led to negotiations. Very rapidly, negotiations became de facto understood as leading to entry into the Union in a more or less near future. The criteria for entry were adopted in 1993 in Copenhagen. The decisions to present an application, to open negotiations, to set criteria and to approve formally, being mostly political, may also be associated with positive economic consequences for both the 15 European Union Member States (prior to the 2004 enlargement; we shall call them ‘incumbents’ hereafter) and for the newcomers (we shall call them ‘accession….

Suggested Citation

  • Etienne Wasmer, 2005. "The effects of enlargement in imperfect labour markets," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/311511, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  • Handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/311511
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:ulb:ulbeco:2013/311511. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecsulbe.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.