Risks and benefits for new member states of the European Union in their entry in the Euro area in the context of the debt crisis
Abstract
The Granger causality test is used to establish the direction of influence among multiple indicators related to exports and imports of new member states (NMS) of the European Union, considering the impact of the debt crisis in the Euro area (EA). Basic macroeconomic indicators of the countries are reviewed for the period 2004-2015, including the fulfillment of the Maastricht convergence criteria. The conclusions of the study point to positives for the considered countries regarding the EA membership, as well as risks. Recommendations are made on the diversification of the NMS export markets, implementing of an economic growth policy, based on exports and foreign direct investment, and forming of a roadmap on the EA membership of the states, which are not in the monetary union.
Keywords
JEL Classification
References
Кирова, С. (2014). Валутнокурсови режими и макроикономически показатели на държавите с дерогация от централна и източна Европа. – Икономическа мисъл, N 2, с. 80-99.
Маринова, Ц. (2015). Изпитания пред паричната и бюджетната политика в Еврозоната и България. – Икономически изследвания, N 1, с. 16-37.
Тодоров, Ив. (2012). Теории и критерии за европейска икономическа интеграция. – Икономическа мисъл, N 2, с. 131-152.
Тодоров, Ив. (2014). Макроикономическо управление в процеса на европейска интеграция. С.: „Авангард прима“.
Европейска централна банка (2016). Доклад за конвергенция.
Criste, A., Y. Lupu, C. Milea, A. Ailinca (2011). The Reflection of the Current Crisis on the Economic Growth in the European Union New Member States. – Acta Universitatis Danubius, N 2, p. 58-68.
Festic, M., and A. Kavkler (2012). The roots of the banking crisis in the new EU member states: a panel regression approach. – Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, 1, p. 20-40.
Goldstein, M. and M. Khan (1985). Income and price effects in foreign trade. – Handbook of International Economics, Vol. 2, p. 1041-1105.
Granger, C. (1969). Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods. – Econometrica 37 (3), р. 424-438.
Inotai, A. (2012). Winners and losers of the new European economic governance. – Bertelsmann Stiftung, October.
Lupu, I., N. Pop, A. Criste, C. Milea, S. Seitan, M. Ivan et al. (2012). The governance of euro adoption in the new member states of the European Union. – Financial Studies, 1, p. 117-131.
Podpiera, J., J. Wiegand, and J. Yoo (2015). Euro adoption in NMS: macro- economic benefits and challenges. IMF, May 29.
Tabarraei, H. (2014). Euro-Crisis and Spillover Effects on the Emerging Economies. PSE, Working Papers N 2014-07.2014.
Todorov, I. (2014). Macroeconomic trends in the new member countries of the European Union before the Euro area debt crisis. Scientific Annals of the „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”. – Economic Sciences, University of Iaşi, 61 (2), p. 197-217.
Todorov, I. and N. Patonov (2012). A few regressions on business cycle synchronization between the new member states and the Euro area. – Economics & Management, Year VIII, N 2, p. 9-22.
Eurostat (2016a). Database, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (пос- ледно посетен на 7 юни 2016).
Eurostat (2016b). Database, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (пос- ледно посетен на 21 юни 2016).
International Monetary Fund (2015). IMF Country Report N 15/97. International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C. Central and Eastern Europe: New Member States (NMS) Policy Forum, 2014. Staff report on cluster consultations - common policy frameworks and challenges.
World Economic Forum (2016). Global Competitiveness Reports 2007-2017, http://reports.weforum.org/ (последно посетен на 30 септември 2016).