Author
Abstract
The creation of a common European currency has been scrutinized in the context of optimum currency area theory since its origin in Mundell (1961). The debate gained particular prominence in light of the endogeneity hypothesis (Frankel and Rose 1998), which argues that once two countries establish a common currency, their economic structures and cycles increasingly align due to strengthening intra-industry trade. By contrast, the specialization hypothesis (Eichengreen 1992; Krugman and Venables 1996) argues that the creation of a currency union will predominantly increase inter-industry trade, ultimately lowering business cycle correlation. To test these views, we establish several indices of bilateral trade intensity across EU members using input–output data, measuring gross and so-called value-added trade, which also considers the contribution of intermediary goods in the production of final exports. The results of the fixed effect panel data framework indicate a strong and robust empirical relationship between growth correlations and intra-industry trade, much in line with both Mundell’s and Frankel and Rose’s theories. However, we cannot establish a similarly robust relationship between total trade intensity and growth correlations. We reconcile these results by identifying a statistically significant relationship between economic alignment and trade when only considering industrial production, highlighting the importance of pan-European industrial supply chains for European economic integration. Rerunning our regression framework on the subsample of the eurozone indicates that the common currency area displayed even stronger properties of an optimum currency area than the entire European Union.
Suggested Citation
Frank Niklas Steinert & Wilhelm Althammer, 2025.
"The endogeneity of optimum currency areas in light of pan-European intra-industry trade patterns and business cycle synchronicity,"
Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 52(1), pages 121-142, February.
Handle:
RePEc:kap:empiri:v:52:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s10663-024-09631-1
DOI: 10.1007/s10663-024-09631-1
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:kap:empiri:v:52:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s10663-024-09631-1. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.