This study reviews the progress made in EU accession candidates on competition policy. The analysis shows that institution-building and legislation are well under way and that anti-trust practice is not too lax. Due to the diversity among the accession countries under review, the study finds that the strictly rule-based frame work of the EU might not be the most favourable solution for some candidates: firstly, the small and open economies of most candidates make it particularly difficult to define the ‘relevant market’ in competition cases. Secondly, the traditionally intense vertical integration of production in accession states calls for a reassessment of ‘vertical restraints’. The policy implications of this study suggest that the EU competition task force should take a proactive, case-by-case approach vis-à-vis its new members.

This study reviews the progress made in EU accession candidates on competition policy. The analysis shows that institution-building and legislation are well under way and that anti-trust practice is not too lax. Due to the diversity among the accession countries under review, the study finds that the strictly rule-based frame work of the EU might not be the most favourable solution for some candidates: firstly, the small and open economies of most candidates make it particularly difficult to define the ‘relevant market’ in competition cases. Secondly, the traditionally intense vertical integration of production in accession states calls for a reassessment of ‘vertical restraints’. The policy implications of this study suggest that the EU competition task force should take a proactive, case-by-case approach vis-à-vis its new members.

The transition to a market economy in the former CMEA area is more than a decade old and one can clearly distinguish a group of relatively fast growing countries — including Estonia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia — and a majority of slowly growing economies, including Russia and the Ukraine. Initial problems of transition were natural in the sense that systemic transition to a market economy has effectively destroyed part of the existing capital stock that was no longer profitable under the new relative prices imported from world markets; and there was a transitory inflationary push as low state-administered prices were replaced by higher market equilibrium prices. Indeed, systemic transformation in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have brought serious transitory inflation problems and a massive transition recession; negative growth rates have continued over many years in some countries, including Russia and the Ukraine, where output growth was negative throughout the 1990s (except for Russia, which recorded slight growth in 1997). For political and economic reasons the economic performance of Russia is of particular relevance for the success of the overall transition process. If Russia would face stagnation and instability, this would undermine political and economic stability in the whole of Europe and prospects for integrating Russia into the world economy.

Industrial productivity levels of formerly socialist economies in Central East Europe (including East Germany) are considerably lower than in the more mature Western economies. This research aims at assessing the reasons for lower productivities at the firm level: what are the firm-specific determinants of productivity gaps. To assess this, we have conducted an extensive field study and focussed on a selection of two important manufacturing industries, namely machinery manufacturers and furniture manufacturers, and on the construction industry. Using the data generated in field work, we test a set of determinant-candidates which were derived from theory and prior research in that topic. Our analysis uses the simplest version of the matched-pair approach, in which first hypothesis about relevant productivity level-determinants are tested. In a second step, positively tested hypothesis are further assessed in terms of whether they also constitute firm-specific determinants of the apparent gaps between the firms in our Eastern and such in our Western panels. Our results suggest that the quality of human capital plays an important role in all three industrial branches assessed. Amongst manufacturing firms, networking activities and the use of modern technologies for communication are important reasons for the lower levels of labour productivity in the East. The intensity of long-term strategic planning on behalf of the management turned out to be relevant only for machinery manufacturers. Product and process innovations unexpectedly exhibit an ambiguous picture, as did the extent of specialisation on a small number of products in the firms’ portfolio and the intensity of competition.

This paper supplements prior analysis on ‘patterns and prospects’ (Stephan, 2003) in which prospects for the speed of future productivity growth were assessed by looking at the specialisation patterns in domestic production. This analysis adds the foreign trade sphere to the results generated in the prior analysis. The refined results are broadly in line with the results from the original analysis, indicating the robustness of our methods applied in either analysis. The most prominent results pertain to Slovenia and the Slovak Republic. Those two countries appear to be best suited for swift productivity catch-up from the viewpoint of sectoral specialisation. Poland and Estonia exhibit the lowest potentials. Only for the case of Poland would results suggest bleak prospects.

This report summarises the results generated in empirical analysis within a larger EU 5th FP RTD-project on the determinants of productivity gaps between the current EU-15 and accession states in Central East Europe. The focus of research in this part of the project is on sectoral specialisation patterns emerging as a result of intensifying integration between the current EU and a selection of six newly acceding economies, namely Estonia, Poland, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Hungary and Slovenia. The research-leading question is concerned with the role played by the respective specialisation patterns for (i) the explanation of observed productivity gaps and for (ii) the projection of future potentials of productivity growth in Central East Europe.

For the aggregated level, analysis determines the share of national productivity gaps accountable to acceding countries’ particular sectoral patterns, and their role for aggregate productivity growth: in Poland, the Slovak Republic and Hungary, sectoral shares of national productivity gaps are considerable and might evolve into a ‘barrier’ to productivity catch-up.Moreover, past productivity growth was dominated by a downward adjustment in employment rather than structural change. With the industrial sector of manufacturing having been identified as the main source of national productivity gaps and growth, the subsequent analysis focuses on the role of industrial specialisation patterns and develops an empirical model to project future productivity growth potentials. Each chapter closes with some policy conclusions.

Die robuste wirtschaftliche Expansion in Mittel- und Osteuropa hat sich ungeachtet der anhaltenden weltweiten Konjunkturschwäche im ersten Halbjahr 2003 fortgesetzt. Dabei kam es in einigen Ländern, darunter insbesondere in Russland und Polen, zu einer deutlichen Belebung. Eine rege Inlandsnachfrage unterstützte eine recht zügige Ausdehnung der Produktion, teilweise nahmen auch die Exporte stärker zu. Das reale Bruttoinlandsprodukt wird in den Beitrittsländern nach Einschätzung des IWH in diesem Jahr mit 3,1% zunehmen, nach 2,5% im vergangenen Jahr. Für 2004 ist aufgrund des zu erwartenden Anziehens der weltweiten Konjunktur mit einer Beschleunigung der wirtschaftlichen Dynamik auf 3,8% in der Region zu rechnen. Die Inflation wird sich im gesamten Prognosezeitraum weiter zurückbilden, wobei es vereinzelt auch zu einem weniger starken Rückgang des Preisauftriebs u. a. im Zuge von Steueranpassungen vor dem geplanten EU-Beitritt mittel- und osteuropäischer Länder im Frühjahr 2004 kommen kann. Der Arbeitsmarkt profitiert weiterhin nur gering von der wirtschaftlichen Expansion. Die durchschnittliche Arbeitslosenquote wird auch im nächsten Jahr noch um die 13% liegen.

Trade between the European Union (EU) and the Transition Economies (TE) is increasingly characterised by intra-industry trade. The decomposition of intra-industry trade into horizontal and vertical shares reveals predominantly vertical structures with decisively more quality advantages for the EU and less quality advantages for TE countries whenever trade has been liberalised. Empirical research on factors determining this structure in a EU-TE framework lags behind theoretical and empirical research on horizontal and vertical trade in other regions of the world. The main objective of this paper is therefore to contribute to the ongoing debate on EU-TE trade structures by offering an explanation of vertical trade. We utilise a cross-country approach in which relative wage differences, country size and income distribution play a leading role. We find first that relative differences in wages (per capita income) and country size explain intraindustry trade when trade is vertical and completely liberalised, and second that crosscountry differences in income distribution play no explanatory role. We conclude that EU firms have been able to increase their product quality and to shift low-quality segments to TE countries. This may suggest a product-quality cycle prevalent in EU-TE trade.

Foreign direct investment is generally expected to play a significant role as a multiplier of modern production and management know-how in Central Eastern European transition economies. The following paper examines the various mechanisms by which such technological spillover effects could in theory take place and compares them with the results of an empirical study of their practical significance for Hungarian industry.