Published at : 27 Dec 2021
Volume : IJtech Vol 12, No 7 (2021)
DOI : https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v12i7.5396
|Olga Nadezhina||Institute of Industrial Management, Economics and Trade, Graduate School of Industrial Economics, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, 29, Polytechnicheskaya Str., St. Petersburg, Ru|
|Vera Zaretskaya||Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Kursk Branch, 3 Lomonosov str., Kursk, Russia, 305016|
|Yulia Vertakova||Voronezh Forestry Engineering University named after G.F. Morozov, 8 Timiryazeva str., Voronezh, Russia, 394087|
|Vladimir Plotnikov||Saint-Petersburg State University of Economics, 21 Sadovaya str., St. Petersburg, Russia, 191023|
|Diana Burkaltseva||V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University, 4 Academician Vernadsky ave., Simferopol, Republic of Crimea, 295007|
integration is one of the key trends in the modern economy. The undisputed
leader of this process is the European Union (EU). The COVID-19 pandemic led to
some instability in the EU. Brexit exacerbated this instability. Under these
conditions, the question arises: is the impact of COVID-19 on European
integration a one-time shock that will soon lose its significance, or are more
fundamental reasons at the heart of the disintegration potential. The study
aims to evaluate the risks of integration processes in the EU. Two indicators
were used to quantify the degree of convergence: ?-convergence and ?-convergence. A quantitative
analysis of convergence showed a high degree of convergence of countries in
terms of per capita gross domestic product (GDP) and a lack of convergence in
terms of labor productivity. Consumption in countries with catch-up development
comes primarily from the redistribution of the EU budget and the wages of
migrants. This redistribution weakens integration incentives for donor countries.
And restrictions of COVID-19 pandemic weaken incentives for integration for
recipient countries. Therefore, the likelihood of disintegration in the EU is
Convergence; COVID-19 pandemic; European Union; Economic integration; Risk
Strengthening international integration and globalization are key trends in developing the modern global economy (Murata and Katayama, 2011; Widjanarko and Ubaydullaev, 2011; Bodrunov and Plotnikov, 2017; Agur et al., 2019; Vertakova et al., 2020). Combining resources, markets, introducing standard rules and regulatory institutions, and integrating customs and financial systems led to lower transaction costs in the economy (Aldokhina, 2017; Caserta, 2017; Egger et al., 2019; Miharja et al., 2021).
With the integration of national economies, return of scale (Lee et al., 2012) and experience curve (BCG, 1968) effects appear. These effects are well studied at the micro-level. Economies of scale decrease costs due to the joint execution of service and support operations. (At the macro level, this is the sharing of infrastructure and increased market capacity.) The effect of experience reduces costs due to the accumulation of knowledge and the development of competencies. (At the macro level, this leads to the irreversibility of the integration processes of countries.)
Thus, the primary economic motive for integration is cost reduction. The scale of possible economic effects is enormous. For example, from digital integration in the EU (creation of the Digital Single Market), an increase in European Union (EU) GDP of 415 billion euros is expected and an increase in EU GDP of 4% in 2010-2020 (EU, 2016b). Cost savings from integration are observed at all levels of the economy, and the international level is the object of our study. Integration is manifested at all levels of the economic system and not just at the international level. It is observed at the micro-level in the form of new networks, partnerships, and similar associations (Plotnikov and Vertakova, 2015; Shinkevich et al., 2016; Makarov and Plotnikov, 2018). A rather serious trend is integration at the mesoscale, where it manifests itself in the form of clustering (Pronyaeva et al., 2018; Sazonov et al., 2018; Vertakova, 2016). It is also manifested at the level of the national economy in the form of the development of interregional and intersectoral cooperation (Balli et al., 2018; Diez, 2019; Zaretskaya, 2019).
The most developed integration association globally is the EU (Eichenberg and Dalton, 2007; Trenz and Triandafyllidou, 2017; Hooghe and Marks, 2019). It dates to 1952, when Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, France, and Germany created the European Coal and Steel Association. In the future, this integration group continuously developed, changing its configuration, right up to the formation of the European Union in 1992. Among these countries, restrictions on the functioning of the markets for goods, services, capital, and labor were lifted. The EU has general laws, implements a common (supranational) economic policy, and has EU governing bodies.
EU countries have gained several advantages from pooling their available resources, but at the same time, have limited their national sovereignty. A part of state powers has been transferred to a supranational level of government. A significant number of the EU member states abandoned the national currency, moving to a supranational monetary unit - the euro. Several EU members states (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain) formed a Monetary Union and abandoned their national currencies. The EU has a common budget, developed by the participating countries, and then redistributed in accordance with the general policy of the EU by its governing bodies.
The success of the European integration model, until recently, served as an example for integration associations that were created in other regions of the world. At the same time, EU sustainability has been questioned in recent years. In early 2020, Brexit occurred, under which the people and the UK government concluded it was not economically feasible to continue their EU membership. As a result, Brexit raised the issue of EU sustainability (Huhe et al., 2020).
Until 2020, the EU expanded. The UK left the EU on January 31, 2020, at 23:00 London time. On June 23, 2016, a referendum was held in the UK. 51.9% of its participants voted to leave the UK from the EU. Great Britain had been a member of the European Community (predecessor of the EU) since January 1, 1973. Under the Brexit agreement, the UK lost its representation and voting rights in the EU authorities but will remain part of the single economic space until the end of 2020.
The case of the UK forces us to reconsider the attitude toward the integration of countries as a uniquely cost-effective phenomenon (Chopin and Lequesne, 2016). This study aimed to explore the potential for further disintegration of the EU using quantitative research methods.
Despite concerns about Brexit, the EU is still stable. At the same time, in 2020, a new challenge arose for the existence of the Union. It is associated with the COVID-19 pandemic (Rodionov et al., 2021). Governments of the world (including EU members) have limited the social contacts of their citizens to counter the pandemic. In particular, the borders were closed, transport links were suspended, and many enterprises were stopped. The unity of the economic space, which was the main idea of the EU and the theory of economic integration (Curran et al., 2017; Didier et al., 2017), was broken.
Under these conditions, it is necessary to study the stability of the modern EU. Our research hypothesis was that the COVID-19 pandemic created powerful incentives for the disintegration of the EU. A study was conducted using quantitative modeling of integration processes to validate the hypothesis. The study aimed to assess the degree of homogeneity of the economic development of the EU member states and the presence or absence of a tendency toward homogenization of the economic field under this integrated association.
The authors conducted a study of integration processes in the EU using the ??convergence indicator (based on the convergence of growth rates) and the ??convergence indicator (based on the convergence of the degree of differences across countries). Based on an analysis of 2000-2018 per capita GDP and labor productivity, qualitative and quantitative analysis of intra-European migration flows, and formal and informal redistributive financial processes, the authors concluded that the integration processes in the EU are unstable.
The research hypothesis (the COVID-19 pandemic created powerful incentives for the disintegration of the EU) was confirmed. The hypothesis was proven using quantitative analysis. The impact of COVID-19 and the pandemic-led restrictive measures could trigger disintegration processes in the EU. There are objective reasons for this. The EU member states’ governments and the EU authorities should strengthen their convergence policies. Otherwise, the COVID-19 pandemic could play a fatal role in European integration.
The authors’ conclusions are not final. Integration processes are very complex and varied. In addition, the economies of the countries belonging to the integration alliances are highly adaptable. In the near future, political measures may change the vector of convergence processes (EU, 2021). Therefore, further research is needed. That research should collect and process new relevant data on European integration, making it possible to draw more reliable conclusions about its prospects.
The research is partially funded by the Ministry of
Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation under
the strategic academic leadership program 'Priority 2030' (Agreement
075-15-2021-1333 dated 30.09.2021).
Agur, I., Chan, M., Goswami, M., Sharma, S., 2019. On International Integration of Emerging Sovereign Bond Markets. Emerging Markets Review, Volume 38, pp. 347–363
Aldokhina, T., 2017. Systematisation of Effectiveness Indicators for International Economic Integration. Economic Annals-XXI, Volume 164(3-4), pp. 28–31
Balli, F., Pericoli, F.M., Pierucci, E. 2018. Globalization and International Risk-Sharing: The Role of Social and Political Integration. European Journal of Political Economy, Volume 55, pp. 324–345
Barro, R.J., Sala-i-Martin, X., 1990. Economic Growth and Convergence Across the United States. NBER Working Paper Series, No. 3419, pp. 1–39
BCG, 1968. The Experience Curve. Available Online https://www.bcg.com/publications/1968/business-unit-strategy-growth-experience-curve, Accessed on 30 September 2020
Blanco, F.A., Delgado F.J., Presno M.J., 2020. R&D Expenditure in the EU: Convergence or Divergence? Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja. Volume 33(1), pp. 1685–1710
Bodrunov, S., Plotnikov, V., 2017. Institutional Structures Influence on the Technological Development of The Economic System. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Business Information Management Association Conference, IBIMA 2017 - Vision 2020: Sustainable Economic development, Innovation Management, and Global Growth, pp. 2658–2665
Caserta, S., 2017. Regional Integration through Law and International Courts - The interplay between de Jure and de Facto Supranationality in Central America and the Caribbean. Leiden Journal of International Law, Volume 30(3), pp. 579–601
Chopin, T., Lequesne, C., 2016. Differentiation as a Double-Edged Sword: Member States’ Practices and Brexit. International Affairs, Volume 92(3), pp. 531–545
Curran, J., Esser, F., Hallin, D.C., Hayashi, K., Lee, C.-C., 2017. International News and Global Integration: A Five-Nation Reappraisal. Journalism Studies, Volume 18(2), pp. 118–134
Didier, T., Llovet, R., Schmukler, S.L., 2017. International Financial Integration of East Asia and Pacific. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Volume 44, pp 52–66
Diez, T., 2019. Transforming Identity in International Society: The Potential and Failure of European Integration. Comparative European Politics, Volume 17(3), pp. 512–529
Egger, P.H., Erhardt, K., Lassmann, A., 2019. Immigration and Firms’ Integration in International Production Networks. European Economic Review, Volume 111, pp. 1–34
Eichenberg, R.C., Dalton, R.J., 2007. Post-Maastricht Blues: The Transformation of Citizen Support for European Integration, 1973-2004. Acta Politica, Volume 42(2-3), pp. 128–152
EU., 2016a. European Neighbourhood Policy. Available Online at https://eeas.europa.eu/diplomatic-network/european-neighbourhood-policy-enp/330/european-neighbourhood-policy-enp_en, Accessed on 30 October 2020
EU., 2016b. Reducing Costs and Barriers for Businesses in the Single Market. Available Online at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/578966/IPOL_STU(2016)578966_EN.pdf, Accessed on 30 October 2020
EU., 2018. The EU Budget for 2019: Growth, Solidarity and Security in Europe and Beyond - Provisional Agreement Reached. Available Online at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_6381, Accessed on 30 October 2020
EU., 2020. European Economic Forecast, Autumn 2020. Available Online at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/economy-finance/ip136_en.pdf, Accessed on 30 October 2020
EU., 2021. The European Union and Regional Economic Integration Creating Collective Public Goods – Past, Present and Future. Available Online at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/689369/EPRS_BRI(2021)689369_EN.pdf, Accessed on 09 May 2021
Hooghe, L., Marks, G., 2019. Grand Theories of European Integration in the Twenty-First Century. Journal of European Public Policy, Volume 26(8), pp. 1113–1133
Huhe, N., Naurin, D., Thomson, R., 2020. Don’t Cry for me Britannia: The Resilience of the European Union to Brexit. European Union Politics Volume 21(1), pp. 152–172
Iancu, A., 2007. Economic Convergence. Applications-Second Part. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, Volume 8(4), pp. 24–48
Krivoguz, M., 2019. Ukrainian Labor Migrants: Incentive or Brake for the Economy? Russia and the New States of Eurasia, Volume 2, pp. 185–197
Lee, G., Yu, M.-M., Wang, L.-C., 2012. DEA-based Integrated Relationship of Returns to Scale - An Application to Road Maintenance in Taiwan. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Volume 18(5), pp. 709–723
Makarov, I., Plotnikov, V., 2018. Public-Private Partnership as a Financial Instrument for the Transport Infrastructure Modernizing. MATEC Web of Conferences, Volume 170, p. 1–7
Miharja, M., Woltjer, J., Arsallia, S., Diab, A.H., 2021. Bandung Metropolitan Transportation Planning Collaboration and Perceived Transaction Cost Changes after 2 Decades of Decentralization. International Journal of Technology, Volume 12(3), pp. 506–517
Murata, K., Katayama, H., 2011. Study on Support System of Kaizen Activity for Sustainable Improvement of Global Competitiveness. International Journal of Technology, Volume 2(3), pp. 215–223
Plotnikov, V., Vertakova, Y., 2015. Formation of Networks as a Form of Business Integration. Procedia Economics and Finance, Volume 24, pp. 511–518
Pronyaeva, L., Polyanin, A., Pavlova, A., Shchegolev, ?., Polozhentseva, Y., 2018. State Regulation and Strategic Management in Clusters. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Business Information Management Association Conference, IBIMA 2018: Innovation Management and Education Excellence through Vision 2020, pp. 4169–4178
Rodionov, D.G., Konnikov, E.A., Nasrutdinov, M.N., 2021. A Transformation of the Approach to Evaluating a Region’s Investment Attractiveness as a Consequence of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Economies, Volume 9(2), pp. 1–20
Sazonov, S.P., Fedotova, G.V., Sazonov, V.E., 2018. Formation of the Concept of Sustainable Development of Territory in the Worsening Ecological Conditions. Espacios, Volume 39(12), pp. 1–7
Shinkevich, A.I., Farrakhova, A.A., Shinkevich, M.V., Pavlova, A.V., Vyukov, M.G., 2016. Integrated Management of Flows in Petroleum Products Supply Chains in the Field of Hydrocarbons Deep Processing. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Volume 6(2), pp. 523–528
Sinitsina, I.S., 2017. International Labor Migration in Central and Southeast Europe. Russia and the Modern World, Volume 1(94), pp. 103–119
Trenz, H.-J., Triandafyllidou, A., 2017. Complex and Dynamic Integration Processes in Europe: Intra EU Mobility and International Migration in Times of Recession. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Volume 43(4), pp. 546–559
Vertakova, Y. 2016. Propulsive cluster as a tool to promote economic growth. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Business Information Management Association Conference, IBIMA 2016 - Innovation Management and Education Excellence Vision 2020: From Regional Development Sustainability to Global Economic Growth, pp. 1100–1108
Vertakova, Y., Kryzhanovskaya, O., Shuyi, D., Yayi, L., 2020. Integration Interaction of Russia and China in the Conditions of Digital Transformation of the Economy. E3S Web of Conferences, Volume 157, pp. 1–8
Widjanarko, S., Ubaydullaev, B., 2011. The Role of Carbon Capture and Storage in The Global Energy Portfolio. International Journal of Technology, Volume 2(1), pp. 65–73
V.G., 2019. Diversification or Specialization: Development of the Regions of
the Far Eastern Federal Disrict. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies,
Volume 139, pp. 280–288