Vol. 13 No. 1 (2025)
March 2025

Articles

The growth effects of Bulgaria and Romania’s EU accession: A synthetic control method examination

Published 2025-03-01

  • Andrzej Cieślik
    • ,
  • Mehmet Burak Turgut

Andrzej Cieślik
University of Warsaw

Mehmet Burak Turgut
University of Warsaw

Abstract

Objective: The article aims to evaluate the growth effects of the 2007 Eastern enlargement of the European Union (EU) for the New Member States (NMS).

Research Design & Methods: To study the growth effects of the 2007 Eastern enlargement we apply the synthetic control method (SCM). The synthetic control method (SCM) is a statistical method that contains two groups: the treatment group that included Bulgaria and Romania and the control group that included Armenia, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Morocco, Mexico, Montenegro, Malaysia, Russia, Serbia, Thailand, Tajikistan, and Turkey. These groups served to evaluate the effects of a treatment related to the EU accession.

Findings: We found that the 2007 EU enlargement had substantial uninterrupted positive effects on the economic growth of Bulgaria and Romania. However, these effects have become noticeable only since 2014, seven years after the EU accession. Therefore, we should not expect that the EU accession immediately contribute to increased growth rates of the NMS.

Implications & Recommendations: We demonstrate that the real GDP per capita of Bulgaria and Romania increased on average by 188 and 644 USD per year relative to their synthetic counterparts between 2007-2019, respectively. The actual yearly real GDP per capita growth rate for the same period in Bulgaria and Romania was 1.6% and 4.6% larger than the growth rate of these countries, respectively, if they did not become EU members in 2007. Therefore, our results support the positive growth effects of the EU accession.

Contribution & Value Added: We focused on the effects of the second enlargement of the EU to the East that took place in 2007 and so far has not received substantial attention in the literature. Our results document the significant positive effects of the EU accession on the rates of growth in Bulgaria and Romania. Therefore, this article, at least to our knowledge, is the first article that focuses on estimating the growth effects of the 2007 EU enlargement.

Keywords

Economic integration, EU, growth effects, NMS, SCM

(PDF) Save

Author Biography

Andrzej Cieślik

Full professor of economics at the Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw (Poland). His research interests include European economic integration, foreign direct investment and international trade.

Mehmet Burak Turgut

Assistant professor of economics at the Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw (Poland). His research interests include economic growth, macroeconomic theory and fiscal policy.

References

  1. Abadie, A., & Gardeazabal, J. (2003). The economic costs of conflict: A case study of the Basque Country. American Economic Review, 93(1), 113-132. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321455188
  2. Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2010). Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105(490), 493-505. https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746
  3. Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2015). Comparative politics and the synthetic control method. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), 495-510. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12116
  4. Aghion, P., Howitt, P., Howitt, P.W., Brant-Collett, M., & García-Peñalosa, C. (1998). Endogenous Growth Theory. MIT press.
  5. Badinger, H. (2005). Growth effects of economic integration: evidence from the EU member states. Review of World Economics, 141(1), 50-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-005-0015-y
  6. Barro, R.J. (2012). Convergence and modernization revisited (No. w18295). National Bureau of Economic Research.
  7. Barro, R.J., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (2004). Economic Growth. 2nd ed. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  8. Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1), 249-275. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355304772839588
  9. Billmeier, A., & Nannicini, T. (2013). Assessing economic liberalization episodes: A synthetic control approach. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(3), 983-1001. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00324
  10. Böwer, U., & Turrini, A. (2010). EU Accession: A Road to Fast-track Convergence?. Comparative Economic Studies, 52(2), 181-205. https://doi.org/10.1057/ces.2010.7
  11. Campos, N.F., Coricelli, F., & Moretti, L. (2019). Institutional integration and economic growth in Europe. Journal of Monetary Economics, 103, 88-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2018.08.001
  12. Campos, N.F., Coricelli, F., & Franceschi, E. (2022). Institutional integration and productivity growth: Evidence from the 1995 enlargement of the European Union. European Economic Review, 142, 104014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2021.104014
  13. Cieślik, A., & Turgut, M.B. (2021). Estimating the growth effects of 2004 Eastern enlargement of the European Union. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(3), 128. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14030128
  14. Cuaresma, J.C., Havettová, M., & Lábaj, M. (2013). Income convergence prospects in Europe: Assessing the role of human capital dynamics. Economic Systems, 37(4), 493-507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2013.02.004
  15. Eichengreen, B., & Boltho, A. (2008). The economic impact of European integration. Centre for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper Series No. 6820.
  16. Fujita, M., Krugman, P.R., & Venables, A. (1999). The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade. MIT press.
  17. Henrekson, M., Torstensson, J., & Torstensson, R. (1997). Growth effects of European integration. European Economic Review, 41(8), 1537-1557. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(97)00063-9
  18. Kantorowicz, J., & Spruk, R. (2024). Using synthetic control method to estimate the growth effects of economic liberalisation: Evidence from transition economies. World Economy, 47(6), 2332-2360. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.13544
  19. Krugman, P.R. (1991). Geography and Trade. MIT press.
  20. Landau, D. (1995). The contribution of the European common market to the growth of its member countries: An empirical test. Review of World Economics, 131(4), 774-782. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02707941
  21. Levine, R., & Renelt, D. (1992). A sensitivity analysis of cross-country growth regressions. American Economic Review, 82(4), 942-963. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117352 on April 2, 2024.
  22. Lucas Jr, R.E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(88)90168-7
  23. Mankiw, N.G., Romer, D., & Weil, D.N. (1992). A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 407-437. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118477
  24. Romer, P.M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002-1037. https://doi.org/10.1086/261420
  25. Torstensson, R.M. (1999). Growth, knowledge transfer and European integration. Applied Economics, 31(1), 97-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/000368499324598
  26. Vanhoudt, P. (1999). Did the European unification induce economic growth? In search of scale effects and persistent changes. Weltw’irtschaftliches Archiv, 135(2), 193-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02707252

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.