Empirical evidence on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) effects of SM accession suggests:

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The question asks about empirical evidence on GDP effects of EU or SM (Schengen/European Union) accession, focusing on how the literature characterizes the gains. 
Option a: 'Gains are purely static and vanish after five years.' This statement claims that benefits are only short-term and static, with no persistence. In empirical growth literature on country or bloc accession, results typically show that effects unfold over time and may persist or even accumulate via productivity channels; declaring them purely static and vanishing is inconsistent with many studies that find lasting or delayed effects through integration, investment, and institutional changes. 
Option b: 'Post-accession growth trajectories can be fully explained by net fiscal transfers' This asserts that only fiscal transfers drive growth paths, leaving no role for other channels like trade integration, investment, or reforms. Empirically, growth responses are rarely fully accounted for by fiscal transfers alone; structural and supply-side channels often matter, and relying solely on transfers ignores productivity and institutional mechanisms. Therefore this is too narrow and incomplete. 
Option c: 'Estimated gains display substantial cross-country heterogeneity, depending on institutional capacity.' This option recognizes that estimates of GDP gains vary across countries, and that country-specific factors such as institutions, governance, and policy implementability shape the magnitude of benefits. This aligns with the literature showing heterogeneous effects: stronger institutions, better administrative capacity, and credible reforms tend to translate integration into larger gains, while weaker capacity dampens potential benefits. 
Option d: 'Economies of new member states experienced homogeneous long-run GDP responses.' This suggests uniform, identical long-run responses across all new member states, which contradicts the well-established finding of heterogeneity in growth and adjustment processes after integration. It ignores country-specific conditions and convergence dynamics. 
Thus, option c correctly captures the nuanced, evidence-based view, while the other options conflict with core empirical patterns about variability, channels, and the role of institutions in GDP effects after accession.

Empirical evidence on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) effects of SM accession suggests:单项选择题

类似问题

What are the two key economic or political impediments or disadvantages of greater economic integration among countries?

Why is the European Union considered an imperfect economic union?

Country X and Country Y reach an agreement to boost bilateral trade. They agree to remove all barriers to trade of goods and services. They, however, are free to determine their own trade policies regarding nonmembers. Which level of economic integration is this an example of?

_______ has no barriers to trade between member countries, includes a collective external trade policy, and allows factors of production to move freely between members.

Why might existing EU members support enlargement even if they anticipate increased competition in product and labour markets?

Country X and Country Y reach an agreement to boost bilateral trade. They agree to remove all barriers to the trade of goods and services. They, however, are free to determine their own trade policies with regard to nonmembers. Which level of economic integration is this an example of?

Which of the following is a reason the European Union is considered an imperfect economic union?

Which level of economic integration is limited to the elimination of trade barriers between member countries and the adoption of a common external trade policy?

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单