Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:26:14.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ten Years of EMU: Convergence, Divergence and New Policy Priorities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

Nikos Christodoulakis
Nikos Christodoulakis*
Affiliation:
Athens University of Economics and Business; Hellenic Observatory, London School of Economics
*
e-mail [email protected] or [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As the tenth anniversary of EMU is approaching, a debate is underway as to whether the single currency has promoted or hindered convergence among the countries of the Euro Area. On the one hand, there is wide agreement that asymmetric shocks have subsided after the creation of the single currency, but if one moves to examine the catching-up process between the more and less affluent countries of the Euro Area, the evidence is waning. Another worrying development in the Euro Area is the emergence of unprecedented current account deficits in the southern Euro Area countries, while the northern ones enjoy substantial surpluses. To counter these new imbalances, new well-framed policy priorities are required in the Euro Area that put more emphasis on convergence and competitiveness than before.

Keywords

Euro Areaeconomic integrationconvergencebusiness cyclesF15F21F32
Type
Articles
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 208: Ten Years of EMU , April 2009 , pp. 86 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

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.)

Footnotes

∗

The paper was prepared as part of the National Bank Research Fellowship in the Hellenic Observatory, European Institute, LSE. The author is grateful to V. Monastiriotis for extensive comments and suggestions, and also to participants in seminars given in ELIAMEP, Athens, the University of Thessaly, and the Bank of Greece. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

Altavilla, C. (2004), ‘Do EMU members share the same business cycle?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 42, 5, pp. 869–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arghyrou, M. and Chortareas, G. (2008), ‘Current account imbalances and real exchange rates in the Euro Area’, Review of International Economics, 9, 5, pp. 747–64.Google Scholar
Aristovnik, A. (2006), “The determinants and excessiveness of current account deficits in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union’, William Davidson Institute, Working Paper No. 827.Google Scholar
Barro, R. and Sala-i-Martin, X. (1995), Economic Growth, McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Barroso, J. (2007), ‘Seeing the wood for the trees: the purpose of the Lisbon Strategy’, Speech No. 07/67.Google Scholar
Bayoumi, T. and Eichengreen, B. (1992), ‘Shocking aspects of European monetary unification’, NBER Working Paper no. 3949.Google Scholar
Bean, C. (1992), ‘Economic and Monetary Union in Europe’, CEPR Discussion Paper No. 772, October.Google Scholar
Begg, I. (2003), ‘Complementing EMU: rethinking cohesion policy’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19, 1, pp. 161–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchard, O. and Giavazzi, F. (2002), ‘Current account deficits in the Euro Area. The end of the Feldstein-Horioka puzzle?’, MIT Working Paper Series, no. 03-05.Google Scholar
Blanchard, O. (2006), ‘Current account deficits in rich countries’, IMF Mundell-Fleming Lecture.10.3386/w12925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, A., Castellacci, F., Fagerberg, J. and Verspagen, B. (2003), ‘The impact of EU regional support on growth and convergence in the European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 41, 4, pp. 621–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christodoulakis, N., Dimeli, S. and Kollintzas, T. (1995), ‘Business cycles in the EC: idiosyncrasies and regularities’, Economica, 62, 245, pp. 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christodoulakis, N. and Kalyvitis, S. (2002), Growth, Employment and the Environment, Kluwer Academic publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, D. and Wyplosz, C. (1989), ‘The European Monetary Union: an agnostic evaluation’, CEPR Discussion Paper No. 306, April.Google Scholar
Duisenberg, W. (2001), ‘The introduction of the Euro, the regions and the accession process’, Speech made at the European Union Committee of the Regions.Google Scholar
Duval, R. and Elmeskov, J. (2006), ‘The effects of EMU on structural reforms in labour and product markets’, ECB Working Paper No. 596.Google Scholar
Dyson, K. (2002), ‘EMU as europeanization: convergence, diversity and contingency’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 38, 4, pp. 645–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EC (2005), ‘Working together for growth and jobs. A new start for the Lisbon strategy’, Communication from the President, COM(2005), 24.Google Scholar
European Economy (2008), ‘EMU@10: successes and challenges after 10 years of Economic and Monetary Union’, EC DG for Economic and Financial Affairs.Google Scholar
European Parliament (1998), ‘Adjustment to asymmetric shocks’, Working Paper, Economic Affairs Series, ECON 104.Google Scholar
Filippaios, F. and Papanastassiou, M. (2008), ‘US outward foreign direct investment in the European Union and the implementation of the single market: empirical evidence from a cohesive framework’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 46, 5, pp. 969–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel, J. and Rose, A. (1996), ‘The endogeneity of the optimum currency criteria’, NBER Working Paper, no. 5700.Google Scholar
Gardiner, B., Martin, R. and Tyler, P. (2004), ‘Competitiveness, productivity and economic growth across the European regions’, Discussion Paper, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Giannone, D. and Reichlin, L. (2006), ‘Trends and cycles in the euro area: how much heterogeneity and should we worry about it?’, ECB Working Paper No. 595.Google Scholar
Gros, D. (2006), ‘Italy and Germany: convergence or divergence for the euro laggards?’, CEPS Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
Gruber, J.W. and Kamin, S. (2008), ‘Do differences in financial development explain the global pattern of current account imbalances?’, Federal Reserve System, International Finance Discussion Papers, No. 923.Google Scholar
Hodrick, R. and Prescott, E. (1980), ‘Post-war US business cycles: an empirical investigation’, Carnegie-Mellon University.Google Scholar
Kalemli-Ozcan, S., Sorensen, B.E. and Yosha, O. (2004), ‘Asymmetric shocks and risk sharing in a monetary union: updated evidence and policy implications for Europe’, CEPR Discussion Papers No. 4463.Google Scholar
Kok, W. (2004), ‘Facing the challenge: The Lisbon strategy for growth and employment’, Report from the High Level Group, European Commission, November.Google Scholar
Martin, R. (2001), ‘EMU versus the regions? Regional convergence and divergence in Euroland’, Journal of Economic Geography, 1(1), pp. 51–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mundell, R. (1961), ‘A theory of optimum currency areas’, American Economic Review, 51, pp. 509–17.Google Scholar
Rybsczynski, T. (1955), ‘Factor endowments and relative commodity prices’, Economica, pp. 336–41.Google Scholar
Schelkle, W. (2007), ‘EMU: what did we think we know, what do we know and what should we know?’, Working Paper, European Institute, LSE.Google Scholar
Schiavo, S. (2007), ‘Financial integration, GDP correlation and the endogeneity of optimum currency areas’, Economica, 75, 297, pp. 168–89.Google Scholar
Shelburne, R.C. (2008), ‘Current account deficits in European emerging markets’, UN Discussion Paper No. 2008.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenreyo, S. and Barro, R. (2003), ‘Economic effects of currency unions’, NBER WP No. 9435.Google Scholar
Turnovsky, S. (1996), ‘Endogenous growth in a dependent economy with traded and non-traded capital’, Review of International Economics, 4, 3, pp. 300–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, A. (1990), ‘Asymmetries and adjustment problems: some empirical evidence’, European Economy.Google Scholar
Wincoop, van E. (1990), “Structural adjustment and the construction sector”, European Economic Review, 37, pp. 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar