2009
DOI: 10.2753/eee0012-8775470302
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

EU Enlargement and Convergence

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…At the Member State level, the convergence process in the newly acceded EU Member States was much more evident than in the "old" EU-15 in the first decade of the twenty-first century (Schadler, Mody, Abiad, & Leigh, 2006;Čihák & Fonteyne, 2009;Próchniak & Witkowski, 2013). This was the result of a significantly lower GDP growth rate in the EU-15 regions than in the newly acceded EU Member States (Niebuhr & Schlitte, 2009). If we look at the regions independently from groups of countries, however, we can see an increasing dispersion of income across EU regions.…”
Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the Member State level, the convergence process in the newly acceded EU Member States was much more evident than in the "old" EU-15 in the first decade of the twenty-first century (Schadler, Mody, Abiad, & Leigh, 2006;Čihák & Fonteyne, 2009;Próchniak & Witkowski, 2013). This was the result of a significantly lower GDP growth rate in the EU-15 regions than in the newly acceded EU Member States (Niebuhr & Schlitte, 2009). If we look at the regions independently from groups of countries, however, we can see an increasing dispersion of income across EU regions.…”
Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The empirical evidence on the relationship between the spatial wage structure and economic potentials for the new EU member states still remains relatively scarce. Notable exceptions for the pre‐accession period include studies by Brülhart and Koenig (), Niebuhr and Schlitte (), Fingleton and Fisher () and Damijan and Kostevc ().…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Niebuhr and Schlitte () considered regions of the new EU member states in their study of convergence among countries and regions in the enlarged EU 27. Departing from the NEG framework, they focused on integration effects caused by changes in market access, released by a reduction of trade impediments.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their results provide indirect evidence for a consumer bias as explanation of border effects. Niebuhr & Schlitte (2008) based themselves on estimates by Brocker (] 998) and other authors and used travel time equivalents instead to measure the impediment effect of a border. This means that for them, travel time between the CEECs and EU-15 countries includes waiting times at border crossings, which are added as a…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…European Commission (1998) Finally, the time spent in passing borders (waiting time at border controls, and the filling in of customs formalities) could be conceivable as a measure of trade costs. Brocker (1998) estimated this at I 00 minutes and 60 minutes for the mid-1990s, and Niebuhr & Schlitte (2008) modelled integration by reducing these time penalties. As these are mere estimates or assumptions, they are not deemed appropriate, given the modernisation of border crossing points in accession countries, including Hungary, and the harmonisation of customs formalities which took place financed by EU-funds during the pre-accession period (i.e.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%