5639
Views
534
Downloads |
Evaluation of macroeconomic outcomes and the seven-year membership of Croatia in the European Union
Ivana Rukavina* 
Article | Year: 2022 | Pages: 1 - 42 | Volume: 46 | Issue: 1 Received: June 1, 2021 | Accepted: December 5, 2021 | Published online: March 8, 2022
|
FULL ARTICLE
FIGURES & DATA
REFERENCES
CROSSMARK POLICY
METRICS
LICENCING
PDF
Note: All series are expressed in per capita terms (in thousands, constant 2010 US$). Source: Author.
Note: The percentage difference between real and synthetic value, where a positive (negative) value indicates that the real series is greater than (smaller than) the synthetic series by that percentage. Source: Author’s calculation based on results of synthetic control method estimations.
Note: The mutual movement is based on an index with a common base 2013=100. Changes after 2013 show the movement of the Croatian series and its estimated synthetic controls. Divergence between two lines is seen as changes that occurred after joining the EU. Source: Author’s calculation based on results of synthetic control method estimations.
Note: Income was originally expressed in absolute per capita terms (in thousands, constant 2010 US$). Savings were originally expressed in percentage of GDP. Source: Author.
Note: Income was originally modelled in absolute terms (constant 2010 US$) and it is graphically expressed as the percentage difference between real and synthetic value, where a positive (negative) value indicates that the real series is greater than (smaller than) the synthetic series by that percentage. Savings were originally expressed in percentage of GDP and graphically expressed as the simple difference between the real and synthetic value. Source: Author’s calculation based on results of synthetic control method estimations.
Note: The mutual movement is based on an index with a common base 2013=100. Changes after 2013 show the movement of the Croatian series and its estimated synthetic controls. Divergence between two lines is seen as changes that occurred after joining the EU. Source: Author’s calculation based on results of synthetic control method estimations.
Note: Labour productivity is expressed as GDP per employee (in thousands, constant 2017 PPP $) while sectoral productivity i.e., industry, agriculture and services is expressed in per capita value added (in thousands, constant 2010 US$). Source: Author.
Note: The percentage difference between real and synthetic value, where a positive (negative) value indicates that the real series is greater than (smaller than) the synthetic series by that percentage. Source: Author’s calculation based on results of synthetic control method estimations.
Note: The mutual movement is based on an index with a common base 2013=100. Changes after 2013 show the movement of the Croatian series and its estimated synthetic controls. Divergence between two lines is seen as changes that occurred after joining the EU. Source: Author’s calculation based on results of synthetic control method estimations.
Note: Black line represents the difference (effects) between actual and synthetic Croatia and shows the estimated impact of EU’s accession while the grey lines represent the estimated placebo effects for each country in the sample. Source: Author.
|
|
% effects
(baseline
estimation)
|
Mean %
effects across
1,000 random
donor samples
|
Median %
effects across
1,000 random
donor samples
|
% of estimation
with negative
effects (out of 1,000
random samples)
|
% of estimation
with positive effects
(out of 1,000
random samples)
|
Mean %
effects using best
pre-treatment
accession fit*
|
|
GDP pc
|
-4.39
|
1.34
|
0.75
|
44.57
|
55.43
|
4,62
|
|
Consumption
|
-9.18
|
-6.44
|
-6.52
|
98.86
|
1.14
|
-9.25
|
|
Investments
|
-1.27
|
-7.49
|
-0.94
|
80.28
|
19.71
|
-2.12
|
|
Expenditures
|
-3.61
|
0.10
|
-0.94
|
62.00
|
38.00
|
-1.31
|
|
Imports
|
5.36
|
6.37
|
5.91
|
76.00
|
24.00
|
-4.51
|
|
Exports
|
20.21
|
19.29
|
20.12
|
2.73
|
97.27
|
25.55
|
|
Income
|
2.78
|
1.99
|
3.01
|
31.43
|
68.57
|
5.42
|
|
Savings
|
10.21
|
5.55
|
5.53
|
0
|
100
|
6.68
|
|
Labour productivity
|
-1.21
|
0.41
|
-0.36
|
56.57
|
43.42
|
3.82
|
|
Industry_VA
|
-11.41
|
-16.43
|
-16.63
|
95.57
|
4.43
|
-15.30
|
|
Agriculture_VA
|
-27.81
|
-24.71
|
-23.69
|
99.86
|
0.14
|
-27.22
|
|
Services_VA
|
-3.04
|
-1.44
|
-4.22
|
77.00
|
23.00
|
-3.69
|
* Best pre-treatment fit contains estimates obtained by random sampling that have the root mean squared prediction error (pre-RMSPE) lower than our baseline estimates. Note: The percentage difference as a percent effect is the percentage difference between real and synthetic value, where a positive (negative) value indicates that the real series is greater than (smaller than) the synthetic series by that percentage. Mean (%) is the average of the calculated effects, median (%) is also based on the percentage difference. Source: Author´s calculation.
GDP product and aggregate demand components | GDP pc | Consumption | Investment | Expenditures | Import | Export | DID | -0.42*** (0,13) | -0.52*** (0.14) | -0.48*** (0.12) | -0.38*** (0.14) | 0.39*** (0.14) | -0.32* (0.16) | _cons | 4.15*** (0,13) | 6.84*** (0.15) | 5.56*** (0.18) | 5.37*** (0.18) | 4.37*** (0.27) | 4.70*** (0.26) | R2 | 0.48 | 0.47 | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.57 | 0.59 |
Income and savings | Income | Savings | DID | 0.26*** (0.12) | 6.48*** (0.96) | _cons | 10.98*** (0.28) | 38.9*** (2.17) | R2 | 0.17 | 0.28 |
Labour productivity, industry, agriculture and services value added | Productivity | Industry VA | Agriculture VA | Services VA | DID | -0.07 (0.06) | -0.03 (0.13) | -0.19*** (0.06) | -0.24*** (0.07) | _cons | 10.67*** (0.08) | 7.15*** (0.22) | 6.44*** (0.11) | 2.29*** (0.15) | R2 | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.35 | 0.80 |
Note: All variables are expressed in original per capita terms and then expressed in logarithmic value, exception was made for savings which is expressed in percentage of GDP. The estimate is based on a total sample of 29 countries. *** represents significance at 1%, * represents significance at 10%. In parentheses are robust standard errors. Source: Author.
|
Indicators
|
Designations
|
|
GDP pc
|
GDP pc
|
|
Households
and NPISHs Final consumption expenditure (constant 2010 US$)
|
Consumption
|
|
Gross
fixed capital formation (constant 2010 US$)
|
Investments
|
|
General
government final consumption expenditure (constant 2010 US$)
|
Expenditures
|
|
Imports
of goods and services (constant 2010 US$)
|
Import
|
|
Exports
of goods and services (constant 2010 US$)
|
Export
|
|
Adjusted
net national income per capita (constant 2010 US$)
|
Income
|
|
Gross
savings (% of GDP)
|
Savings
|
|
GDP
per person employed (constant 2017 PPP $)
|
Labour productivity
|
|
Industry
(including construction), value added (constant 2010 US$)
|
Industry VA
|
|
Agriculture,
forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2010 US$)
|
Agriculture VA
|
|
Services,
value added (constant 2010 US$)
|
Services VA
|
|
Population,
total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Covariates
|
Designations
|
|
Trade
(% of GDP)
|
Trade
|
|
Population
growth (annual %)
|
Pop_gr
|
|
Gross
fixed capital formation (% of GDP)
|
Inv_GDP
|
|
School
enrollment, tertiary (% gross)
|
Sch_TE
|
|
Real
effective exchange rate
|
REER
|
|
Employment
in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate)
|
Empl_agri
|
|
Agricultural
land (% of land area)
|
Agri_land
|
|
Employment
in services (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate)
|
Empl_ser
|
|
Employment
in industry (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate)
|
Empl_ind
|
|
Unemployment,
total (% of total labor force) (national estimate)
|
Un_empl
|
|
Age
dependency ratio (% of working-age population)
|
Dep_ratio
|
Source: World Bank, WDI (accessed 5 April 2021), Bruegel database (accessed 5 April 2021).
 List of countries for random donor sample: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo Dem. Rep., Congo Rep., Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt Arab Rep., El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong SAR China, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran Islamic Rep., Iraq, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Korea Rep., Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Macao SAR China, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia Fed. Sts., Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Sudan, Suriname, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela RB, Vietnam, Yemen Rep., Zambia, Zimbabwe. (Accessed 1.10.2021). Source: Author
Abadie, A. and Gardeazabal, J., 2003. The Economic Costs of Conflict: A Case Study of the Basque Country. American Economic Review, 93(1), pp. 113-132 [ CrossRef]
Abadie, A., 2005. Semiparametric Difference-in-Differences Estimators. Review of Economic Studies, 72(1), pp. 1-19 [ CrossRef]
Abadie, A., Diamond, A. and Hainmueller, J., 2010. Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105(490), pp. 493-505 [ CrossRef]
Abadie, A., Diamond, A. and Hainmueller, J., 2015. Comparative Politics and the Synthetic Control Method. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), pp. 495-510 [ CrossRef]
Alhmeida, R. and Fernandes, A. M., 2008. Openness and technological innovations in developing countries: Evidence from firm-level surveys. Journal of Development Studies, 44(5), pp. 701-27 [ CrossRef]
Bertola, G., 2010. Inequality, integration, and policy: issues and evidence from EMU. Journal of Economic Inequality, 8(3), pp. 345-65 [ CrossRef]
Bertrand, M., Duflo, E. and Mullainathan, S., 2001. How much should we trust difference-in-differences estimates. MIT Working paper, No. 01-34.
Bornschier, V., Herkenrath, M. and Ziltener, P., 2004. Political and economic logic of western european integration A study of convergence comparing member and non-member states, 1980–98. European Societies, 6(1), pp. 71-96 [ CrossRef]
Borsi, M. T. and Metiu, N., 2013. The evolution of economic convergence in the European Union. Deutsche Bindesbank, Discussion paper, No 28-2013 [ CrossRef]
Boulanger, P. [et al.], 2013. Analysis of the impact of Croatia’s accession to the EU on the agri-food sectors. Luxembourg (Luxembourg): Publications Office of the European Union [ CrossRef]
Bravo-Otega, C. and Lederman, D., 2004. Agricultural Productivity and Its Determinants: Revisiting International Experiences. Estudios de Economía, 31(2), pp. 133-163.
Busemayer, M. R. and Tober, T., 2015. European integration and the political economy of inequality. European Union Politics, 16(4), pp. 536-557 [ CrossRef]
Butorac, G., 2019. Gospodarski rast, konvergencija i članstvo u EU: empirijski dokazi iz Hrvatske. Ekonomski pregled, 70(2), pp. 173-208 [ CrossRef]
Campos, N. F. and Coricelli, F., 2012. Financial liberalization and reversals: political and economic determinants. Economic Policy, 27(71), pp. 483-513 [ CrossRef]
Campos, N. F., Coricelli, F. and Moretti, L., 2019. Institutional integration and economic growth in Europe. Journal of Monetary Economics, 103, pp. 88-104 [ CrossRef]
Card, D. and Krueger, A. B., 1994. Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The American Economic Review, 84(4), pp. 772-93 [ CrossRef]
Crespo, J., Ritzberger-Grünwald, D. and Silgoner, M. A., 2008. Growth, convergence and EU membership. Applied Economics, 40(5), pp. 463-456 [ CrossRef]
Deskar-Škrbić, M., 2019. Ekonomski i fiskalni učinci pridruživanja Hrvatske Europskoj uniji. Političke analize, 9(35), pp. 3-13.
Ederveen, S., de Groot, H. L. F. and Nahuis, R., 2006. Fertile soil for Structural Funds? A panel data analysis of the conditional effectiveness of European cohesion policy. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, No. 2002-096-3 [ CrossRef]
Ehigiamusoe, K. and Lean, H. H., 2019. Do economic and financial integration stimulate economic growth? A critical survey. Kiel, 13(4), pp. 1-27 [ CrossRef]
Furceri, D. and Ostry, J. D., 2019. Robust determinants of income inequality. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 35(3), pp. 490-517.
Glodowska, A. and Pera, B., 2019. On the relationship between economic integration, business environment and real convergence: The experience of the CEE countries. Economies, 7(2), pp. 1-19 [ CrossRef]
Gyoerk, E., 2017. Economic Costs and Benefits of EMU Membership from the Perspective of a Non-member. Open Economies Review, 25(5), pp. 893-921 [ CrossRef]
Henreksen, M., Torstensson, J. and Torstensson, R., 1997. Growth Effects of European Integration. European Economic Review, 41(8), pp. 1537-1557 [ CrossRef]
Incaltarau, C., Pascariu, G. C. and Surubaru, N. C., 2019. Evaluating the determinants of EU Funds absorption across old and new member states – the role of administrative capacity and political governance. Journal of Common Market Studies, 58(4), pp. 941-961 [ CrossRef]
Jovičić, G., 2017. Procjena potencijalnog rasta i jaza BDP-a u Hrvatskoj. HNB Pregledi, P-38.
Kakar, M., Kiani, A. and Baig, A., 2016. Determinants of Agricultural Productivity: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan’s Economy. Global Economic Review, 1(1), pp. 1-12 [ CrossRef]
Klein, M. W. and Olivei, G. P., 2008. Capital account liberalization, financial depth, and economic growth. Journal of International Money and Finance, 27(6), pp. 861-875 [ CrossRef]
König, J., 2015. European integration and the effects of country size on growth. Journal of Economic Integration, 30(3) pp. 501-531 [ CrossRef]
Mankiw, N. G., Romer, D. and Weil, D. N., 1992. A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2(2), pp. 407-437 [ CrossRef]
Maroof, Z. [et al.], 2019. Determinants of industrial development: a panel analysis of South Asian economies. Quality and Quantity, 53(3), pp. 1391-1419 [ CrossRef]
Mikulić, D., Lovrinčević, Ž. and Nagyszombaty, A. G., 2008. Regional convergence in the European Union, new member states and Croatia. South Eastern Journal of Economic and Business, 8(1), pp. 7-19 [ CrossRef]
Nicolescu-Aron, I. and Mihaescu, C., 2012. Modelling the impact of economic, demographic and social determinants on household saving rate in the former socialist countries (Central and Eastern Europe). Procedia Economics and Finance, 10(2014), pp. 104-113 [ CrossRef]
Ranilović, N., 2017. Primjena gravitacijskog modela u analizi utjecaja ekonomske integracije na hrvatsku robnu razmjenu. HNB Istraživanja I-50.
Romer, P. M., 1990. Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), pp. 71-102 [ CrossRef]
Sierheit, R., 2008. EU Funds in EU new member states: available resource and possible economic impact. Society and Economy, 30(2), pp. 191-193 [ CrossRef]
Solow, R., M., 1956. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), pp. 65-94 [ CrossRef]
Swan, T. W., 1956. Economic growth and capital accumulation. Economic Record, 32(2), pp. 334-361 [ CrossRef]
Šelebaj, D., 2020. Mikroekonomski aspekti izvoza hrvatske prerađivačke industrije nakon ulaska u Europsku uniju. HNB Istraživanja I-59.
Škrinjarić, T. and Čižmešija, M., 2020. Has the accession of Croatia to the EU affected business sentiment in industry? Synthetic control method approach. Društvena istraživanja, časopis za opća društvena pitanja, 29(4), pp. 643-663 [ CrossRef]
Tigănaşu, R., Încalțărău, C. and Pascariu, G. C., 2018. Administrative Capacity, Structural Funds Absorption and Development. Evidence from Central and Eastern European Countries. Romanian Journal of European Affairs, 18(1), pp. 39-59.
Tomić, F., 2013. Stanje i mjere unaprjeđenja Hrvatske poljoprivrede u svjetlu pristupa Europskoj uniji. Civitas Crisiensis, 1, pp. 129-142.
Tomić, I., 2019. Employment protection reforms and labour market outcomes in the aftermath of the recession: Evidence from Croatia. Public Sector Economies, 44(1), pp. 3-39 [ CrossRef]
Torstensson, R. M., 1999. Growth, knowledge transfers and European integration. Applied Economics, 31(1), pp. 97-106 [ CrossRef]
Valdec, M. and Zrnc, J., 2014. The direction of causality between exports and firm performance: microeconomic evidence from Croatia using the matching approach. Financial Theory and Practice, 39(1), pp. 1-30 [ CrossRef]
Van Wolleghem, P. G., 2020. Does administrative capacity matter? The absorption of the European Fund for the integration of migrants. Policy Studies, pp. 1-19 [ CrossRef]
Vanhoudt, P., 1999. Did the european unification induce economic growth? In search of scale effects and persistent changes. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 135(2), pp. 193-220 [ CrossRef]
Zakon o strancima, NN 133/20. Zagreb: Narodne novine.
Zoretić, G., 2018. Određivanje kompetencija službenika u javnoj upravi – pregled Republike Hrvatske i odabranih zemalja EU. FIP-Financije i pravo, 6(1), pp. 53-74.
|
|
March, 2022
I/2022
|
