英语论文网

current
exchange rates, the gross national income per capita of the ten new memberstates (NMS-10) amounts to 21 per cent of the EU-15, and { measured in
purchasing power parities { to roughly 40 per cent of the EU-15 in 2005
(World Bank, 2007). This large income gap has fanned fears that the removalof immigration restrictions will yield a mass migration wave which willsubsequently depress wages and increase unemployment in the incumbent
EU member states.
Against this background the EU-15 countries decided at the European
Council to impose transitional periods for the free movement of workers
from the NMS. The so-called "2+3+2" formula allows the individual member
states to suspend the free movement of workers for a period of up to
seven years. Extension of the transitional period is rst considered after
代写留学生论文two years, then for a second time after three years. A second prolongation
of the transitional period requires that the member state announces seriousimbalances in its domestic labour market. However, the application of transitionalperiods for the free movement remains a sovereign decision of theindividual member state.
In the course of the 2004 enlargement round, only Sweden applied fully
the Community Law for the free movement of workers, and the UK and Irelandopened their labour markets without restrictions. Although most otherEU member states have opened their labour markets partially by grantingwork permits for seasonal workers, (small) immigration quotas or by concludingbilateral guestworker agreements, the remaining migration restrictionscan be regarded as relatively tight in the sense that they e ectivelyhindered labour migration between the new and the incumbent member
states.3
1The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Slovak Republicand Slovenia joined the EU at May 1, 2004. Cyprus and Malta also joined the EU in2004, but the transitional periods for the free movement of workers do not apply to them.
2Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU at January 1, 2007.
3For details see European Commission (2006) and European Commission (2007).2comparing migration patterns before and after the EU Eastern enlargement(Section 2). Section 3 provides the two migration scenarios which formthe basis for the further analysis. Section 4 discusses the methodology andtheoretical foundations of the CGE model. Section 5 presents the results ofour simulations and Section 6 concludes.
2 Migration diversion after EU enlargement
The 2004 enlargement round has resulted in a distinct increase in migration
from the NMS-8 into the EU-15, although total migration
ows have beenlower than predicted for the case of an EU-wide introduction the free movementof workers. Table 1 presents the stock of foreign nationals from theNMS-8 residing in the EU-15. Migration data are poorly reported in most
EU member states, such that some uncertainty surrounds the estimates of
the actual scale of east-west migration.5 Based on the information of thosecountries which provide migration gures by country of origin and on theinformation of the European Labour Force Survey (LFS) for those countrieswhich do not, we can estimate the net increase in the number of foreign residentsfrom the NMS-8 in the EU-15 at 200,000-250,000 persons per annum
since 2004.6
Table 1 about here
This net increase in the stock of migrants from the NMS-8 is below most
estimates which have been carried