IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iwe/workpr/161.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Divide and conquer: the EU enlargement's successful conclusion?

Author

Listed:
  • David L. Ellison

    (Institute of World Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences)

Abstract

More conventional analyses of EU accession suggest that the Central and East European countries have successfully completed a lengthy negotiation process and won the ultimate prize – EU membership. The analysis presented in this paper is more critical of this view. It focuses in particular on some of the more problematic features of the final EU membership agreement, as well as the potential for future change from within the New Europe. Focusing in particular on bargaining outcomes with respect to the CAP and the Structural and Cohesion Funds, the EU accession process has led to an agreement that is fundamentally slanted in favour of the Old Member States. While the New Member States can claim marginal gains from this process – they do receive some CAP and Structural and Cohesion Fund payments – the “discrimination gap” is large and significant. Moreover, the imbalance in the distribution of resources is likely to have a market distorting effect on the fortunes of the New and Old Member States. Weighing these points against the many costs of the accession, this paper questions whether the overall balance for the New Member States is positive or negative. The final section of the paper asks whether the imbalance in the distribution of EU resources can be overcome now that the New Member States are officially in the EU. Given the relative power of states within the EU decision-making framework, this paper argues that the large member states tend to dominate the decision-making process. Reform proposals made within the context of the new Constitutional Treaty do little to resolve this problem. Thus it is unlikely that the New Member States will be able to make substantial progress in resolving this imbalance in the near future (the chances are greater with the Structural and Cohesion Funds, much smaller with the CAP). This paper provides strong support for more traditional intergovernmentalist arguments about what drives decision making within the European Union. Moreover, it suggests that even with EU membership in the New Europe, the basic contours of the decision made at the December 2002 Copenhagen Summit are likely to continue to shape future EU policy debates.

Suggested Citation

  • David L. Ellison, 2005. "Divide and conquer: the EU enlargement's successful conclusion?," IWE Working Papers 161, Institute for World Economics - Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    • Handle: RePEc:iwe:workpr:161
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://vgi.krtk.hu/publikacio/no-161-2005-07/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David L. Ellison, 2005. "Competitiveness strategies, resource struggles and national interest in the new Europe," IWE Working Papers 159, Institute for World Economics - Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    2. Williamson, Jeffrey G, 1997. "Globalization and Inequality, Past and Present," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 12(2), pages 117-135, August.
    3. Lorena Ruano, 2003. "The Common Agricultural Policy and the European Union's Enlargement to Eastern and Central Europe: A Comparison with the Spanish Case," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 3, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    4. Andreas Bieler, 2003. "European integration and eastward enlargement: the widening and deepening of neo-liberal restructuring in Europe," Queen's Papers on Europeanisation p0041, Queens University Belfast.
    5. Schimmelfennig, Frank, 2001. "The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(1), pages 47-80, January.
    6. Moravcsik, Andrew, 1999. "A New Statecraft? Supranational Entrepreneurs and International Cooperation," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 267-306, April.
    7. Mattli,Walter, 1999. "The Logic of Regional Integration," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521635363, September.
    8. Paul Grauwe & Gunther Schnabl, 2004. "EMU entry strategies for the new member states," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 39(5), pages 241-246, September.
    9. Maria Green Cowles, 1995. "Setting the Agenda for a New Europe: The ERT and EC 1992," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 501-526, December.
    10. Bernard G. Funck & Lodovico Pizzati, 2003. "European Integration, Regional Policy, and Growth," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 15144.
    11. Gábor Hunya (ed.), 2000. "Integration Through Foreign Direct Investment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1839.
    12. Mattli,Walter, 1999. "The Logic of Regional Integration," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521632270, September.
    13. Karin Fierke & Antje Wiener, 1999. "Constructing Institutional Interests: EU and NATO Enlargement," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 14, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    14. Sass, Magdolna, 2004. "FDI in Hungary - the first mover's advantage and disadvantage," EIB Papers 8/2004, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
    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. David L. Ellison, 2006. "Market correlatives, market palliatives and the new politics of European industrial and regional development," IWE Working Papers 173, Institute for World Economics - Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    2. David L. Ellison, 2005. "Competitiveness strategies, resource struggles and national interest in the new Europe," IWE Working Papers 159, Institute for World Economics - Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.

    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. John Leslie, 2015. "Regionalism by diffusion and design: Australasian policymakers, Europe and Asian-Pacific economic integration," Asia Europe Journal, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 193-210, June.
    2. Mikael Olsson & Mikael Lönnborg, 2018. "Trade and foreign direct investment in the Baltic Sea Region, 1990-2015: lessons from attempts at regional integration in post-communist Europe," Working Papers 18005, Economic History Society.
    3. Jeffrey T. Checkel & Andrew Moravcsik, 2001. "A Constructivist Research Program in EU Studies?," European Union Politics, , vol. 2(2), pages 219-249, June.
    4. Baccini, Leonardo, 2014. "Cheap talk: transaction costs, quality of institutions, and trade agreements," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 44923, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Paul Brenton & Barak Hoffman, 2016. "Political Economy of Regional Integration in Sub-Saharan Africa," World Bank Publications - Reports 24767, The World Bank Group.
    6. Andrés Malamud, 2013. "Overlapping Regionalism, No Integration: Conceptual Issues and the Latin American Experiences," RSCAS Working Papers 2013/20, European University Institute.
    7. Vinokurov, Evgeny, 2009. "Systema Indikatorov Evraziyskoy Integracii [The System of Indicators of Eurasian Integration]," MPRA Paper 20914, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Laima Gerlitz & Christopher Meyer, 2021. "Small and Medium-Sized Ports in the TEN-T Network and Nexus of Europe’s Twin Transition: The Way towards Sustainable and Digital Port Service Ecosystems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, April.
    9. Bruszt, Laszlo & Campos, Nauro F., 2018. "Economic Integration and State Capacity: Evidence from the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union," IZA Discussion Papers 11782, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Vinokurov, Evgeny, 2010. "The System of Indicators of Eurasian Integration," MPRA Paper 22227, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Tanja A. Börzel, 2010. "The Transformative Power of Europe Reloaded - The Limits of External Europeanization," KFG Working Papers p0011, Free University Berlin.
    12. Paul John, Pena, 2019. "An ASEAN Digital Single Market: Boosting the Aspiration for a Single Market in the Digital Era," MPRA Paper 95948, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Hermann Sebastian Dehnen & Jan H. van Dinther & Norbert Koubek, 2013. "From emerging economies toward the Emerging Triad," Schumpeter Discussion Papers SDP13008, Universitätsbibliothek Wuppertal, University Library.
    14. Eichengreen, Barry, 2002. "Lessons of the Euro for the Rest of the World," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt16g425jb, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    15. Liesbet Hooghe & Gary Marks, 2015. "Delegation and pooling in international organizations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 305-328, September.
    16. Besir Ceka and Brian Burgo, 2014. "Discovering Cooperation: A Contractual Approach to Institutional Change in Regional International Organizations," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers p0388, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    17. Libman, Alexander & Vinokurov, Evgeny, 2016. "Региональные Организации: Типы И Логика Развития [Regional Organizations: Typology and Development Paths]," MPRA Paper 79383, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Vlatka Bilas & Sanja Franc, 2011. "Liberalization Among Developing Countries," Book Chapters, in: Stefan Bogdan Salej & Dejan Eric & Srdjan Redzepagic & Ivan Stosic (ed.), Contemporary Issues in the Integration Processes of Western Balkan Countries in the European Union, chapter 10, pages 141-155, Institute of Economic Sciences.
    19. Johannes Urpelainen, 2012. "How Does Democratic Accountability Shape International Cooperation?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(1), pages 28-55, February.
    20. Adrian Favell & Virginie Guiraudon, 2009. "The Sociology of the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 10(4), pages 550-576, December.

    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:iwe:workpr:161. 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: Kanász Mária (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vkhashu.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.