At the heart of the evaluation of the economic costs and benefits of adopting the euro lies the question of whether living standards would be higher outside or inside the Euro Area. It is well established that there is a strong positive relationship between openness to international trade and investment and the performance of the UK economy. European integration is continuing to help raise the openness of the UK economy, as well as stimulating product market competition and making the UK a more attractive location for mobile investments. This provides an additional channel through which potential output in the UK is linked to the degree of integration with the rest of Europe. Adopting a common currency may bring modest further gains to productivity and living standards by stimulating trade as well as competition. Reducing exchange rate volatility may also raise the level of fixed capital investment in the UK, although the direct evidence for this is limited, and stimulate inward investment from outside Europe, but could reduce the level of foreign direct investment between the UK and the Euro Area. However it is far from clear how big the net benefits might be or how soon they might start to appear. If the UK were to enter monetary union at a significantly overvalued real exchange rate the gains might never materialise at all and there could easily be significant net losses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abel, A.B. and Eberly, J.C. (1999), ‘The effects of irreversibility and uncertainty on capital accumulation’, Journal of Monetary Economics, 44, pp. 339-377.
2.
Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1998), Endogenous Growth Theory, MIT Press, Massachusetts.
3.
Aizenman, J. (1992), ‘Exchange rate flexibility, volatility and patterns of domestic and foreign direct investment’, IMF Staff Papers, 39, pp. 890-922.
4.
Aizenman, J. and Marion, N. (2001), ‘The merits of horizontal versus vertical FDI in the presence of uncertainty’, NBER Working Paper No. 8631.
5.
Allen, C., Gasiorek, M. and Smith, A. (1998), ‘The competition effects of the Single Market in Europe’, Economic Policy, 27, pp. 441-486.
6.
Anderton, R. and Skudelny, F. (2001), ‘Exchange rate volatility and Euro Area imports’, European Central Bank Working Paper No. 64.
7.
Arrowsmith, J., Barrell, R., Pain, N., Young, G. and Wlodek, K. (1997), Capital Market Liberalisation In Europe, London, Kogan Page.
8.
Ashworth, P., Hubert, F., Pain, N. and Riley, R. (2001), ‘UK fixed capital formation: determinants and constraints’, report prepared for Department of Trade and Industry and CBI/TUC Working Group on Investment.
9.
Barrell, R. and Pain, N. (1997), ‘Foreign direct investment, technological change, and economic growth within Europe’, Economic Journal, 107, pp. 1770-1776.
10.
Barrell, R. and Pain, N. (1998), ‘Real exchange rates, agglomerations and irreversibilities: macroeconomic policy and FDI in EMU’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14/3, pp. 152-167.
11.
Barrell, R. and Pain, N. (1999a), ‘Trade restraints and Japanese direct investment flows’, European Economic Review, 43, pp. 29-45.
12.
Barrell, R. and Pain, N. (1999b), ‘Domestic institutions, agglomerations and foreign direct investment in Europe’, European Economic Review, 43, pp. 925-934.
13.
Becker, B. and Pain, N. (2002), ‘What determines industrial R&D expenditure in the UK?’, NIESR mimeo.
14.
Bénassy-Quéré, A., Fontagné, L. and Lahrèche-Révil, A. (2001), ‘Exchange rate strategies in the competition for attracting foreign direct investment’, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 15, pp. 178-198.
15.
Ben-David, D. (1993), ‘Equalizing exchange: trade liberalisation and income convergence’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, pp. 653-679.
16.
Ben-David, D. (1996), ‘Trade and convergence among countries’, Journal of International Economics, 40, pp. 279-298.
17.
Ben-David, D., Nordström, H. and Winters, L.A. (2000), Trade, Income Disparity and Poverty, World Trade Organisation Special Studies No.5.
18.
Bernard, A.B. and Jensen, J.B. (1999), ‘Exceptional exporter performance: cause, effect or both?’, Journal of International Economics, 47, pp. 1-25.
19.
Blair, A.R. (1987), ‘The relative distribution of United States direct investment: the UK/EEC experience’, European Economic Review, 31, pp. 1137-1144.
20.
Campa, J.M. (1993), ‘Entry by foreign firms in the United States under exchange rate uncertainty’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 75, pp. 614-622.
21.
Campa, J.M. and Goldberg, L.S. (1999), ‘Investment, pass-through and exchange rates: a cross-country comparison’, International Economic Review, 40, pp. 287-314.
22.
Carruth, A., Dickerson, A. and Henley, A. (2000), ‘What do we know about investment under uncertainty?’, Journal of Economic Surveys, 14, pp. 119-153.
23.
Coe, D. and Moghadam, R. (1993), ‘Capital and trade as engines of growth in France’, IMF Staff Papers, 40, pp. 542-566.
24.
Darby, J., Hughes-Hallet, A., Ireland, J. and Piscitelli, L. (1999) ‘The impact of exchange rate uncertainty on the level of investment’, Economic Journal, 109, C55-C67.
25.
De Ménil, G. (1999), ‘Real capital market integration’, Economic Policy, 28, pp. 165-201.
26.
Dixit, A.K. and Pindyck R.S. (1994), Investment Under Uncertainty, Princeton University Press.
27.
Dunning, J.H. (1997), ‘The European Internal Market Programme and inbound foreign direct investment’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 35, pp. 1-30 and 189-224.
28.
Epstein, L.G. and Miao, J. (2002), ‘A two-person dynamic equilbrium under ambiguity’, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, forthcoming; also available at: http://www.econ.rochester.edu/Faculty/Epstein/two15.pdf
29.
Frankel, J. and Rose, A. (2002), ‘An estimate of the effect of common currencies on trade and income’, Quarterly Journal of Economics forthcoming (revised version of CEPR Discussion Paper No. 2631).
30.
Fujita, M., Krugman, P. and Venables, A.J. (1999), The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions and International Trade, Cambridge MA., The MIT Press,
31.
Girma, S., Greenaway, D. and Wakelin, K. (2001), ‘Who benefits from foreign direct investment in the UK?’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 48, pp. 119-133.
32.
Glick, R. and Rose, A. (2002), ‘Does a currency union affect trade? The time series evidence’, European Economic Review, forthcoming (revised version of NBER Working Paper No. 8395).
33.
Goldberg, L. and Kolstad, C. (1995), ‘Foreign direct investment, exchange rate variability and demand uncertainty’, International Economic Review, 36, pp. 855-873.
34.
Griffith, R. (2001), ‘Product market competition, efficiency and agency costs: an empirical analysis’, Institute for Fiscal Studies Working Paper WP01/12.
35.
Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (1991), Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy, Cambridge MA., The MIT Press.
36.
HM Treasury (1997), UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic Tests, London, HMSO.
37.
Hoeller, P., Girouard, N. and Colecchia, A. (1998), ‘The European Union’s trade policies and their economic effects’, OECD Economics Department Working Paper No.194.
38.
Hubert, F. and Pain, N. (2001), ‘Inward investment and technical progress in the United Kingdom manufacturing sector’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 48, pp. 134-147.
39.
Krugman, P. (1991), Geography And Trade, Cambridge MA., The MIT Press.
40.
McCallum, J. (1995), ‘National borders matter: Canada-U.S. regional trade patterns’, American Economic Review, 85, pp. 615-623.
41.
Midelfart-Knarvik, K., Overman, H., Redding, S. and Venables, A. (2000), ‘The location of European industry’, European Commission Economic Paper No. 142.
42.
Nitsch, V. (2000), ‘National borders and international trade: evidence from the European Union’, Canadian Journal of Economics, 33, pp. 1091-1105.
43.
Nucci, F. and Pozzolo, A.F. (2001), ‘Investment and the exchange rate: an analysis with firm level panel data’, European Economic Review, 45, pp. 259-283.
44.
Oulton, N. (2000), ‘Why do foreign-owned firms in the UK have higher labour productivity?’, in Pain (2000).
45.
Pain, N. (1997), ‘Continental drift: European integration and the location of UK foreign direct investment’, The Manchester School Supplement, LXV, pp. 94-117.
46.
Pain, N. (2000) (Ed.), Inward Investment, Technological Change And Growth: The Impact of Multinational Corporations on the UK Economy, Basingstoke, Palgrave Press.
47.
Pain, N. and Hubert, F. (2000), ‘Inward investment and technical progress in the United Kingdom’, in Pain (2000).
48.
Pain, N. and Hubert, F. (2002), ‘Fiscal incentives, European integration and the location of foreign direct investment’, The Manchester School, forthcoming.
49.
Pakko, M. and Wall, H. (2001), ‘Reconsidering the trade-creating effects of a currency union’, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 83, 5, pp. 37-46.
50.
Persson, T. (2001), ‘Currency unions and trade: how large is the treatment effect?’, Economic Policy, 33, pp. 435-448.
51.
Proudman. J. and Redding, S. (Eds) (1998), Openness and Growth, London, Bank of England.
52.
Rodríguez, F. and Rodrik, D. (2000), ‘Trade policy and economic growth: a skeptic’s guide to the cross-national evidence’, NBER Macroeconomics Annual.
53.
Rose, A. (2000), ‘One money, one market: the effect of common currencies on trade’, Economic Policy, 30, pp. 9-45.
54.
Rose, A. (2001), ‘Currency unions and trade: the effect is large’, Economic Policy, 33, pp. 449-459.
55.
Thom, R. and Walsh, B. (2002), ‘The effect of a currency union on trade: lessons from the Irish experience’, European Economic Review (forthcoming).
56.
UNCTAD (2001), World Investment Report 2001: Promoting Linkages, Geneva, United Nations.
