IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sec/cnstan/0273.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

EU Enlargement: Benefits of the Single Market Expansion for Current and New Member States

Author

Listed:
  • Maryla Maliszewska

Abstract

This paper evaluates the implications of Eastern EU enlargement with the use of a computable general equilibrium model. The focus is on accession to the Single Market, with explicit modeling of the removal of border costs and costs of producing to different national standards. The results indicate significant welfare gains for the CEECs (volume of GDP increases by 1.4-2.4%) and modest gains for the EU. The steady state scenarios, which allow for the capital stock adjustment in response to higher return to capital, more than double the static welfare gains.

Suggested Citation

  • Maryla Maliszewska, 2004. "EU Enlargement: Benefits of the Single Market Expansion for Current and New Member States," CASE Network Studies and Analyses 0273, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:sec:cnstan:0273
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://case-research.eu/upload/publikacja_plik/1861894_273.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rikard Forslid & Jan I. Haaland & Karen Helene M. Knarvik & Ottar Maestad, 2002. "Integration and transition: Scenarios for the location of production and trade in Europe," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 10(1), pages 93-117.
    2. Brown, D. & Deardorff & A. & Djankov, S. & Stern, R., 1995. "An Economic Assessment of the Integration of Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland into the European Union," Papers 8, American Institute for Contemporary German Studies-.
    3. Anders Hoffmann, 2000. "The gains from partial completion of the single market," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 136(4), pages 601-630, December.
    4. Arjan Lejour & Ruud de Mooij & Richard Nahuis, 2001. "EU enlargement: economic implications for countries and industries," CPB Document 11, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    5. Harrison, Glenn & Rutherford, Thomas & Tarr, David & DEC, 1994. "Product standards, imperfect competition and completion of the market in the European Union," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1293, The World Bank.
    6. Patrick A. Messerlin, 2001. "Measuring the Costs of Protection in Europe: European Commercial Policy in the 2000s," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 102, April.
    7. Patrick Messerlin, 2001. "Measuring the costs of protection in Europe : European commercial policy in the 2000s," Post-Print hal-03394451, HAL.
    8. Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas F. Rutherford & David G. Tarr, 2017. "Quantifying The Uruguay Round," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Trade Policies for Development and Transition, chapter 16, pages 363-388, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Paul Brenton & John Sheehy & Marc Vancauteren, 2014. "Technical Barriers to Trade in the European Union: Importance for Accession Countries," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: INTERNATIONAL TRADE, DISTRIBUTION AND DEVELOPMENT Empirical Studies of Trade Policies, chapter 6, pages 105-124, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    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. Alexandra Lopes, 2006. "The Costs of EMU for Transition Countries," Computing in Economics and Finance 2006 149, Society for Computational Economics.
    2. Maryla Maliszewska & Irina Orlova & Svitlana Taran, 2009. "Deep Integration with the EU and its Likely Impact on Selected ENP Countries and Russia," CASE Network Reports 0088, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    3. Veliko Dimitrov & Vladimir Dubrovskiy & Irina Orlova, 2007. "Institutional Harmonization in the Context of Relations Between the EU and Its Eastern Neighbours: Costs and Benefits and Methodologies of Their Measurement," CASE Network Reports 0075, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    4. Pasimeni Paolo, 2024. "Twenty Years After the Big Enlargement: Integration Within the Single Market," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Sciendo, vol. 59(4), pages 222-230.
    5. Dmytro Boyarchuk & Inna Golodniuk & Mykyta Mykhaylychenko & Wojciech Paczynski & Anna Tsarenko & Vitaly Vavryschuk, 2006. "Prospects for EU-Ukraine Economic Relations," CASE Network Reports 0066, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.

    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. Jensen, Hans G. & Frandsen, Søren E., 2003. "Implications of EU Accession of Ten New Members: The Copenhagen Agreement," Conference papers 331098, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    2. Lee, Hiro & van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2006. "Deep integration and its impacts on non-members: EU enlargement and East Asia," MPRA Paper 82286, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Fritz Breuss, 2002. "Benefits and Dangers of EU Enlargement," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 29(3), pages 245-274, September.
    4. Lúcio Vinhas de Souza, 2004. "A Wider Europe: Trade Relations Between an Enlarged EU and the Russian Federation," CASE Network Studies and Analyses 0279, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    5. Francois, Joseph & Nelson, Douglas & Pelkmans-Balaoing, Annette, 2008. "Endogenous Protection in General Equilibrium: Estimating Political Weights in the EU," CEPR Discussion Papers 6979, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/5l6uh8ogmqildh09h2q8j620g is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Balistreri, Edward J. & Mavroidis, Petros C. & Prusa, Thomas J., 2021. "What If? Tinkering with the Counterfactual: A Comment on US–Washing Machines (Article 22.6-US)," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 421-435, October.
    8. Arjan Lejour & Vladimir Solanic & Paul Tang, 2009. "EU Accession and Income Growth: An Empirical Approach," Transition Studies Review, Springer;Central Eastern European University Network (CEEUN), vol. 16(1), pages 127-144, May.
    9. Fritz Breuss, 2004. "WTO Dispute Settlement: An Economic Analysis of Four EU–US Mini Trade Wars—A Survey," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 275-315, December.
    10. Ghoneim, Ahmed Farouk, 2004. "Competition, cultural variety and global governance: The case of the Egyptian audiovisual system," HWWA Reports 246, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWA).
    11. Lionel Fontagné & Thierry Mayer & Soledad Zignago, 2005. "Trade in the Triad: how easy is the access to large markets?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 38(4), pages 1401-1430, November.
    12. Alexandra Ferreira-Lopes & Ccndida Sousa & Helena Carvalho & Nuno Crespo, 2017. "Trade Protectionism and Intra-industry Trade: A USA - EU Comparison," Research in World Economy, Research in World Economy, Sciedu Press, vol. 8(2), pages 88-102, December.
    13. Kyoji Fukao & Goushi Kataoka & Arata Kuno, 2003. "How to Measure Non-tariff Barriers? A Critical Examination of the Price-Differential Approach," Hi-Stat Discussion Paper Series d03-08, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    14. Ghoneim, Ahmed Farouk, 2004. "Competition, Cultural Variety and Global Governance: The Case of the Egyptian Audiovisual System," Report Series 26109, Hamburg Institute of International Economics.
    15. Arjan Lejour & Ruud de Mooij & Richard Nahuis, 2001. "EU enlargement: economic implications for countries and industries," CPB Document 11, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    16. Jean‐Christophe Maur, 2005. "Exporting Europe's Trade Policy," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(11), pages 1565-1590, November.
    17. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/5l6uh8ogmqildh09h2q90i5i1 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/5l6uh8ogmqildh09h2q8j620g is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Roberto A. De Santis, 2003. "Why exporting countries agree to voluntary export restraints: the oligopolistic power of the foreign supplier," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 50(3), pages 247-263, August.
    20. Swinbank, Alan, 2004. "Dirty Tariffication Revisited: The EU and Sugar," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 5(1), pages 1-14.
    21. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/8324 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:45:y:2007:i::p:789-811 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Bernard POIRINE & Jean-François GAY, 2015. "Le Coût Du Protectionnisme Dans Une Petite Économie Insulaire : Le Cas Extrême De La Polynésie Française," Region et Developpement, Region et Developpement, LEAD, Universite du Sud - Toulon Var, vol. 42, pages 133-156.
    24. Bouët, Antoine, 2006. "What can the poor expect from trade liberalization?: opening the "black box" of trade modeling," MTID discussion papers 93, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    25. Hamilton, Carl B, 2003. "Russia's European Economic Integration: Escapism and Realities," CEPR Discussion Papers 3840, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    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:sec:cnstan:0273. 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: Anna Budzynska (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caseepl.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.