scholarly journals Effects of the customs union with the European Union on the market structure and pricing behaviour of the Turkish manufacturing industry

2006 ◽  
Vol 38 (20) ◽  
pp. 2443-2452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arzu Akkoyunlu-Wigley ◽  
Sevinç Mihci
2008 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 31-43
Author(s):  
Karoly Attila Soos ◽  
Ekaterina Ivleva ◽  
Irina Levina

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 45-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renata Pisarek

The objective of this paper is to present an overview of the process of air transport liberalisation within the European Community and its influence on development of the aviation market in Poland. The paper describes the stages of air transport liberalisation in the European Community and its implementation to the Polish market. The special focus is given to problems of existing effects of air transport liberalisation and perspectives of its development. The study primarily intends to examine market structure changes of the Polish civil aviation sector and air traffic dynamics over the years of Polish integration with the European Union, presenting the most up-to-date available statistics


2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 219-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalya Ketenci

This article investigates the effect of the customs union between Turkey and the European Union on the balance of trade in Turkey. The framework for analysis is an extended trade gravity model onto which the impact of the customs union is applied. The gravity model of trade is estimated using dynamic panel data which applies the generalized method of moments to a sample of OECD countries. Separate estimates were made for the periods before and after the process of trade liberalization in Turkey—1980–1995 and 1996–2012, respectively—as well as for the full period—1980–2012. The main conclusion is that when the European Union is accounted for as an econometric variable, the empirical results are striking: Turkey’s gains resulting from taking part in the customs union are noteworthy, with significant improvement in the trade balance with European Union countries. However, the trade flows, and specifically imports, have been mainly with OECD countries that are themselves not members of the EU. The model indicates that external common tariffs are responsible for Turkey’s trade growth rather than tariffs abolished in the internal market of the customs union.


Author(s):  
Richard Griffiths

Twenty years ago, amid a great fanfare of enthusiasm, the Treaty of Maastricht created the European union and inaugurated the process for creating a single European currency for most of the then members (except the UK and Sweden, and later Denmark, that were given a temporary exemption) and all future members. Twenty years later, the anniversary of the treaty passed almost unnoticed (European Policy Centre, 2012). On that day, however, the impact of the treaty was never far from the headlines, as had also been the case for almost every day over the previous months. The Lehman brothers bankruptcy in September 2008 not only triggered a financial crisis that threatened to engulf the world, but it set in motion a series of shocks that have since reverberated through the Euro-area. It is fair to say that the crisis-management has not been an example of stream-lined efficiency, and there are lessons to be learned from that experience.However, the development of the Euro, and the crisis that has subsequently engulfed it, holds lessons in another direction. The European Union has long been held as a model, or an inspiration, for other experiments in regional cooperation and integration, including Mercosul, ASEAN and SADC. The model embodied an sequence of steps leading to ‘ever closer union’ that moved from a free trade area through a customs union and a single market and culminated in economic and monetary union. With the signing and implementation of the Treaty of Maastricht, the European Union had embarked on the penultimate step in this progression. But only half of it – a monetary union without a fiscal union. The Euro-crisis has now called that achievement into question and, in the process, undermined the authority of those espousing a European route towards closer integration, both for themselves as well as for other nations. As a convinced federalist, myself, I would not recommend abandoning the European example altogether, but if there is a lesson to be learned from this sorry episode, it is this: “if you are going to do it, do not do it this way”.This article examines the European experience with economic and monetary union from three perspectives – the design, the implementation and the management of the euro – before exploring the implications of the current crisis.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mihails Silovs ◽  
◽  
Olga Dmitrijeva ◽  

The mandatory requirements for the fishery and aquaculture products, their production and sale in force in the territory of the Customs Union of the Eurasian Economic Union (CU EAEU) arise from the regulatory and legal acts of the Eurasian Economic Union and its predecessor - the Customs Union - and apply in a package approach similar to the law of the European Union pertaining to the food safety area. The requirements of the EAEU technical regulations have been analysed taking into account that European exporting enterprises are first of all obliged to comply with the requirements of the listed EU regulatory and legal acts applicable to their production process and products. The aim of this paper was to run a comparative analysis on the mandatory requirements of the food legislation of the European and Customs Unions regarding fishery and aquaculture products, their production and sale. The issues of certification of certain product categories are analysed separately, the requirements for canned fish being highlighted. The analysis is relevant for all fish processing companies which may consider the possibility of starting export to the countries of the CU EAEU and are intended to reduce costs associated with products’ entry into these markets.


2021 ◽  
Vol 102 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-16
Author(s):  
Lyudmila Babynina ◽  

The United Kingdom left the European Union on January 31, 2020. On December 31, 2020, the transition period ended, during which all EU rules and regulations applied to Britain. The trade agreement was reached in record time, but it is too early to talk about long-term mutual benefits. The British case in the system of trade and economic agreements of the European Union is unique. On the one hand, at the time of the negotiations, the UK retained EU law, was a member of the EU Single Internal Market and Customs Union, subject to the jurisdiction of the EU Court of Justice. On the other hand, the EU for the first time found itself in a situation when a third country was determined to distance itself as much as possible from EU rules while concluding a trade agreement, despite the obvious economic losses. At the same time, both sides understood that the absence of an agreement threatened all interested actors with serious losses, and that it must be concluded. As a result, the compromise text of the TCA reflects the fundamentally different approaches of the parties to bilateral cooperation, and its provisions suggest a change of its format in the future.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document