Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:24:34.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gains from Integration? An Empirical Hint from the Eurozone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

Ku-Hsieh Chen ,
Jen-Chi Cheng ,
Joe-Ming Lee  and
Chih-Chun Chen
Ku-Hsieh Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Economics and Management, National Ilan University, Taiwan, Republic of China. Email: [email protected]
Jen-Chi Cheng
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas, USA
Joe-Ming Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Economics, Fo Guang University, Taiwan, Republic of China
Chih-Chun Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Economics and Management, National Ilan University, Taiwan, Republic of China
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Has the eurozone (EZ) really gained from integration? This study applied two econometric frameworks, mGARCH and gMMPI, to test this hypothesis, using panel data that span 1996–2014, a total of 19 years, involving the EZ, EU, G8, G20 and some emerging economies. The empirical outcomes initially showed that the EZ economies experienced neither superior output growth nor a better capital market return than non-EZ economies or the pre-EZ period. They further suggested that each EZ country had a higher degree of risk bearing and, as a group, a greater risk linkage. Moreover, the results indicated that the EZ had a higher productivity gain if the risk premium was counted as part of productivity. Nonetheless, the EZ did not show a substantial productivity gain when the effect of the risk factor was controlled. The ratio of risk bearing to risk premium gain was shown to be 1 to 0.97. The general conclusion is that, other than the risk premium, there was no extra productivity gain for the EZ from taking the risk.

Type
Articles
Information
European Review , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , June 2020 , pp. 483 - 512
Copyright
© 2020 Academia Europaea

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aristotelous, K (2006) Are there differences across countries regarding the effect of currency unions on trade? Evidence from EMU. Journal of Common Market Studies 44, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashenfelter, O and Card, D (1985) Using the longitudinal structure of earnings to estimate the effect of training programs. Review of Economics and Statistics 67, 648–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badinger, H (2005) Growth effects of economic integration: evidence from the EU member states. Review of World Economics 141, 50–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, K, Corcos, G and Mion, G (2013) Trade crisis? What trade crisis? Review of Economics and Statistics 95, 702–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollerslev, T (1986) Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity. Journal of Econometrics 31, 307–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollerslev, T, Engle, R and Wooldridge, J (1988) A capital asset pricing model with time-varying covariances. Journal of Political Economy 96, 116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottasso, A and Sembenelli, A (2001) Market power, productivity and the EU Single Market Program: evidence from a panel of Italian firms. European Economic Review 45, 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breuss, F (2002). Benefits and dangers of EU enlargement. Empirica 29, 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cincera, M and Galgau, O (2005) Impact of market entry and exit on EU productivity and growth performance. EconWPA No. 0503013.Google Scholar
Chen, KH and Yang, HY (2011) A cross-country comparison of productivity growth using the generalized metafrontier Malmquist productivity index: with application to banking industries in Taiwan and China. Journal of Productivity Analysis 35, 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conley, TG and Taber, CR (2011). Inference with difference in differences with a small number of policy changes. Review of Economics and Statistics 93, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuaresma, JS, Ritzberger-Grunwald, D and Silgoner, MA (2008) Growth, convergence and EU membership. Applied Economics 40, 643–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, R (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity with estimates of the variance of the United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica 50, 987–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fesaran, MH and Pick, A (2007) Econometric issues in the analysis of contagion. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 31, 1245–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, KJ and Rigobon, R (2002) No contagion, only interdependence: measuring stock market comovements. Journal of Finance 57, 2223–2261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, S and Bache, I (2001) Politics in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gilpin, R (2001) Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsberg, RH (2007) Demystifying the European Union: The Enduring Logic of Regional Integration. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Gorg, H and Ruane, F (1999) US investment in EU member countries: the internal market and sectoral specialization. Journal of Common Market Studies 37, 333–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidenreich, M and Wunder, C (2008) Patterns of regional inequality in the enlarged Europe. European Sociological Review 24, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, CJ, Huang, TH and Liu, NH (2014) A new approach to estimating the metafrontier production function based on a stochastic frontier framework. Journal of Productivity Analysis 42, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, H (2001) Regional integration and productivity growth: the case of EU. Journal of Economic Integration 16, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krugman, PR (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy 99, 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutan, AM and Yigit, TM (2007). European integration, productivity growth and real convergence. European Economic Review 51, 1370–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C and Sanz, L (2003) Real convergence and European integration: the experience of the less developed EU members. Empirica 30, 205–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metiu, N (2012). Sovereign risk contagion in the Eurozone. Economics Letters 117, 35–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molle, W (1997) The Economics of European Integration: Theory, Practice, Policy. Aldershot, UK and Brookfield, USA: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Pardo, I (2005) Growth, convergence, and social cohesion in the European Union. International Advances in Economic Research 11, 459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robson, P (1998) The Economics of International Integration. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims, CA (1980) Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica 48, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiglitz, J (2010). Risk and global economic architecture: why full financial integration may be undesirable. American Economic Review 100, 388–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venables, AJ (2003) Winners and losers from regional integration agreements. Economic Journal 113, 747–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viner, J (1950) The Customs Union Issue. New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
Wooster, RB, Banda, TM and Dube, S (2008) The contribution of intraregional and extra-regional trade to growth: evidence from the European Union. Journal of Economic Integration 23,161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zervoyianni, A and Argiros, G (2006) Factor- and product-market integration and Europe’s single market. In Zervoyianni, A, Argiros, G and Agiomirgianakis, G (eds), European Integration, Basingstoke. UK and New York Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 93–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar