IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/pocoec/v17y2005i1p3-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

EMU Enlargement to Include CEE Countries: Risks of Sector-based and Geographical Asymmetric Shocks

Author

Listed:
  • Jerome Trotignon

Abstract

Future membership of CEE countries in the euro zone highlights the risk of external asymmetric demand shocks due to too strong a dependence on one sector or one customer country. The purpose of this article is to build two indicators of exposure to shocks—sector-based and geographical—taking into account the symmetry of the export structures of a future member with the EMU and the trade openness of the future member. This enables us to draw up a classification of the CEE countries according to fulfillment of the Kenen criterion, revised and then transposed to the geographical variety of exports. The results, compared with those of the two countries in the EMU which are most sensitive to sector-based and geographical shocks (Finland and Ireland), testify to a generally pronounced exposure to shocks. An inventory of the pairs 'country/branch' and 'country/destination' liable to be at the origin of shocks with strong macroeconomic impact shows that Bulgaria and Slovakia, and to an even greater extent Estonia and Latvia, are exposed to major risks. In so far as Bulgaria and Latvia's real convergence process with the euro zone seems scarcely to have started, these two economies might consider postponing EMU membership or creating a cyclical stabilisation fund on joining. This recommendation contradicts the endogenous OCA theory, which is put forward when intra-industry trade intensifies. However, an increase in the share of intra-industry trade between a CEE country and the EMU does not necessarily entail less exposure to the shocks studied.

Suggested Citation

  • Jerome Trotignon, 2005. "EMU Enlargement to Include CEE Countries: Risks of Sector-based and Geographical Asymmetric Shocks," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 3-21.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:pocoec:v:17:y:2005:i:1:p:3-21
    DOI: 10.1080/14631370500052233
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14631370500052233
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14631370500052233?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George S. Tavlas, 1993. "The ‘New’ Theory of Optimum Currency Areas," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(6), pages 663-685, November.
    2. Finger, J M & Kreinin, M E, 1979. "A Measure of 'Export Similarity' and Its Possible Uses," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 89(356), pages 905-912, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rokas Bancevičius, 2011. "New EU member states and the Euro: economic readiness, benefits and costs," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 38(4), pages 461-480, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Doukoure Charle Fe, 2021. "Trade flows between the West African Economic and Monetary Union's members so little: does exports structure matter ?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 41(2), pages 816-833.
    2. Zelal Kotan & Serdar Sayan, 2001. "A Comparison Of The Price Competitiveness Of Turkish And South East Asian Exports In The European Union Market In The 1990s," Discussion Papers 0102, Research and Monetary Policy Department, Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey.
    3. Bahar, Dany & Hausmann, Ricardo & Hidalgo, Cesar A., 2014. "Neighbors and the evolution of the comparative advantage of nations: Evidence of international knowledge diffusion?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 111-123.
    4. Wani, Nassir Ul Haq, 2019. "Latency and Economic Concert of India’s Trade with Russia: An Empirical Investigation," MPRA Paper 104616, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 19 Nov 2020.
    5. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Gutiérrez-Martín, Carlos & Riesgo, Laura, 2016. "Modeling at farm level: Positive Multi-Attribute Utility Programming," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 17-27.
    6. Harris Dellas & George Tavlas, 2005. "Wage Rigidity and Monetary Union," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(506), pages 907-927, October.
    7. Sell, Friedrich L., 1999. "Die EWWU als Club: Positive und normative Implikationen für den Beitritt mittel- und osteuropäischer Reformstaaten," Working Papers in Economics 1999,4, Bundeswehr University Munich, Economic Research Group.
    8. Marelli, Enrico, 1999. "Convergence and asymmetries in the employment dynamics of the European regions," ERSA conference papers ersa99pa120, European Regional Science Association.
    9. Rozakis, Stelios, 2011. "Impacts of flatter rates and environmental top-ups in Greece: A novel mathematical modeling approach," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 12(2).
    10. Ladislava Issever Grochová & Petr Rozmahel, 2015. "On the Ideality of Filtering Techniques in the Business Cycle Analysis Under Conditions of European Economy," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 63(3), pages 915-926.
    11. Alberto Bagnai, 2010. "CEEC vs. PIGS: a comparative panel assessment of financial sustainability and twin deficits," Working Papers LuissLab 1088, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    12. Francesco Paolo Mongelli, 2008. "European Economic and Monetary Integration, and the Optimum Currency Area Theory," European Economy - Economic Papers 2008 - 2015 302, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
    13. Maria Demertzis & Andrew Hallett & Ole Rummel, 2000. "Is the European union a natural currency area, or is it held together by policy makers?," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 136(4), pages 657-679, December.
    14. Elsner, Karin & Hartmann, Monika, 1998. "Convergence Of Food Consumption Patterns Between Eastern And Western Europe," IAMO Discussion Papers 14875, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    15. Baliamoune-Lutz, Mina, 2019. "Trade sophistication in developing countries: Does export destination matter?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 39-51.
    16. Evzen Kocenda & Karen Poghosyan, 2017. "Export sophistication: A dynamic panel data approach," Working Papers 980, Central Bank of the Republic of Armenia.
    17. Rolf J. Langhammer, 2005. "The EU Offer of Service Trade Liberalization in the Doha Round: Evidence of a Not‐Yet‐Perfect Customs Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 311-325, June.
    18. Mark Thissen & Frank van Oort & Philip McCann & Raquel Ortega-Argilés & Trond Husby, 2020. "The Implications of Brexit for UK and EU Regional Competitiveness," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 96(5), pages 397-421, October.
    19. Seda Ekmen Ozcelik, 2018. "The Potential Effects of TPP, TTIP and Trump's Tariffs on China's Competitiveness in the US Market," World Journal of Applied Economics, WERI-World Economic Research Institute, vol. 4(2), pages 95-115, December.
    20. Marie-Line Duboz & Julie Le Gallo, 2011. "Are EU-15 and CEEC agricultural exports in competition? Evidence for 1995-2005," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(1), pages 134-146.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:pocoec:v:17:y:2005:i:1:p:3-21. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CPCE20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.