IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gpe/wpaper/2997.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Open-ended membership prospect and commitment credibility: Explaining the deadlock in EU–Turkey accession negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Ugur, Mehmet

Abstract

After the enlargement of 2004, the European Union (EU) has introduced an open-ended framework for accession negotiations. Although the ultimate aim is still to ensure the integration of candidate countries, the timing and modality of membership is not guaranteed in advance. This article utilizes a political economy model to demonstrate that open-ended accession negotiations would lead to suboptimal outcomes in the form of inadequate convergence reforms undertaken in the candidate country and poor membership prospect offered by the EU. This analytical finding is compatible with and can be useful in understanding the dynamics of deteriorating reform output in Turkey and weakening EU commitment to Turkish membership since the start of the open-ended accession negotiations process in 2005. Two necessary conditions must be satisfied to overcome such adverse outcomes in the enlargement process: (i) the EU and the accession country must renew their commitments to reform and integration through a new political bargain; and (ii) they should follow this bargain with periodic summits for co-ordinating their commitments in the face of shocks to, or emerging deadlocks in, the process of open-ended accession negotiations.

Suggested Citation

  • Ugur, Mehmet, 2010. "Open-ended membership prospect and commitment credibility: Explaining the deadlock in EU–Turkey accession negotiations," Greenwich Papers in Political Economy 2997, University of Greenwich, Greenwich Political Economy Research Centre.
    • Handle: RePEc:gpe:wpaper:2997
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haverland, Markus, 2000. "National Adaptation to European Integration: The Importance of Institutional Veto Points," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 83-103, April.
    2. Harry G. Johnson, 1953. "Optimum Tariffs and Retaliation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 21(2), pages 142-153.
    3. Frank Schimmelfennig & Stefan Engert & Heiko Knobel, 2003. "Costs, Commitment and Compliance: The Impact of EU Democratic Conditionality on Latvia, Slovakia and Turkey," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 495-518, June.
    4. Ugur, Mehmet & Yankaya, Dilek, 2008. "Policy entrepreneurship, policy opportunism, and EU conditionality: The AKP and TÜSİAD experience in Turkey," Greenwich Papers in Political Economy 3976, University of Greenwich, Greenwich Political Economy Research Centre.
    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. Hüseyin Aytuğ & Merve Mavuş Kütük & Arif Oduncu & Sübidey Togan, 2017. "Twenty Years of the EU-Turkey Customs Union: A Synthetic Control Method Analysis," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(3), pages 419-431, May.
    2. Bürgin, Alexander, 2013. "Salience, path dependency and the coalition between the European Commission and the Danish Council Presidency: Why the EU opened a visa liberalisation process with Turkey," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 17, August.

    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. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:48:y:2010:i::p:967-991 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Antoaneta Dimitrova, 2007. "Institutionalization of Imported Rules in the European Union's New Member States: Bringing Politics Back in the Research Agenda," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 37, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    3. Pravin Krishna & Devashish Mitra, 2016. "Reciprocated unilateralism in trade policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Political Economy of Trade Policy Theory, Evidence and Applications, chapter 3, pages 37-63, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Götz, Christian & Heckelei, Thomas & Rudloff, Bettina, 2010. "What makes countries initiate WTO disputes on food-related issues?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 154-162, April.
    5. Bouet, Antoine & Laborde, David, 2008. "The potential cost of a failed Doha Round," Issue briefs 56, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Rod Tyers & Yixiao Zhou, 2020. "US–China rivalry: The macro policy choices," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(9), pages 2286-2314, September.
    7. Felbermayr, Gabriel, 2022. "European trade policy at the service of geopolitics? Requirements for new instruments from the perspective of family businesses," Studien, Stiftung Familienunternehmen / Foundation for Family Businesses, number 273454, March.
    8. Naqvi, Nadeem, 2010. "A theory of dynamic tariff and quota retaliation," MPRA Paper 27656, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Kishore Gawande, 1997. "A Test of a Theory of Strategically Retaliatory Trade Barriers," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(2), pages 425-449, October.
    10. Jonathan Heathcote & Fabrizio Perri, 2016. "On the Desirability of Capital Controls," IMF Economic Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Monetary Fund, vol. 64(1), pages 75-102, May.
    11. Hideo Konishi & Carsten Kowalczyk & Tomas Sjostrom, 2003. "Free Trade, Customs Unions, and Transfers," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 568, Boston College Department of Economics.
    12. Faruqee, Hamid & Laxton, Douglas & Muir, Dirk & Pesenti, Paolo, 2008. "Would protectionism defuse global imbalances and spur economic activity? A scenario analysis," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 2651-2689, August.
    13. Subhayu Bandyopadhyay & Sumon Bhaumik & Howard J. Wall, 2013. "Biofuel Subsidies and International Trade," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 181-199, July.
    14. David J. Kuenzel, 2023. "Non‐tariff measures: What's tariffs got to do with it?," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(1), pages 133-163, February.
    15. Glebe, Thilo W., 2011. "Welfare economics of agricultural trade liberalisation and strategic environmental policy," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 8(2).
    16. Gabriel Felbermayr, 2023. "Krieg mit anderen Mitteln," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 96(2), pages 111-122, February.
    17. Staiger, Robert W., 1995. "International rules and institutions for trade policy," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 29, pages 1495-1551, Elsevier.
    18. Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W., 2001. "Reciprocity, non-discrimination and preferential agreements in the multilateral trading system," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 281-325, June.
    19. Wolfgang Lechthaler & Mariya Mileva, 2021. "The Dynamic And Distributional Aspects Of Import Tariffs," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 62(1), pages 199-241, February.
    20. Sebastian Krapohl & Václav Ocelík & Dawid M. Walentek, 2021. "The instability of globalization: applying evolutionary game theory to global trade cooperation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 188(1), pages 31-51, July.
    21. Tokarick, Stephen, 2006. "A simple rule for assessing tariff and tax incidence," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 116-120, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    EU; Turkey; accession;
    All these keywords.

    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:gpe:wpaper:2997. 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: Nadine Edwards (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/pegreuk.html .

    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.