The Tension between Economic and Political Costs And Benefits of the Eastern Enlargement of the EU

0 Comment

The literature analysis gives a better view of the EU and new members’ budget constraints and better investment opportunities for the regions (O’Brennan 2006, p.23-26).

Currently, the EU comes under the triad region i.e. the US, Japan, and the EU form a triad. Some experts may look at the convergence of many states into the EU as a progressive development for the allied future of the region- especially after the adoption of many central and eastern states as a part of the EU. Along with the existing members of the EU, in line with accession are Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia and Turkey. The western countries’ political figures have due power to meet the magnification criteria but have adjourned the decision, when a real financial cost and benefit analysis comes. In other words, the contemplation is supported by the geopolitical elements but doesn’t get any support from economic and financial considerations. The catch-22 poses different impacts, whether the benefits exceed the magnification costs, leave complicated questions. The cost benefits matrix is not that straightforward and trouble-free to solve. The costs posed to the east are of a different nature, the EU basic structure and architecture was primarily designed for nations with high Human Development Indices (HDI), the lowered HDI rated nations may not find themselves very compatible with EU social security network systems and prosperous social democracies. The relatively poor and much shoddier countries can benefit from “acquis”, the new set of regulations for swiftly flourishing nations (Vachudova, 2005, p.4-9).

The different sizes and economic structures of the front contestants for EU enlargement even differs a lot from fifteen standard members of the EU. Even Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, and the Slovak Republic may qualify at an initial stage, but some later complicated conditions may rate them as disqualified candidates.