Prospects for integration in the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA)

1976 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 631-648 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Marer
Keyword(s):  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Economic Integration ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
Economic Assistance ◽  
Mutual Economic ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Trade Blocs ◽  
Mutual Economic Assistance ◽  
Eastern European Countries ◽  
Centripetal Forces

In analyzing the future of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), it is useful to assess both the centrifugal and centripetal forces affecting regional economic integration. Centrifugal forces include the existing structure of production in Eastern Europe; problems of coordination; and inefficient price systems, among others. Centripetal forces include the worldwide energy crisis; Western inflation and recession; the growing importance of trade blocs; and numerous other factors contributing to the increasing hard-currency indebtedness of the Eastern European countries. Many of these external events have increased the attractiveness for CMEA countries of intrabloc economic relations and provided a momentum for CMEA integration. Analysis of the various forces leads to the conclusion that Soviet economic policy vis-à-vis Eastern Europe will remain crucial in determining the direction and speed of economic integration. Soviet economic involvement with Eastern Europe seems to have been costly for the USSR during the past decade and so it is not obvious that the USSR will attempt to push integration much further than it now stands.

Council of Mutual Economic Assistance

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 379-380
Keyword(s):  
European Countries ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
Economic Assistance ◽  
Economic Conference ◽  
Mutual Economic ◽  
Mutual Economic Assistance ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Eastern European Countries

On January 25, 1949, a communiqué issued in Moscow announced the creation by six eastern European countries of a new Council of Mutual Economic Assistance. The organization was established at an economic conference attended by representatives of Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, Czechoslovakia and the USSR.

Communiqué Creating the Counil of Mutual Economic Assistance, January 25,1949.

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 407-407
Keyword(s):  
Economic Assistance ◽  
Economic Conference ◽  
Mutual Economic ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Mutual Economic Assistance ◽  
Major Increase ◽  
National Economies ◽  
Made In

An economic conference of representatives of Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the USSR and Czechoslovakia was held in Moscow in January.The conference noted the substantial achievements made in developing economic relations among the aforementioned countries, which found expression, first and foremost, in a major increase in trade. The establishment of these economic relations and the implementation of the policy of economic co-operation enabled the countries of people's democracy and the USSR to accelerate recovery and the development of their national economies.

Détente, East-West Trade, and the Future of Economic Integration in Eastern Europe

1976 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 568-589 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrzej Korbonski
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Economic Integration ◽  
Raw Materials ◽  
Economic Assistance ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
East European ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Impact ◽  
East West

The paper attempts to examine the impact of East-West trade on the process of economic integration in Eastern Europe, carried out under the aegis of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA). The discussion is focused on the proposition that, other things being equal, the continued growth of East-West trade is at the present time incompatible with the increase in the level of economic integration in that part of Europe.The problem is analyzed in the context of several factors: the process of regional economic integration; the attitude of the Soviet Union and of the East European political and economic elites toward both integration and East-West trade before and after détente; the influence of economic reforms in Eastern Europe; and the impact of the energy crisis and of the developing global shortage of raw materials.The conclusion emerges that, on balance, the chances of economic cooperation if not integration in the region are today better than in the past, albeit at the expense of closer economic relations between Eastern Europe and the West.

Romania and the Beginning of CMEA Controversies over a Common Trade Policy Towards the EEC, 1969–1972

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-523
Author(s):  
Elena Dragomir
Keyword(s):  
Trade Policy ◽  
European Economic Community ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
Economic Assistance ◽  
Economic Community ◽  
Commercial Policy ◽  
Mutual Economic ◽  
European Economic ◽  
Mutual Economic Assistance ◽  
Common Trade

This article examines Romania’s opposition to the attempts of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) in the early 1970s to adopt a common trade policy towards the European Economic Community (EEC). The article covers the period between 1969, when the CMEA embarked on negotiations regarding the deepening of the intra-bloc cooperation and integration, and 1 January 1973, which is the date marking the end of the derogations that the Eastern European states received with regard to the implementation of the EEC’s Common Commercial Policy. The article focuses on Romania’s reasons and tactics of opposition, but it also outlines its views with regard to the EEC, in general, and the CMEA-EEC relations, in particular. Corroborated by findings involving studies in other Eastern European archives, this article will help to create a better understanding of the CMEA debates on integration, on the CMEA-EEC relations, in general, and on Romania’s opposition to the CMEA’s intended common policy towards the EEC, in particular.

State structures and political processes outside the CMEA: a comparison

1986 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 577-598
Author(s):  
Ellen Comisso
Keyword(s):  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Economic Assistance ◽  
State Structure ◽  
Economic Strategy ◽  
Mutual Economic ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
Political Resources ◽  
Mutual Economic Assistance ◽  
Similar Strategy

Although state structures among non-CMEA NICs varied widely, all were fundamentally different from state structures within the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. Moreover, because those differences were as much in kind as in degree, even nominally similar strategy choices and political processes were actually the product of different causes, shaped by different objectives and political actors, accomplished with different instruments, and followed by different international and domestic consequences. At the same time, although the substance of state structure and economic strategy in Eastern Europe and the NICs was different, the relationship between structure and strategy was similar. In both areas, state structures define problems, possibilities, and political resources; yet strategy was the result of differentiated political processes in which elites mobilized allies at home and abroad to formulate solutions to the issues and opportunities that state structures created.

Council for Mutual Economic Assistance

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 564-564
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Industrial Production ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
Economic Assistance ◽  
Mutual Aid ◽  
Mutual Economic ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Mutual Economic Assistance ◽  
Eastern European Economy

The terms of a protocol signed by the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Rumania in January, 1949, when they formed the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance were released on June 3, 1949. Under the provisions of the agreement the Council was established to coordinate eastern European economy, standardize industrial production of member nations, provide mutual aid through trade, exchange of experience, loans and investments, for a period of twenty years.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document