2014年-CEPS欧洲政策研究中心_Health_not_Wealth_13页_54kb

CEPS Policy Brief No. 2 Summary: Health Not Wealth

Core Content

This policy brief, authored by Daniel Gros, challenges the conventional wisdom that the economic wealth of candidate countries for EU membership is the primary concern in assessing the viability of enlargement. Instead, it emphasizes that health, in terms of economic dynamism and growth potential, should be the decisive criterion.

Main Points

• Economic Growth Prospects: The Central and Eastern European Candidate Countries (CEEC-10) are currently much poorer than existing EU members but are significantly more dynamic. Their GDP per capita is expected to grow at 4–5% annually, compared to 2–3% in the EU. This implies that full catch-up in terms of wealth will take decades, not years.

• EU Enlargement is Promising: The brief argues that enlargement is not problematic because the economic challenges are more likely to arise from stagnant, rich EU member states (e.g., Belgium in the 1980s and 1990s) than from poor, dynamic candidate countries. In fact, the periphery of the EU has experienced stronger growth than the core in recent years, suggesting that EU integration benefits poorer countries more.

• Relative Size of Candidate Countries: The CEEC-10 combined represent 28% of the EU-15 population and 4.1% of the euro area GDP, which is relatively small. Even if their economies grow rapidly, they are not a major economic force in comparison.

• Economic Structures: The CEEC-10 do not have significantly different economic structures from other EU members. For instance:

  • The share of industry in GDP is not notably different from some current members.
  • The share of agriculture in GDP is relatively low, around 5%, and similar to other EU members.
  • Employment in agriculture is high in some countries (e.g., Romania and Bulgaria), but this is not a major concern for EMU membership due to the low value-added in this sector.

• Institutional Frameworks: While the institutional infrastructure in the CEEC-10 is weaker than in the EU-15, this is largely due to lower income levels. More advanced candidates have institutional frameworks that are judged as normal or even better for their level of development. The transition is largely complete, and the screening process should identify and address any remaining deficiencies.

• Benefits of EU Membership: Enlargement is expected to bring measurable economic benefits to the CEEC-10:

  • Internal market: Could yield gains of 4.4–6.0% of GDP.
  • Common currency (EMU): Could bring gains of 1.0–1.3% of GDP.
  • Total estimated benefits: Between 5.4–7.3% of GDP.

• Risk Premium Reduction: A key potential benefit is the reduction of the risk premium for investors due to the assurance of EU membership. This could lead to real interest rate reductions and significant long-term growth. However, this benefit is not quantifiable and depends on assumptions about investor behavior and political stability.

• EU Benefits from Enlargement: The EU-15 will also benefit from enlargement, although the gains are smaller:

  • The estimated gain for the EU-15 from the internal market is 0.4–0.5% of GDP.
  • The benefits could double by 2005–06 as trade with CEECs increases.
  • The economic benefits are likely to outweigh the budgetary costs over time.

Key Information

• The growth rates of the CEEC-10 are significantly higher than those of the EU-15, indicating a more promising economic future.
• Institutional weaknesses are not a fundamental barrier to EU membership, as they are largely a result of low income levels.
• The internal market and monetary union (EMU) are the main integration projects that bring economic benefits.
• Risk premium reduction is a major potential benefit, but it is not easily quantifiable and depends on assumptions about reform durability and investor confidence.
• The economic integration of the CEEC-10 is expected to enhance trade opportunities and promote growth within the EU, which may be more beneficial than the costs.

Conclusion

The CEEC-10 are not fundamentally different from other EU members in terms of economic structure. Their low income levels do not preclude them from benefiting from EU membership, which is likely to lead to healthy, growing economies. The long-term economic prospects of these countries are positive, and their membership is unlikely to cause problems for the EU. The economic benefits of enlargement are significant and could outweigh the costs, especially as the economies of the CEEC-10 grow and trade with the EU increases.