Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

Economy Transdisciplinarity Cognition www.ugb.

ro/etc

Vol. 15, Issue 1/2012

1 !21

An Analysis Regarding the Fulfilment of the Nominal Convergence Criteria in the New Member States of the European Union in the Conte t of the Current Financial Crisis
Alina !eorgeta A"#"NC$, Camelia M"#EA% Floarea "&R'AC(E Financial and Monetary Research Center )*ictor Sl+vescu,% -ucharest% R&MAN"A alinailinca@gmail.com, camigheorghe75@gmail.com
Abstract. Reaching a sustainable level of nominal convergence is a requirement for all new European Union Member States (NMS) in the process of euro adoption, without it being impossible to oin the euro area! "he increased importance of nominal convergence, together with an advanced level of real convergence, seem to be for the European Union institutions, including the European #entral $an% (E#$), a necessar& and sufficient guarantee for entering into the European Monetar& Union (EMU) without an& additional subsequent problems! 'owever, it is not clear the manner in which a countr& is or is not selected for entering into the EMU, the decision(ma%ing process being insufficientl& transparent, some countries have been unprepared from the economical point of view, but have been accepted (e!g! )reece), while others have been re ected due to a lac% of credible and sustainable convergence of some criteria (e!g! *ithuania)! "hus, this article proposes an anal&sis of the fulfillment of the nominal convergence criteria through a personal methodolog& presented in other previous studies! +t aims at facilitating the understanding of the e,tent to which the NMS are convergent in the conte,t of the current economic and financial crisis! "he article does not propose an e,haustive treatment of the sub ect, but it can be a good starting point for the evaluation of the European Union old Member States- (.MS) nominal convergence, especiall& since in these countries it currentl& occurs a public debt crisis (e!g! )reece, +tal&, Spain)! /eywords. Nominal convergence, new Member States, European integration!

Introduction In order to ac"ie#e $ull integration into t"e European %nion, &oining t"e euro area re'uires simultaneous $ul$illment o$ t"e minimum economic criteria (nown as t"e nominal criteria o$ con#ergence or criteria o$ nominal con#ergence. T"us, t"e new )ember *tates, a$ter periodic e#aluations in t"e $orm o$ con#ergence programs, must pro#e to European institutions and to ot"ers member states, a proper per$ormance o$ macroeconomic parameters in order to &oin t"e euro area, w"ic" was considered not long time ago e+tremely e+clusi#e. T"e global economic and $inancial crisis "as a$$ected se#eral aspects o$ t"e euro area, t"ere$ore a 'ualitati#e analysis o$ t"e progress towards $ul$illing nominal con#ergence criteria in t"e new )ember *tates, in relation to t"e ob&ecti#es imposed by t"e ad"esion to t"e t"ird stage o$ t"e European )onetary %nion, is e+tremely interesting in t"e current conte+t. -lso, in t"is period still ruled by uncertainties, ris(s and concerns about t"e $uture o$ t"e euro area, an analysis o$ t"e nominal con#ergence criteria. $ul$illment by t"e old )ember *tates /0)*1 o$ t"e E% could be e+tremely rele#ant, but t"is study currently is not wit"in t"e scope o$ our researc". Methodology and Study Reasults %sing t"e data $rom t"e Con#ergence 2eport o$ t"e European Central 3an( /EC31 $rom )ay 2010, we reali4e, based on a met"odology presented in a pre#ious study 516, an assessment o$ a global inde+ o$ con#ergence, in order to allow a better comparati#e analysis o$ t"e nominal con#ergence indicators $rom 7)*. T"e 'ualitati#e $raming used in t"is article describe t"e assessment 8parameters8 o$ t"e nominal con#ergence criteria, based on t"e nominal con#ergence criteria already establis"ed by t"e European

14

%nion, wit"out attempting to re#ise t"em met"odologically. T"us, based on t"e in$ormation pro#ided by t"e EC3.s Con#ergence 2eport $rom )ay 2010, we use a set o$ relati#e indices o$ nominal con#ergence t"at we will en$rame into scales o$ intensity /8di#ergent8, 8"ig"ly di#ergent8, 8con#ergent8, 8"ig"ly con#ergent8 and 8optimal81, in order to notice easier bot" t"e possible o#erruns o$ t"e limits and also t"e "ierarc"y o$ 7)* in t"e con#ergence process. 9e de#elop indices o$ nominal con#ergence $or eac" nominal con#ergence criterion, t"ey representing t"e #alues recorded by t"e 7)* di#ided by t"e re$erence #alues pro#ided by t"e EC3 $or t"e periods c"osen $or e#aluation. *peci$ically, t"e inde+ o$ price stability $or t"e in$lation measured by t"e :IC; /:armoni4ed Inde+ o$ Consumer ;rices1 is IHIPC = xik yk, w"ere< xik is t"e #alue o$ t"e a#erage annual percentage c"ange o$ in$lation, i reports to t"e country assessed in period k, namely during t"e period -pril!)arc" o$ t"e years 200=!2010, and yk is t"e re$erence #alue, w"ic" applies to t"e period k! namely -pril!)arc" o$ t"e years between 200=!2010, $or :IC; in$lation. T"e inde+ on long!term interest rate according to t"e )aastric"t criterion is IM"#IR = mik nk, w"ere mik is t"e #alue o$ t"e a#erage annual percentage c"anges o$ t"e long!term interest rate, and i reports to t"e country assessed in t"e period k, namely during t"e period -pril!)arc" o$ t"e years 200=!2010. nk is t"e re$erence #alue $or t"e interest rate, w"ic" applies to t"e period k! -pril!)arc" o$ t"e years in t"e period 200=!2010, according to t"e interest rate criterion. T"e inde+ o$ t"e go#ernment de$icit or surplus, I$%& = sik tk, re$lects t"e weig"t sik /w"ere i reports to t"e country assessed and k to t"e entire calendar year, in t"e period 200>!20101, namely t"e surplus or de$icit o$ t"e go#ernment budgetary position as percentage o$ ?@;, in tk /t"e re$erence #alue o$ !AB o$ ?@;1. T"e inde+ o$ gross public debt is I$P%= uik 'k, w"ere uik is t"e debt o$ i country in t"e period k /years in t"e period 200>!2010(! and 'k is t"e re$erence #alue $or debt, w"ic" is o$ C0B o$ ?@;. Dor e#aluation, we use t"e $ollowing table<
&conomic indicators o) con'ergence Price sta*ility Country ,ear :IC; in$lation1 200> 200H 2010 200> 200H 2010 200> 200H 2010 200> 200H 2010 200> 200H 2010 200> 200H 2010 200> 12.0 2.5 1.= =.H 5.C 5.0 C.A 0.C 0.A 10.C 0.2 !0.= 15.A A.A 0.1 11.1 .2 2.0 C.0 ?eneral go#ernment surplus /E1 or de$icit /!12 1.> !A.H !2.> !5. !>.A !>.0 !2.= !5.H !5.= !2.= !1.= !2. ! .1 !H.0 !>.C !A.A !>.H !>. !A.> ?eneral go#ernm ent gross debt2 1 .1 1 .> 1=. 1A.A 2A.= A0.5 A0.0 A5. AH.> .C =.2 H.C 1H.5 AC.1 >.5 15.C 2H.A A>.C =2.H Currency participatin g in E2) IIA 7o 7o 7o 7o 7o 7o 7o 7o 7o Ies Ies Ies Ies Ies Ies Ies Ies Ies 7o E+c"ange rate #is!F! #is euro 0.0 0.0 0.0 !10. !15.1 2.H 10.2 !C.0 2.C 0.0 0.0 0.0 !0. !0. !0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 !0.1 $o'ernment *udgetary -osition #a*le + "ong. term interest rate Gong! term interest rate5 5. =.2 C.H =.= H.= H. .C .> .= ...C ...C ...C C. 12. 12.= 5.C 1 .0 12.1 >.2

&xchange rate

/ulgaria

Romania C0ech Re-u*lic &stonia

"at'ia

"ithuania Hungary

15

200H .0 ! .0 =>.A 7o !11.5 H.1 2010 .> ! .1 =>.H 7o .5 >. 200> .2 !A.= =.2 7o =.2 C.1 Poland 200H .0 !=.1 51.0 7o !2A.2 C.1 2010 A.H !=.A 5A.H 7o >. C.1 -pril 200=J A.2B !AB C0B ! E/!15B C.5B )arc" 200>= -pril Re)erence 200>! .0B !AB C0B ! E/!15B 5.>B 'alue7 )arc" 200H= -pril 200H! 1.0B !AB C0B ! E/!15B C.0B )arc" = 2010 Source. European #ommission (Eurostat) and E#$, Ma& /010 #onvergence Report! #egend2 1! 3verage annual percentage change! 4ata for /010 refer to the period 3pril /005(March /010! /! 3s percentage of )46! 4ata for /010 are ta%en from European #ommission spring /010 forecasts! 7! +nformation for /010 refers to the period until the cut(off date for statistics (/7 3pril /010)! 8! 3verage annual percentage change! 4ata for /010 are calculated as a percentage change of the average over the period 1 9anuar& /010 ( /7 3pril /010 compared with the average of /005! 3 positive (negative) number denotes an appreciation (depreciation) vis(:(vis euro! ;! 3verage annual interest rate! 4ata for /010 refer to the period 3pril /005(March /010! <. =or Estonia no long(term interest rate is available! >! 3uthors- calculations for /005 reference value! "he reference values refer to the period 3pril ? March from /00>(/010 period for the '+#6 inflation and long(term interest rates from the E#$ #onvergence Reports for the &ears /00@ and /010!

T"e result obtained a$ter re$inement are s"own in t"e $ollowing table<
Calculation o) nominal con'ergence assessment indices 2ominal Con'ergence 3ssessment Indices /ulgaria 200> 200H 2010 200> 200H 2010 200> 200H 2010 200> 200H 2010 200> 200H 2010 200> 200H 2010 200> 200H Price sta*ility IHIPC A.=5 0.CA 1.=0 2. = 1. 0 5.00 1.H= 0.15 0.A0 A.A1 0.05 !0.=0 .=> 0.>A 0.10 A. = 1.05 2.00 1.>> 1.00 $o'ernment *udgetary -osition I$%& I$P% !0.C0 1.A0 0.HA 1.>0 2.== 2.C= 0.H0 1.H= 1.H0 0.H0 0.5= 0.>0 1.A= A.00 2.>= 1.10 2.H= 2.>0 1.2= 1.AA 0.2 0.25 0.2H 0.22 0. 0 0.51 0.50 0.5H 0.CC 0.0> 0.12 0.1C 0.AA 0.C0 0.>1 0.2C 0. H 0.C 1.22 1.A1 #a*le 1 "ong.term interest rate IM"#IR 0.>A 1.2 1.15 1.1> 1.C= 1.5= 0.=1 0.>A 0.=> K K K 0.H> 2.1 2.12 0.>C 2. 1 2.02 1.2C 1.5=

Romania C0ech Re-u*lic &stonia

"at'ia

"ithuania Hungary

16

Poland

2010 200> 200H 2010

.>0 1.A= 1.A1 1.2A 1.00 2.A= A.H0 2. A Source. author-s calculations

1.A2 0.=H 0.>5 0.H0

1. 0 0.H 1.05 1.02

;lease remember t"at in a pre#ious study 516 we suggest $or e#aluation o$ eac" criterion o$ con#ergence, a series o$ scales o$ classi$ication and also t"e a$$erent notation< on a scale $rom 1 to , 1 representing L"ig"ly di#ergentM and meaning L"ig"ly con#ergentM or LoptimalM. In Table no. A we present, in a synt"etic manner, t"e measurement and t"e selected inter#als, in order to clari$y, as muc" as possible, our options $or t"ese inter#als.
&'aluation inter'als o) the nominal con'ergence Indices )or the in)lation IHIPC! )or the Maastricht long. term interest rate IM"#IR! )or the exchange rate I&R! )or the general go'ernment sur-lus de)icit I$%&! )or the general go'ernment gross -u*lic de*t I$P% #a*le 4 &'aluation o) the Highly Highly Index o) nominal %i'ergent Con'ergent di'ergent con'ergent con'ergence )or HICP in)lation! II3PC N2 /1 , 26 /0.5 , 16 50 , 0.56 Inter'al &'aluation o) the Index o) nominal con'ergence )or Maastricht long.term interest rate! IM"#IR Inter'al &'aluation o) the Index o) nominal con'ergence )or the exchange rate against euro! I&R Inter'al &'aluation o) the Index o) nominal con'ergence )or the general go'ernment sur-lus de)icit! I$%& Inter'al &'aluation o) the Index o) nominal con'ergence )or the general go'ernment gross de*t! I$P% Inter'al +. 25# 3#I52 $R 3%I2$ :ig"ly di#ergent N2 @i#ergent Con#ergent :ig"ly con#ergent 50 , 0.=6

/1, 26

/0.= , 16

@i#ergent

Con#ergent

:ig"ly di#ergent

0ptimal

NO15B

/O2.25B, O15B6

/O1B, O2.25B6

5O0B, O1B6

:ig"ly di#ergent N2

@i#ergent

Con#ergent

:ig"ly con#ergent /!2 , 06

/1 , 26

/0 , 16 :ig"ly con#ergent /0.25 , 0,56 A

@i#ergent

Con#ergent

0ptimal

/1 , 26 1

/0.5 , 16 2

50 , 0.256

Source. author-s conception

T"us, $or the criterion on price stability we "a#e c"osen an inter#al o$ 1 point $or di#ergence and o$ only 0.5 points $or con#ergence, pre$erring to classi$y t"e inde+ in L"ig"ly con#ergentL and respecti#ely Lcon#ergentM, in order to grasp t"e discrete c"anges in :IC;.s #ariation. In t"e case o$

17

negati#e #alues $or in$lation /i.e. Estonia in 20101, but closely to 0 #alue, we considered t"at t"at country was still in a situation o$ strong con#ergence, "a#ing only a momentary slippage, so we le$t unc"anged t"e general inter#al o$ classi$ication /50, 0.561. Dor t"e long0term interest rate we "a#e c"osen t"e same type o$ classi$ication, e+cept t"at we "a#e establis"ed t"e inter#als o$ con#ergence in an asymmetric manner in order to capture t"e discrete c"anges near t"e #alue o$ 0.= o$ t"e long!term interest rate nominal con#ergence inde+, IM"#IR. 1he "nde of nominal convergence of the e change rate, "&R "as not been actually calculated, because t"e re$erence $or t"is criterion is actually a band o$ #ariation o$ 6+57, ta(ing into account t"e $luctuations against t"e central parity or, according to EC3, t"e c"anges compared to t"e a#erage e+c"ange rate #is!F!#is euro $or t"e states non!participating in E2) II, t"ere$ore, based on t"e #alues recorded, 7)* "a#e been directly put in t"e classi$ication scale. Dor t"e inde+ o$ nominal con#ergence o$ t"e e+c"ange rate t"e c"oice o$ t"e inter#als is easily e+plained by t"e $act t"at t"e #alue o$ 6+57 is t"e ma+imum limit imposed by t"e criterion on e+c"ange rate #ariation $rom t"e )aastric"t Treaty, 61.157 is a #alue commonly used in t"e past during t"e 8monetary sna(e8 mec"anism, discreet enoug" and also rele#ant $or t"e countries w"ic" do not c"oose a $i+ed e+c"ange rate, suc" as countries wit" a tradition in c"oosing a $loating e+c"ange rate regime /t"e C4ec" 2epublic, ;oland, 2omania1. T"e #alue o$ 6+7 is o$ten used as a $loatation target, unilaterally, by t"e new )ember *tates.s monetary aut"orities wit" a $i+ed e+c"ange rate regime, especially since targeting t"e c"anges o$ t"e national currency central parity against euro wit"in a $luctuation range o$ O 1B in E2)II does not impose EC3 any additional obligation. T"e 687 is c"osen gi#en t"e $act t"at some o$ t"e 7)* use a $i+ed e+c"ange rate regime or e#en a currency board, wit" a strictly agreement o$ pegging t"eir e+c"ange rates to t"e European currency. For the criterion of general government deficit or surplus we pre$erred a symmetric classi$ication bot" $or con#ergence and $or di#ergence, namely L"ig"ly di#ergentM, Ldi#ergentM, Lcon#ergentM and respecti#ely L"ig"ly con#ergentM, considering t"at t"ere are countries w"ic" $it t"emsel#es discreet enoug" bot" on t"e one side and on t"e ot"er side o$ t"e nominal con#ergence inde+ o$ go#ernment surplus / de$icit, I$%&. T"us, t"e #alues strictly positi#e and "ig"er t"an one e+plain t"e di#ergence process, because t"e benc"mar( is AB o$ ?@; $or t"e budgetary de$icit and t"e #alues under one and respecti#ely lower t"an minus one, to a ma+imum o$ !2 points, e+plain t"e process o$ con#ergence. T"e countries t"at $it lower t"an minus one point are t"ose countries w"ic" generally "a#e sustainable budget surpluses /in t"is case is, until 200>, 3ulgaria and Estonia1. 1he "nde of nominal convergence of the general government gross debt, "!2' was set as Ldi#ergentM, Lcon#ergentM, L"ig"ly con#ergentM and LoptimalM, because t"e C0B o$ ?@; re$erence #alue allows more subtle classi$ication on t"e con#ergence side /as in t"e case o$ t"e e+c"ange rate1. T"ere$ore, we pre$erred symmetric inter#als o$ 0.25 points $or con#ergence and inter#als o$ one point $or di#ergence. T"ere are not enoug" re$erences in t"e literature in order to $it t"e inde+ in suc" margins, but we consider t"at a #alue o$ 0.25 points is su$$iciently subtle and also rele#ant $or catc"ing aspects o$ gross public debt con#ergence. In all t"e t"ree years o$ analysis, we can calculate an a#erage #alue o$ t"e con#ergence $or :IC;, )aastric"t long!term interest rate, general go#ernment surplus / de$icit and general go#ernment gross debt. -lso, we can ma(e an assessment o$ t"e global con#ergence o$ eac" 7)* t"roug" a nominal convergence global inde 3"NC4, bot" e#ery year and also as an a#erage o#er t"ree years, $or t"e purpose o$ $acilitating a multi!annual assessment, outlining t"e sustainability o$ t"e con#ergence process. T"is inde+ is calculated as t"e arit"metic a#erage o$ t"e notations o$ all con#ergence indices $or eac" criterion. 9e present t"e e#aluation o$ eac" inde+, and also t"e synt"esi4ed assessments t"roug" an inde+ o$ global nominal con#ergence, w"ic" will allow us to establis" a "ierarc"y regarding t"e 7)*. con#ergence. T"us, Table s"ows t"e results obtained.

18

&'aluation o) the Indices o) nominal con'ergence )or the in)lation IHIPC! )or the Maastricht long.term interest rate IM"#IR! )or the exchange rate I&R! )or the general go'ernment sur-lus de)icit I$%&! )or the general go'ernment gross -u*lic de*t I$P% and )or a nominal con'ergence glo*al index I2C #a*le 9 &'aluation o) the &'aluation o) the Indices o) nominal nominal con'ergence! IHIPC! IM"#IR! IHIPC IM"#IR I&R I$%& I$P% con'ergence glo*al I&R! I$%&! index! I2C : a'erage I$P% 'alue 200> + 4 9 9 9 4.1 200H 4 1 9 1 9 4 2010 1 1 9 4 4 1.; /ulgaria T"e t"ree years a#erage inde+ o$ eac" 1.8 1.4 9.8 4.8 4.7 4.8 criterion 200> + 1 1 1 9 1.1 200H 1 1 + + 4 +.; 2010 + 1 1 + 1 +.< Romania T"e t"ree years a#erage inde+ o$ eac" +.4 1.8 +.7 +.4 4.8 +.= criterion 200> 200H 2010 T"e t"ree years a#erage inde+ o$ eac" criterion 200> 200H 2010 T"e t"ree years a#erage inde+ o$ eac" criterion 200> 200H 2010 T"e t"ree years a#erage inde+ o$ eac" criterion 200> 200H 2010 T"e t"ree years a#erage inde+ o$ eac" criterion 200> 200H 2010 T"e t"ree years a#erage inde+ o$ eac" criterion 200> 200H 1 9 9 4.4 + 9 9 4 + 4 9 1.7 + 1 1 +.7 1 4 + 1.8 1 4 4 4 4 4.8 ... ... ... > 4 + + +.7 4 + + +.7 1 1 1 1.8 4 1 1 1 1 1.8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9.8 9 9 9 9.8 9 1 1 1.7 1 + 4 1 1 1.4 4 4 4 4 1 + + +.4 1 + + +.4 1 1 1 1.8 1 + 4 1 1 1.4 9 9 9 9 4 1 1 1.4 4 4 1 1.7 + + + +.8 1 1 1.< 1.< 1.< 1.< 4.8 4.; 4.; 4.5 1.< 1.1 1.9 1.9 1.< 1.1 1.8 1.4 1.1 1 +.< +.= 1.1 +.;

C0ech Re-u*lic

&stonia

"at'ia

"ithuania

Hungary

Poland

19

2010 T"e t"ree years a#erage inde+ o$ eac" criterion

+ 1.8

1 1.4

1 +.7

+ +.4

1 1.8

+.< +.=

Source. author-s calculations

T"us, it can be seen t"at concerning in$lation, in 2010, in t"e top o$ nominal con#ergence t"ere were t"e C4ec" 2epublic, Estonia and Gat#ia. 9"en re$erring to a t"ree years a#erage inde+ concerning t"e nominal con#ergence o$ :IC;, we $ind t"at 7)*. "ierarc"y con$irms t"e 2010 e#olution, w"ic" is< t"e C4ec" 2epublic, Estonia, Gat#ia, 3ulgaria, :ungary, ;oland, Git"uania and 2omania. It is wort" noticing t"at alt"oug" t"e t"eory claims t"at an independent monetary policy enables an easier $ul$illment o$ t"e price con#ergence, reality s"ows, at least during t"is crisis, t"e $act t"at $ew countries, w"ic" are targeting in$lation and "a#e an e+c"ange rate $le+ibility, "a#e success$ully pro#ed t"at t"ey comply wit" t"e con#ergence o$ :IC; /e.g. t"e C4ec" 2epublic and to a lesser e+tent ;oland and :ungary1. T"e long!term interest rate.s con#ergence, according to t"e indices calculated $or 2010, con$irms at t"e top o$ t"e countries wit" good con#ergence /as in t"e case o$ in$lation1 t"e C4ec" 2epublic. T"e ran(ing o$ t"e interest rates. con#ergence indices, computed as a t"ree years a#erage /200>!20105261, is< t"e C4ec" 2epublic, ;oland, 3ulgaria, 2omania, :ungary, Gat#ia and Git"uania. It may be noted t"at, regarding t"e e+c"ange rate, t"ere is a domination o$ t"e 3altic countries and 3ulgaria in ac"ie#ing con#ergence on t"is criterion, in t"e secondary places being situated :ungary, t"e C4ec" 2epublic, ;oland and 2omania. In 2010, t"e inde+ o$ general go#ernment de$icit.s con#ergence records "ig" #alues in Estonia and 3ulgaria, $ollowed by t"e C4ec" 2epublic and :ungary, at t"e bottom o$ t"e ran(ing being ;oland, 2omania, Gat#ia and Git"uania. T"e situation is t"e same $or t"e t"ree years a#erage inde+. T"e inde+ o$ nominal con#ergence o$ general go#ernment gross debt, calculated as a t"ree years a#erage, reac"es an optimal #alue only in Estonia, $ollowed closely by 3ulgaria. In t"e ran(ing $ollows 2omania, Git"uania, t"e C4ec" 2epublic, Gat#ia, ;oland and :ungary. Dor 2010, t"e nominal con#ergence global inde+ /I2C( re#eals t"e $ollowing "ierarc"y< &stonia! /ulgaria! t"e C0ech Re-u*lic! "at'ia and "ithuania! )ollo?ed at -arity *y Poland! Romania and Hungary. T"is structure is repeated also regarding t"e t"ree years a#erage /$or t"e period 200>!20101 nominal con#ergence global inde+ I2C, w"ic" con$irms a muc" better preparation o$ t"e 3altic countries, 3ulgaria and t"e C4ec" 2epublic in ac"ie#ing a sustainable le#el o$ con#ergence. :ungary, 2omania and ;oland seem disconnected $rom t"e economic and political integration process in t"e European %nion. Conclusions T"e results obtain during our researc" s"ould not be ta(en out o$ t"e recent crisis conte+t, w"en it occurs at t"e national, regional and international le#el more li(ely disintegrati#e $orces rat"er t"an integrati#e ones. -lt"oug" we "a#e $ocused on de#eloping a met"odology meant to capture t"e process o$ nominal con#ergence in t"e new E% member states /7)*1, it mig"t be more use$ul t"e assessment o$ nominal con#ergence in t"e old E% members /0)*1. -lso, in t"e conte+t o$ t"e second wa#e o$ t"e global $inancial crisis, it s"ould be considered t"e euro area system disturbances and t"e perturbations $rom t"e euro area towards 7)* economies, w"ic" are a$$ected by regional and global de#elopments. T"ere$ore, prudence s"ould be e+ercised in t"e assessment o$ 7)*. nominal con#ergence indicators and o$ t"e con#ergence o$ t"ese new )ember *tates in relation to t"e euro area countries, especially t"at in t"e recent years, in t"e euro area t"ey "a#e appeared substantial con#ergence di$$erentials, but also dissimilarities o$ economic and political ob&ecti#es.
Re)erences

20

516 ?lod, -lina ?eorgeta /200H1, 3naliAa Bndeplinirii criteriilor de convergenCD nominalD Bn noile state membre Bn procesul de adoptare a monedei euro, Dinancial *tudies &ournal no.2/200H. 526 European Central 3an( /20101, Ma& /010 #onvergence Report, Dran($urt am )ain, /online #ersion1. =or the &ear /010, calculations until March! 5A6 European Central 3an( /200>1, Ma& /00@ #onvergence Report, Dran($urt am )ain, /online #ersion1. 5 6 Gewis, Po"n, 'itting and hopingE meeting the e,change rate and inflation criteria during a period of nominal convergence, CE*i$o wor(ing paper no. 1H02, Category C< monetary policy and international $inance, Panuary 200=, www.2e;Ec.org /electronic #ersion1. 556 2inaldi!Garribe, )arie!PosQ /200>1, +s economic convergence in New Member States sufficient for an adoption of the EuroE, International %ni#ersity o$ )onaco, T"e European Pournal o$ Comparati#e Economics, #ol. 5, n. 2, pp. 1AA!15 .

21

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi