Economic Economic Geography of Geography of the European integrationthe European integration
Economic GeographyEconomic GeographyI. International Business bachelor study programme (BA)I. International Business bachelor study programme (BA)Spring term 201Spring term 20144/201/20155..CUB Department of Economic Geography and Futures StudiesCUB Department of Economic Geography and Futures Studies
dr. Jeney Lászlódr. Jeney LászlóSenior lecturerSenior lecturer
[email protected]@caesar.elte.hu
22
Factors of European integration process after WW2. Military/defence factors (important rather at the
very beginning)– Soviet military threats (initially German)
Economic (later)– Balancing of the American hegemony in world economy– Collapse of colonial empires– Scientific-technical revolution large-series production,
but small national markets– Expenditures of R&D, free movement of capital– Joining of energetic, transport, telecommunication and
informatic system spread of services Principled idea
– ‘European thinkers’, Europe as a country (rules, parliament, constitution, citizenship, currency, flag, anthem, troops)
33
Beginning of the European integration: Treaty of Rome, 1958.I. ECSC – European Coal and Steel Community
(1952)II. EURATOM (1958)
– Friendly usage of nuclear energy– Development of researches, technologies, coordination
of tradeIII. EEC – European Economic Community (1958),
its 3 main directions:1. Establishment of a customs union2. Establishment of an economic union3. Establishment of development funds
Ratification (1957): D, F, I, NL, B, L International voice
– GB: stayed out (common agricultural, customs policy not its interest)
– SU: just a ‘further imperialist manoeuvre’
44
1st widening, 1973.
1970: talks have started with 4 countries: GB, IRL, N, DK
Main questions (ended with compromise): GB agreed:
– Font-Sterling has not become a special currency– The French remained the 1st working language– EC evolved towards a federative way
Claims of GB (the others has not):– Temporary derogations: coastal fishing areas 10, joining to the
agricultural market 5, to the ECSC 5, to the industrial common market 4, to the EUROATOM 1 year
– Only gradually increasing contribution to the common budget till 1978
– Same place in the institutions like the other large ones (D, F, I)
Ratifications: GB, IRL, DK yes, N no Largest market (252 mn), GDP (630 bn $, however it
is only 2/3 of the US GDP)
55
Accession of Greece, 1981.
1959: application for associated membership (1962 articles of partnership)
1967–1974: ‘coup’ military junta (‘Black Colonels’) 1975: application for full EC-membership Slow political stabilization Difference: orthodox Bad relation with TR – GR – TR conflict (from the legend of
Trojan horse)– „Population exchange”, persecutions in both sides– Question of Cyprus: in 1974 TR occupied NE third of CY (Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus)– Jurisdictional waters of Aegean Sea
GR did not make demands Development was not a criterion GR has not catch up its lag
66
Iberian Accession, 1986. Included in the West European thought since the Romans 15th–17th century: strong, 18th–20th centrury: weakened Post-war: authority regimes remained P: Salasar
– Founding member of EFTA– Colonial wars (Angola, Mozambique), support from USA– 1974: carnation revolution – democratization by a socdem. leading
E: Franco– 1972: application for associated membership to the EEC– 1975: democratization by the leading of Juan Carlos from the top– 1982: Felipe González (NATO membership)– 1983: talks (I, F slower the accession)
Harder case: large population, agriculture, dense industry, regional policy Lot of temporary derogation, rapid economic growth EEC: increased with 50 mio people (large market) ‘Blue Europe’
77
German reunification, 1990.
1989: no one expected to this East German tourists at the Embassies of D
– Political Office (Politbüro) of DDR has resigned (free emigration, collapse of wall)
Those who could lost by the German reunification– Leaders of DDR, SU (lost position), F, GB (occupation rights)
USA: not disinterested Paris, Palace of President: agreement outside, fear
inside 1990: free elections in DDR (Christian democrats
rapid reunification) In law DDR joined to D (also to EC, NATO) D: huge country in the middle of Europe, self-restraints
88
The gradually widening EU, as synonym of Europe
Treaty of Maastricht: any European country can join, which respects the principles of the EU– Morocco: refused outside from Europe– Turkey: refused outside from Europe + other factors– But parts of the EU: Cyprus + numerous dependencies
(e.g. French Guiana) Copenhagen criteria (1993)
– Political (democracy, rule of law, human and minority rights)
– Economic (functioning market economy)– Legislative alignment (to bring the laws into the line with
EU law – acquis communautaire) Accession must not endanger the results of the
EU
99
The North Accession, 1995.
EU came to existence: who drops out, that drops behind North Countries: EFTA (European Free Trade Association)
– Good relations between EC and EFTA– 1977: free trade of industrial products– 1994: European Economic Area (EEA): EU12 + A, SF, IS, N, S (+
1995: FL) Adoption 80% single of market rules (expect for agriculture, fishing) New rules: possibility of consultation
1993: accession talks: A, SF, N, S N: refused by referendum Beneficial for EU
– Euro scepticism after Treaty of Maastricht (economic – political crisis)
– Weight of EU strengthened in world economy– Beneficial for introduction of common currency
Significance of EEA declined (hardly more than EU)– IS, FL, N, CH remained EFTA members
1010
„Reunification” of Europe, 2004. East Central Europe: transition „Europe Agreements”: association treaties (H: 1994) Committee makes country reports (avis) (June 1997) Council decides on the acceptance of application
(December 1997) 2003: referendum in the candidate countries on the
membership– H: 88% yes (however: participation only 46%)
2003: Athens: 10 countries sign the accession treaty 1st May 2004: 25 EU member states 1st January 2007: BG, RO also members 2013: Croatia (talks from 2005) 28 members
1111
Further enlargement future boundaries of EUrope Official candidate countries
– Turkey accession talks from 2005 membership unlikely before 2015–2020
– Montenegro: candidate from 2010– Iceland: accession talks from 2010 potential
accession 2013– Macedonia: candidate from 2005 with no talks– Serbia: candidate from 2012
Potential applicants: Albania, Bosnia–H, Kosovo
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova?
Impacts of the Impacts of the enlargements on the enlargements on the
European economic patternEuropean economic pattern
1313
Effects of East Accession
13 countries wanted to access More underdeveloped ones Widening and deepening at the same
time:– Community achievements (acquis
communautaire) should remain– EU should remain being able to be financed
Area increased with 34%, agricultural land area 50%, pop. 29%, agricultural producers 100%, GDP 9%
Per capita GDP: decreased with 16%
– Institutional bodies should function
1414
Impacts of enlargements
AreaAreaPopulationPopulationGDPGDPPer capitaPer capita GDPGDP
Gro
wth
in %
Gro
wth
in %
Position of EU in relation to the other cores
Areakm2
Population
persons
GDPPPP
Per cap GDPPPP
ExportUS $
ImportUS $
EU4,3 mnWR7
490 mnWR3
14,82 bnWR1
32700WR31
1,95 bnWR1
1,69 bnWR2
USA9,8 mnWR3
310 mnWR4
14,66 bnWR2
47200WR10
1,29 bnWR3
1,94 bnWR1
Japan380 thWR60
130 mnWR11
4,31 bnWR4
34000WR28
0,76 bnWR4
0,64 bnWR4
China9,6 mnWR4
1300 mnWR1
10,09 bnWR3
7600WR100
1,58 bnWR2
1,33 bnWR3
1616
The pattern of European The pattern of European economyeconomy
1717
Shifting of the economic Shifting of the economic CoreCore
1818
Geogrpahical concentration of Geogrpahical concentration of the economy still remained in the economy still remained in the Corethe Core
Economic development:Economic development:GDP per capitaGDP per capita
Economic density:Economic density:area GDP per areaarea GDP per area
1919
The European PentagonThe European Pentagon
Pentagon/CorePentagon/Core– Area: 20%Area: 20%– Population: 40%Population: 40%– GDP: 50%GDP: 50%
Cities over 500.000 residents:Cities over 500.000 residents:– population: 20%population: 20%– GDP: 29%GDP: 29%– GDP/cap.: 141%GDP/cap.: 141%– GDP-growth: faster with +8%-GDP-growth: faster with +8%-
pointpoint
2020
Economic Importance Economic Importance of Cities in North of Cities in North AmericaAmerica Economic development measured only Economic development measured only
with per capita GDPwith per capita GDP– At current market prices in €At current market prices in €– Examined area: V4 Countries (CZ, HU, PL, SK)Examined area: V4 Countries (CZ, HU, PL, SK)– Examined regional level: NUTS3Examined regional level: NUTS3– Examined period: 1995–2004Examined period: 1995–2004
Data source: Eurostat Data source: Eurostat http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/
Proportion of cities in Canada/USA
country population
GDP
USA (SMA) 38% 49%
Canada (CMA)
45% 54%
2121
Growing Importance of Growing Importance of Cities in European Cities in European Economic PatternEconomic Pattern
Studying success of Studying success of cities becomes a key cities becomes a key issue for current issue for current European regional European regional trends and regional trends and regional policypolicy
Most of the cities over Most of the cities over averageaverageSome countries: only Some countries: only
the cities are over the cities are over average (e. g. V4)average (e. g. V4)
Some countries: other Some countries: other inequality factors are inequality factors are more important more important (Germany, Italy, (Germany, Italy, Romania, Spain)Romania, Spain)
Economic Development State of Economic Development State of Cities and Rural Regions Related Cities and Rural Regions Related to their National Average, 2004.to their National Average, 2004.
2222
Differences of Urban–Rural Differences of Urban–Rural Duality in Member States of Duality in Member States of EU, 2004EU, 2004
Source of data:Source of data: Eurostat, basis Eurostat, basis of map: World of map: World GazetteerGazetteer
Cities over 500.000 Cities over 500.000 residents:residents:
population: 20%population: 20%GDP: 29%GDP: 29%GDP/cap.: 141%GDP/cap.: 141%GDP-growth: faster with GDP-growth: faster with
+8%-point+8%-pointMeasuring Urban–Rural Measuring Urban–Rural
DualityDualityDDURUR: urban–rural duality index: urban–rural duality indexxxUU: average per capita GDP of : average per capita GDP of
cities in a countrycities in a countryxxRR: average per capita GDP of : average per capita GDP of
rural regions in a countryrural regions in a country
R
UUR x
xD
2323
y = -3E-05x + 2.4688
R2 = 0.4989
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
national per capita GDP, €
urb
an
–ru
ral
du
ali
ty i
nd
ex
Latvia
Hungary
Czech Republic
PolandBulgaria
Romania
Lithuania
Portugal
Greece
Spain Italy
France
Belgium
NetherlandsSweeden
Ireland
Denmark
FinlandAustria
Italy
Spain
Poland
Germany
France
United Kingdom Netherlands
SwedenUnited Kingdom
Germany
Slovakia
Relationship Between State of Relationship Between State of Development and Urban–Rural Development and Urban–Rural Duality for EU Members, 2004Duality for EU Members, 2004
Source of data:Source of data: EuroStat EuroStat
2424
Post-socialist countries: Post-socialist countries: characterized with growing characterized with growing urban–rural dualismurban–rural dualism
Chiefly the Chiefly the outstanding of outstanding of capitalscapitals
More remarkable More remarkable in case of in case of underdeveloped, underdeveloped, catching-up V4 catching-up V4 countries than countries than older membersolder members
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
Slova
kia
Belgiu
m
Hungary
Bulgar
ia
Latvi
a
Czech
Rep
ublic
Poland
Portugal
France
Roman
ia
Denm
ark
Austria
Germ
any
EU
Irela
nd
Finla
nd
United K
ingdom
Nether
lands
Lithuan
ia
Sweden
Spain
Italy
Greec
e
Du
r, u
rba
n–
rura
l d
ua
lity
in
de
x
1995
2004
Change of Urban–Rural Change of Urban–Rural Duality in EU Member Duality in EU Member States, 1995–2004States, 1995–2004
Source of data:Source of data: EuroStat EuroStat
2525
PostPost--socialist cities are to join socialist cities are to join to the 2nd level of European to the 2nd level of European city-networkcity-network Post-socialist cities: new development wave (similar to Post-socialist cities: new development wave (similar to
Southern Periphery) based chiefly on international Southern Periphery) based chiefly on international investmentsinvestments
New European models on Peripheries should adjust the New European models on Peripheries should adjust the classic urban zone of Blue Bananaclassic urban zone of Blue Banana
– Sunbelt or (Golden Banana)Sunbelt or (Golden Banana)– Central European Boomerang)Central European Boomerang)
2626
V4: success of cities not V4: success of cities not independent of the shift of independent of the shift of their sectoral structuretheir sectoral structure V4: success of cities not independent of the V4: success of cities not independent of the
shift of their sectoral structureshift of their sectoral structure– Increase of urban–rural inequality is mainly tertiary Increase of urban–rural inequality is mainly tertiary
basedbased– Industrial renewal hide in the background of fine Industrial renewal hide in the background of fine
differences among rural regionsdifferences among rural regionsAgricultureAgriculture IndustryIndustry ServicesServices
Cities 1995–Cities 1995–2004.2004. 1.31.3 1.81.8 2.62.6
Rural regions Rural regions 1995–2004.1995–2004. 1.31.3 1.91.9 2.12.1
Growth Indexes of Gross Value Added Growth Indexes of Gross Value Added (GVA) in the Sectors in V4 Countries, (GVA) in the Sectors in V4 Countries, 1995–2004.1995–2004.