Startseite Wirtschaftswissenschaften A Tide that Lifts Some Boats: Assessing the Macroeconomic Effects of EU Enlargement
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

A Tide that Lifts Some Boats: Assessing the Macroeconomic Effects of EU Enlargement

  • Joe Maganga Zonda ORCID logo , Chang-Ching Lin und Ming-Jen Chang EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 14. November 2023
The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics
Aus der Zeitschrift The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics Band 24 Heft 1

Abstract

Based on two-country scenarios (entrants vs. incumbents), this paper employs the synthetic control method to quantify the macroeconomic effects of the European Union (EU) enlargement, and examines whether these effects varied before, during, and after economic crises. We find that enlargement effects are very complex, and significantly varied across economic cycles and the country groups. In particular, EU enlargement induced large and positive effects on the entrants which were merely stifled in the wake of the financial crisis and the subsequent euro crisis. In the interim, the 2004 enlargement triggered an instantaneous negative shock on the incumbents which was further exacerbated by the crises. Subsequently, the entrants recovered beyond their pre-crises gains, registering approximately 14 % higher per capita incomes by 2019, with Poland emerging as a clear winner. Meanwhile, incumbents’ per capita incomes have, on average, declined by approximately 9 %. While our findings largely support the notion that the entrants are en route to catching up with their incumbent counterparts, a formal β-convergence analysis exploiting the observed and synthetic data intuitively confirms that EU integration reduces the half-life by 50 %.

Keywords: European Union; economic growth; economic convergence; economic integration
JEL Classification: C21; E30; E60; F15
Corresponding author: Ming-Jen Chang, Department of Economics, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien, Taiwan, E-mail:

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Managing Editor (Arpad Abraham) and the two anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions. We specially thank Chih-Sheng Hsieh, Te-Fen Lo, Yu-Li Wang, Shou-Yung Yin, Dinarti Tarigan, Damiana Simanjuntak, Dang-Long Bui, Van Chung Dong, participants of the 2021 Taiwan Economics Association Annual Conference, the 2021 Taiwan Macroeconometric Modelling Workshop, and the seminar participants at National Dong Hwa University, for thoughtful comments and discussions. Diana Carrillo, Ethel Hara, and Hope Banda are gratefully acknowledged for proofreading the manuscript. This work builds upon the research presented in the first author’s Ph.D. dissertation, and we are grateful to the committee for their constructive feedback. All remaining errors are our own responsibility.

Appendix A.1

This Appendix describes the data employed in the analysis and provides their sources.

Table A.1:

Variable description and data sources.

Variable name Variable definition Data source
Pop Total population Penn World Trade 10.0
rgdp Real GDP (at constant 2017 national prices) Penn World Trade 10.0
Im Imports of goods and services (at constant 2015 US$) UNCTADstat
Ex Exports of goods and services (at constant 2015 US$) UNCTADstat
Fdi Per capita FDI inflow UNCTADstat
public_debt Public debt (% of GDP) AMECO
competitiveness Real unit labour cost (2015 index base) AMECO
Tfp Total factor productivity (USA = 1) Penn World Trade 10.0
Unemp Total unemployment (% of total labor force) World Development Indicators
labour_mobility Net migration (% of total population) World Development Indicators
csh_a Share of agriculture in value added World Development Indicators
csh_c Share of private consumption (% of GDP) World Development Indicators
csh_g Share of government consumption (% of GDP) World Development Indicators
csh_i Share of investment (% of GDP) World Development Indicators
csh_ind Share of industry in value added World Development Indicators
enrol_pr Primary gross school enrolment World Development Indicators
enrol_ sec Secondary gross school enrolment World Development Indicators

  1. Notes: csh_a, csh_c, csh_g, csh_i, enrol_pr, enrol_sec and population growth rate series are used as covariates for per capita GDP. For the other outcome variables, we used the lagged values of the pre-accession endogenous variable as predictors.

Appendix A.2

This Appendix provides the donor pool contribution to the construction of each of synthetic controls.

Table A.2:

Donor weights: GDP per capita.

Treated unit Donor pool
Cyprus Albania (0.283); Australia (0.115); Canada (0.219); Israel (0.034);
Korea (0.350).
Czech Albania (0.227); Chile (0.034); Japan (0.353); Korea (0.252);
Montenegro (0.025); New Zealand (0.109).
Estonia Korea (0.543); Montenegro (0.061); Serbia (0.396).
Hungary Albania (0.088); Australia (0.210); Canada (0.015); China (0.120);
Korea (0.061); New Zealand (0.012); Russia (0.209); Serbia (0.284).
Latvia Iceland (0.014); Korea (0.221); Russia (0.067); Serbia (0.697).
Lithuania Australia (0.050); Korea (0.069); Montenegro (0.133); Russia (0.180);
Serbia (0.568).
Malta Canada (0.011); Israel (0.165); Korea (0.016); Norway (0.072);
Serbia (0.526).
Poland Argentina (0.069); Montenegro (0.220); Norway (0.101); Serbia (0.611)
Slovakia Australia (0.170); China (0.471); Chile (0.175); Montenegro (0.185).
Slovenia Australia (0.176); Iceland (0.036); Korea (0.175); Montenegro (0.006);
Norway (0.093); Serbia (0.513).
Bulgaria Albania (0.052); China (0.166); Colombia (0.405); Indonesia (0.014);
Korea (0.022); Russia (0.253); Turkey (0.091).
Romania China (0.228); Chile (0.203); Indonesia (0.123); Korea (0.101);
Russia (0.232); Turkey (0.113).
Croatia Iceland (0.320); Indonesia (0.050); Montenegro (0.409); Serbia (0.221).
Austria Albania (0.132); Australia (0.034); Canada (0.295); Iceland (0.022);
Norway (0.065); Switzerland (0.164); United States (0.288).
Belgium Argentina (0.033); Canada (0.523); Indonesia (0.171); Israel (0.039);
Macedonia (0.004); Norway (0.098); Switzerland (0.091); Turkey (0.006);
United States (0.034).
Denmark Canada (0.035); Israel (0.400); New Zealand (0.095); Norway (0.302);
Switzerland (0.115); United States (0.053).
Finland Iceland (0.427); Norway (0.193); Korea (0.379).
France Albania (0.210); Australia (0.111); Canada (0.192); Iceland (0.039);
India (0.001); Israel (0.163); Norway (0.008); Switzerland (0.272);
United States (0.003).
Germany Albania (0.003); Brazil (0.238); Israel (0.158); Norway (0.053);
New Zealand (0.111); Switzerland (0.438).
Greece Australia (0.438); Korea (0.083); Montenegro (0.012); Russia (0.280);
Serbia (0.187).
Italy Albania (0.154); Israel (0.270); Japan (0.043); Korea (0.057);
Norway (0.166); Switzerland (0.309).
Netherlands Iceland (0.613); Norway (0.320); Switzerland (0.044); United States (0.023).
Portugal Iceland (0.431); Indonesia (0.107); Israel (0.303); Montenegro (0.054);
Norway (0.022); Serbia (0.048); Turkey (0.034).
Spain Albania (0.052); Australia (0.084); Canada (0.207); Iceland (0.424);
Israel (0.019); Korea (0.159); Switzerland (0.029); Russia (0.026).
Sweden Canada (0.453); Iceland (0.234); Korea (0.182); Norway (0.132).
United Kingdom Argentina (0.009); Australia (0.512); Canada (0.129); Iceland (0.192);
Korea (0.143); Russia (0.013).

  1. Notes: Potential control units included all the 27 countries in the original donor pool except Saudi Arabia which did not have data for the covariates. For each treated country, the rest of the donor units not appearing in this table received zero weights.

Appendix A.3

This Appendix provides the estimations for the EU-13 membership on their per capita GDP. Particularly, in this exercise, we set each individual incumbent’s own EU accession date as the treatment year so as to demonstrate how different such an effect is from the 2004-eastern enlargement shock. Thus, for this exercise, we set 1957 for the founding members (Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands); 1973 for the first enlargement members (Denmark, and the United Kingdom); 1981 for Greece; 1986 for the third enlargement states (Spain and Portugal); and 1995 for the fourth enlargement members (Austria, Finland and Sweden).

Table A.3:

Effects of EU incumbents’ membership on their own per capita GDP.

AUT BEL DNK FIN FRA DEU GRC ITA NLD PRT ESP SWE GBR
τ 2009 6.07 12.03 5.62 13.19 −0.59 3.55 −15.68 13.11 6.66 18.33 4.78 7.24 17.30
τ 2019 2.95 8.73 8.08 5.92 −3.35 7.11 −37.66 −2.60 1.82 17.50 −2.68 9.95 11.04

  1. Notes: τ 2009 and τ 2019, respectively, capture the cumulative effect of EU membership as the percentage discrepancy between the treated unit and its synthetic control in 2009 and at the end of the study period—2019.

Appendix A.4

This Appendix presents the results from the MC and partially pooled SCM estimations.

Figure A.4: MC estimator: ATE of the 2004 enlargement on real GDP per capita (in thousand US$). Notes: the ATE is bounded within 90 % confidence intervals.
Figure A.4:

MC estimator: ATE of the 2004 enlargement on real GDP per capita (in thousand US$). Notes: the ATE is bounded within 90 % confidence intervals.

Figure A.5: Partially pooled SCM: effects of the 2004 enlargement on real GDP per capita (in thousand US$). Notes: the ATE is bounded within 90 % confidence intervals.
Figure A.5:

Partially pooled SCM: effects of the 2004 enlargement on real GDP per capita (in thousand US$). Notes: the ATE is bounded within 90 % confidence intervals.

References

Abadie, A. 2021. “Using Synthetic Controls: Feasibility, Data Requirements, and Methodological Aspects.” Journal of Economic Literature 59 (2): 391–425. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191450.Suche in Google Scholar

Abadie, A., A. Diamond, and J. Hainmueller. 2010. “Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 105 (490): 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746.Suche in Google Scholar

Abadie, A., A. Diamond, and J. Hainmueller. 2015. “Comparative Politics and the Synthetic Control Method.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (2): 495–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12116.Suche in Google Scholar

Abadie, A., and J. Gardeazabal. 2003. “The Economic Costs of Conflict: A Case Study of the Basque Country.” American Economic Review 93 (1): 113–32. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321455188.Suche in Google Scholar

Abadie, A., and J. Vives-i-Bastida. 2022. “Synthetic Controls in Action.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.06279.Suche in Google Scholar

Andrews, D. W. 2003. “End-of-Sample Instability Tests.” Econometrica 71 (6): 1661–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00466.Suche in Google Scholar

Arkhangelsky, D., S. Athey, D. A. Hirshberg, G. W. Imbens, and S. Wager. 2021. “Synthetic Difference-In-Differences.” American Economic Review 111 (12): 4088–118. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190159.Suche in Google Scholar

Athey, S., M. Bayati, N. Doudchenko, G. Imbens, and K. Khosravi. 2021. “Matrix Completion Methods for Causal Panel Data Models.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 116 (536): 1716–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2021.1891924.Suche in Google Scholar

Athey, S., and G. W. Imbens. 2017. “The State of Applied Econometrics: Causality and Policy Evaluation.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 31 (2): 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.3.Suche in Google Scholar

Badinger, H. 2005. “Growth Effects of Economic Integration: Evidence from the EU Member States.” Review of World Economics 141 (1): 50–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-005-0015-y.Suche in Google Scholar

Bai, J., and P. Perron. 1998. “Estimating and Testing Linear Models with Multiple Structural Changes.” Econometrica 66: 47–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/2998540.Suche in Google Scholar

Baldwin, R. 1995. “The Eastern Enlargement of the European Union.” European Economic Review 39 (3–4): 474–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(94)00053-3.Suche in Google Scholar

Baldwin, R., J. F. Francois, and R. Portes. 1997. “The Costs and Benefits of Eastern Enlargement: The Impact on the EU and Central Europe.” Economic Policy 12 (24): 125–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0327.00018.Suche in Google Scholar

Baldwin, R., and C. Wyplosz. 2019. The Economics of European Integration, 6th ed. London: McGraw-Hill Education.Suche in Google Scholar

Barro, R., and X. Sala-i-Martin. 1992. Convergence, Topic 2, Dynamics and Convergence. London: JPE Publishing House.Suche in Google Scholar

Ben-Michael, E., A. Feller, and J. Rothstein. 2022. “Synthetic Controls with Staggered Adoption.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 84 (2): 351–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12448.Suche in Google Scholar

Bogumil, P., and R. Wielądek. 2014. “Securing Poland’s Economic Success: A Good Time for Reforms.” ECFIN Country Focus 11 (9): 1–8.Suche in Google Scholar

Born, B., G. J. Müller, M. Schularick, and P. Sedláček. 2019. “The Costs of Economic Nationalism: Evidence from the Brexit Experiment.” The Economic Journal 129 (623): 2722–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/uez020.Suche in Google Scholar

Bouttell, J., P. Craig, J. Lewsey, M. Robinson, and F. Popham. 2018. “Synthetic Control Methodology as a Tool for Evaluating Population-Level Health Interventions.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 72 (8): 673–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2017-210106.Suche in Google Scholar

Bove, V., L. Elia, and R. P. Smith. 2017. “On the Heterogeneous Consequences of Civil War.” Oxford Economic Papers 69 (3): 550–68.Suche in Google Scholar

Breinlich, H., E. Leromain, D. Novy, and T. Sampson. 2020. “Voting with Their Money: Brexit and Outward Investment by UK Firms.” European Economic Review 124: 103400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103400.Suche in Google Scholar

Breton, T. R. 2012. “Penn World Table 7.0: Are the Data Flawed?” Economics Letters 117 (1): 208–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.05.012.Suche in Google Scholar

Campos, N. F., F. Coricelli, and L. Moretti. 2019. “Institutional Integration and Economic Growth in Europe.” Journal of Monetary Economics 103: 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2018.08.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Crespo, C. J., D. Ritzberger-Grünwald, and M. A. Silgoner. 2008. “Growth, Convergence and EU Membership.” Applied Economics 40 (5): 643–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840600749524.Suche in Google Scholar

Dabrowski, M. 2010. “The Global Financial Crisis: Lessons for European Integration.” Economic Systems 34 (1): 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2010.01.002.Suche in Google Scholar

Devuyst, Y. 1998. “European Union: Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union and Consolidated Version of the Treaty Establishing the European Community.” International Legal Materials 37 (1): 56–142. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020782900019422.Suche in Google Scholar

Di Cataldo, M. 2017. “The Impact of EU Objective 1 Funds on Regional Development: Evidence from the UK and the Prospect of Brexit.” Journal of Regional Science 57 (5): 814–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12337.Suche in Google Scholar

Dijkstra, L., E. Garcilazo, and P. McCann. 2015. “The Effects of the Global Financial Crisis on European Regions and Cities.” Journal of Economic Geography 15 (5): 935–49. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbv032.Suche in Google Scholar

Douch, M., and T. H. Edwards. 2022. “The Bilateral Trade Effects of Announcement Shocks: Brexit as a Natural Field Experiment.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 37 (2): 305–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2878.Suche in Google Scholar

Dreuw, P. 2023. “Structural Time Series Models and Synthetic Controls—Assessing the Impact of the Euro Adoption.” Empirical Economics 64 (2): 681–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-022-02257-x.Suche in Google Scholar

Eichengreen, B. 2008. The European Economy Since 1945: Coordinated Capitalism and Beyond. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.10.2307/j.ctt7rpfsSuche in Google Scholar

Feenstra, R. C., R. Inklaar, and M. P. Timmer. 2015. “The Next Generation of the Penn World Table.” American Economic Review 105 (10): 3150–82. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20130954.Suche in Google Scholar

Feldstein, M. 1997. “The Political Economy of the European Economic and Monetary Union: Political Sources of an Economic Liability.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 11 (4): 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.11.4.23.Suche in Google Scholar

Fertig, M. 2003. The Impact of Economic Integration on Employment-An assessment in the Context of EU Enlargement. IZA Discussion Paper.10.2139/ssrn.464688Suche in Google Scholar

Firpo, S., and V. Possebom. 2018. “Synthetic Control Method: Inference, Sensitivity Analysis and Confidence Sets.” Journal of Causal Inference 6 (2): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1515/jci-2016-0026.Suche in Google Scholar

Gabrisch, H. 1997. “Eastern Enlargement of the European Union: Macroeconomic Effects in New Member States.” Europe-Asia Studies 49 (4): 567–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668139708412461.Suche in Google Scholar

Gardeazabal, J., and A. Vega-Bayo. 2017. “An Empirical Comparison Between the Synthetic Control Method and Hsiao et al.’s Panel Data Approach to Program Evaluation.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 32 (5): 983–1002. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2557.Suche in Google Scholar

Gyoerk, E. 2017. “Economic Costs and Benefits of EMU Membership from the Perspective of a Non-member.” Open Economies Review 28 (5): 893–921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11079-017-9466-8.Suche in Google Scholar

Hahn, J., and R. Shi. 2017. “Synthetic Control and Inference.” Econometrics 5 (4): 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/econometrics5040052.Suche in Google Scholar

Harrold, P., and H. J. Hahm. 2012. Croatia and the European Union: An Opportunity, Not a Guarantee. Washington: The World Bank.Suche in Google Scholar

Henrekson, M., J. Torstensson, and R. Torstensson. 1997. “Growth Effects of European Integration.” European Economic Review 41 (8): 1537–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0014-2921(97)00063-9.Suche in Google Scholar

Hope, D. 2016. “Estimating the Effect of the EMU on Current Account Balances: A Synthetic Control Approach.” European Journal of Political Economy 44: 20–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2016.05.002.Suche in Google Scholar

Johnson, S., W. Larson, C. Papageorgiou, and A. Subramanian. 2013. “Is Newer Better? Penn World Table Revisions and Their Impact on Growth Estimates.” Journal of Monetary Economics 60 (2): 255–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2012.10.022.Suche in Google Scholar

Kohler, W. 2004. “Eastern Enlargement of the EU: A Comprehensive Welfare Assessment.” Journal of Policy Modeling 26 (7): 865–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2004.08.006.Suche in Google Scholar

Kong, J., P. C. Phillips, and D. Sul. 2019. “Weak σ-convergence: Theory and Applications.” Journal of Econometrics 209 (2): 185–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2018.12.022.Suche in Google Scholar

Kyris, G. 2012. “The European Union and the Cyprus Problem: A Story of Limited Impetus.” Eastern Journal of European Studies 3 (1): 87–99.Suche in Google Scholar

Lammers, K. 2004. “How Will the Enlargement Affect the Old Members of the European Union?” Intereconomics 39 (3): 132–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02933580.Suche in Google Scholar

Liu, L., Y. Wang, and Y. Xu. 2022. “A Practical Guide to Counterfactual Estimators for Causal Inference with Time-Series Cross-Sectional Data.” American Journal of Political Science, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12723.Suche in Google Scholar

Niebuhr, A., and F. Schlitte. 2009. “EU Enlargement and Convergence: Does Market Access Matter?” Eastern European Economics 47 (3): 28–56. https://doi.org/10.2753/eee0012-8775470302.Suche in Google Scholar

Olper, A., D. Curzi, and J. Swinnen. 2018. “Trade Liberalization and Child Mortality: A Synthetic Control Method.” World Development 110: 394–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.034.Suche in Google Scholar

Peiró-Palomino, J., A. J. Picazo-Tadeo, and V. Rios. 2023. “Social Progress Around the World: Trends and Convergence.” Oxford Economic Papers 75 (2): 281–306, https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpac022.Suche in Google Scholar

Piehl, A. M., S. J. Cooper, A. A. Braga, and D. M. Kennedy. 2003. “Testing for Structural Breaks in the Evaluation of Programs.” Review of Economics and Statistics 85 (3): 550–8. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465303322369713.Suche in Google Scholar

Plümper, T., C. J. Schneider, and V. E. Troeger. 2006. “The Politics of EU Eastern Enlargement: Evidence from a Heckman Selection Model.” British Journal of Political Science 36 (1): 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123406000020.Suche in Google Scholar

Ponomareva, N., and H. Katayama. 2010. “Does the Version of the Penn World Tables Matter? An Analysis of the Relationship between Growth and Volatility.” Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique 43 (1): 152–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5982.2009.01567.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Puzzello, L., and P. Gomis-Porqueras. 2018. “Winners and Losers from the €uro.” European Economic Review 108: 129–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2018.06.011.Suche in Google Scholar

Rapacki, R., and M. Próchniak. 2009. The EU Enlargement and Economic Growth in the CEE New Member Countries. European Economy. Economic Papers 367.Suche in Google Scholar

Reinhart, C. M., and K. S. Rogoff. 2010. “Growth in a Time of Debt.” American Economic Review 100 (2): 573–8. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.2.573.Suche in Google Scholar

Saia, A. 2017. “Choosing the Open Sea: The Cost to the UK of Staying Out of the Euro.” Journal of International Economics 108: 82–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2017.06.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Sedelmeier, U. 2014. “Europe after the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union: 2004–2014.” Heinrich Böll Stiftung Brussels, https://eu.boell.org/en/2014/06/10/europe-after-eastern-enlargement-europeanunion-2004-2014.Suche in Google Scholar

Solow, R. M. 1956. “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 70 (1): 65–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884513.Suche in Google Scholar

Spolaore, E. 2013. “What is European Integration Really About? A Political Guide for Economists.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 27 (3): 125–44. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.27.3.125.Suche in Google Scholar

Venables, A. J. 2003. “Winners and Losers from Regional Integration Agreements.” The Economic Journal 113 (490): 747–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.t01-1-00155.Suche in Google Scholar

Viner, J. 1950. The Customs Union Issue. New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Suche in Google Scholar

Weise, C. 2002. How to Finance Eastern Enlargement of the EU: The Need to Reform EU Policies and the Consequences for the Net Contributor Balance (Tech. Rep.). DIW Discussion Papers.Suche in Google Scholar

Yin, L., G. K. Zestos, and L. Michelis. 2003. “Economic Convergence in the European Union.” Journal of Economic Integration 18: 188–213, https://doi.org/10.11130/jei.2003.18.1.188.Suche in Google Scholar

Zonda, J. M., C.-C. Lin, and M.-J. Chang. 2023. “On the Economic Costs of Political Instabilities: A Tale of Sub-saharan Africa.” Empirical Economics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-023-02452-4.Suche in Google Scholar

Supplementary Material

This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/bejm-2023-0053).

Received: 2023-04-03
Accepted: 2023-10-02
Published Online: 2023-11-14

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Advances
  3. Optimal Taxation of Informal Firms: Misreporting Costs and a Tax Reform in Brazil
  4. Initial Beliefs Uncertainty
  5. Credit Resource Misallocation and Macroeconomic Fluctuations in China: From the Perspective of Heterogeneous Financial Frictions
  6. The Bitcoin Premium: A Persistent Puzzle
  7. Contributions
  8. Intermediate Goods–Skill Complementarity
  9. Perfect Competition and Fixed Costs: The Role of the Ownership Structure
  10. Optimal Monetary Policy with Government-Provided Unemployment Benefits
  11. Employment Protection in Dual Labor Markets: Any Amplification of Macroeconomic Shocks?
  12. A Tide that Lifts Some Boats: Assessing the Macroeconomic Effects of EU Enlargement
  13. Current Account Balances’ Divergence in the Euro Area: An Appraisal of the Underlying Forces
  14. Merging Structural and Reduced-Form Models for Forecasting
  15. Trust in Government in a Changing World: Shocks, Tax Evasion, and Economic Growth
  16. The Fiscal Multiplier of Public Investment: The Role of Corporate Balance Sheet
  17. Does Uncertainty Matter for the Fiscal Consolidation and Investment Nexus?
  18. Government Spending Between Active and Passive Monetary Policy: An Invariance Result
  19. A DSGE Model with Government-owned Banks
https://doi.org/10.1515/bejm-2023-0053
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
European Union; economic growth; economic convergence; economic integration

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Advances
  3. Optimal Taxation of Informal Firms: Misreporting Costs and a Tax Reform in Brazil
  4. Initial Beliefs Uncertainty
  5. Credit Resource Misallocation and Macroeconomic Fluctuations in China: From the Perspective of Heterogeneous Financial Frictions
  6. The Bitcoin Premium: A Persistent Puzzle
  7. Contributions
  8. Intermediate Goods–Skill Complementarity
  9. Perfect Competition and Fixed Costs: The Role of the Ownership Structure
  10. Optimal Monetary Policy with Government-Provided Unemployment Benefits
  11. Employment Protection in Dual Labor Markets: Any Amplification of Macroeconomic Shocks?
  12. A Tide that Lifts Some Boats: Assessing the Macroeconomic Effects of EU Enlargement
  13. Current Account Balances’ Divergence in the Euro Area: An Appraisal of the Underlying Forces
  14. Merging Structural and Reduced-Form Models for Forecasting
  15. Trust in Government in a Changing World: Shocks, Tax Evasion, and Economic Growth
  16. The Fiscal Multiplier of Public Investment: The Role of Corporate Balance Sheet
  17. Does Uncertainty Matter for the Fiscal Consolidation and Investment Nexus?
  18. Government Spending Between Active and Passive Monetary Policy: An Invariance Result
  19. A DSGE Model with Government-owned Banks
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2026 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 1.1.2026 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/bejm-2023-0053/pdf
Button zum nach oben scrollen