




































AGORA INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ECONOMICAL SCIENCES, 
AIJES, ISSN 2067-3310, E - ISSN 2067 – 7669, VOL 10 (2016) 

45 
 

 

How much has benefited Romania from ten years of  

EU membership? 

 

 

Bogdan Meunier
1
, Constantin Zaman

2
 

 

 

 

Abstract:  

 
We analyse in this paper the main achievements of Romania during the period of ten years since joining the 

European Union. The analysis is based on a proposed Index of Structural Changes constructed that express the 

overall progress in five areas: business environment, labour market, state institutions, taxation, and human 

capital. The analysis is carried out in a comparative perspective, at three levels: with Bulgaria, which joined the 

EU the same year; with three countries from Western Europe; and with a group of countries from Central and 

Eastern Europe that integrated the EU earlier, in 2004. We find a strong convergence between Romania and the 

other neighbouring countries, as well as a slower but increasing convergence towards the “old” EU member 

states.  

 

Key words: labour market,  taxation system process,  stronger economic 

 

1. Introduction  

 
After the first wave of EU enlargement towards the Eastern part of the continent, which took place in 2004, 

Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union in 2007. The EU integration of countries belonging to the 

former communist block was aimed at modernising the institutional and legislative framework in the new 

member states, while bringing significant economic advantages from trade openness, investment enhancement 

and increased competitiveness of domestic commodities, all culminating with a major improvement of living 

standards of the population.  

The advantages of joining the EU have been amply analysed in the specialised literature. Apart from the positive 

impact on democracy (Sedelmaier, 2014), the process enhanced the overall European cohesion (Weisse et al, 

2001) and contributed essentially to peace and stability on the continent (Avery et al, 2009). In economic terms, 

the EU integration of Central and Eastern European countries has brought stronger economic growth according 

to a first evaluation of the European Commission (2006). This growth accelerated the process of economic 

convergence between old and new member states (EURACTIV, 2010), in particular as a result of increased 

flows of Foreign Direct Investment, trade liberalisation (Efstathiou, 2011) and improvement of labour 

productivity (Campos et al, 2014). All these elements bring more efficiency in production at the firms’ level 

(Bchir et al, 2003) and therefore increased competitiveness.  

                                                           
1
 Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne Paris 1 

Département Economie Internationale et Développement 
2
 Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne Paris 1 

Département Economie Internationale et Développement, e-mail czaman@noos.fr 

 

 



46 
 

In general, the literature on assessing the impact of EU enlargement is relatively scarce, and no major studies 

have been elaborated for the Romanian case. In this paper we therefore attempt to evaluate quantitatively the 

qualitative outcomes of a decade of EU membership. Instead of focusing on the final impact, we analyse the 

evolution of structural elements that have led to those positive outcomes: economic competitiveness, 

improvement of institutional and legal framework, and the overall progress in terms of human development.  

The second section of the paper presents the methodological background. The results of the assessment are 

described in Section 3, while the last section summarises the main conclusions and findings.  

 

2. The methodological framework  

 
The evaluation of Romanian progress over the first decade of EU membership consists of constructing an Index 

of Structural Changes (ISC), which shows the cumulative effect of reforms in five major areas. In each area we 

use an indicator that is internationally comparable and, at the same time, expresses the best the evolution of the 

situation over the corresponding period:  

i)  Business Environment: the economic integration in the EU is equivalent to a major 

improvement of entrepreneurial conditions, such that private businesses can operate in a competitive 

environment. The most appropriate indicator in this case is the Business Freedom (BF) used by Heritage 

Foundation (2016). The index is a quantitative measure of the ability to start, operate and close a business, and 

therefore represents the overall burden of regulation as well as the government efficiency in the regulatory 

process. It takes values from 0 to 100, the highest value expressing the freest business environment.  
ii)  Labour Market: the second important element of economic progress is related to the overall 

regulatory environment on the labour market. A permissive business environment without a friendly framework 

for employment will be damaging for the overall economic performance. The indicator used to express the 

evolution of changes on the labour market is the Labour Freedom (LF), equally provided by Heritage 

Foundation. The index is determined as a quantitative measure of legal and regulatory framework on the labour 

market, and measures the impact of regulations in terms of minimum wage, layoffs and hiring procedures, 

severance requirements, etc. The LF takes values from 0 to 100, the highest value representing the freest 

framework.  

iii)  State Administration and Institutions: good governance at the level of state 

administration favours significantly the economic environment through the appropriate translation of public 

policies into adequate conditions for individuals and businesses to develop. The most important element that 

negatively affects the good functioning of public institutions is the corruption. Consequently, the indicator used 

for analysis of this domain is the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of Transparency International (2015), which 

expresses the perception of experts and business people on the corruption in the public sector. It ranges between 

0 and 100, the lower values indicating high corruption.  

iv)  Taxation System: While the Business Freedom and Labour Freedom describe the situation 

in the private sector, the taxation system indicates the efficiency of the government in using public resources – 

therefore in ensuring social equity in the redistribution process. The individuals and the businesses are ready to 

pay taxes if the collected revenues are properly, efficiently and transparently used. These elements are well 

reflected by the Paying Taxes (PT) indicator proposed by the World Bank (2016) in the Doing Business ranking. 

The indicator expresses the ease of paying taxes by firms and households in terms of time spent for paying them, 

the rate of taxation, and the number of taxes charged. It ranks from 0 to 100, with high values indicating a 

performant – therefore easy to pay – tax system.  

v)  Human Capital: The ultimate objective of any government policy should be the 

development of human capital through the provision of adequate social services in education, health care and 

social protection. This can be the best expressed by the UN (2015) Human Development Index (HDI), which 

combines those elements. Like the previous indicators, the HDI takes values within the interval 0 – 100, high 

levels indicating a developed human capital.  

These five indicators are combined to calculate an aggregate Index of Structural Changes, using a 

similar methodology like the one developed by Meunier and Zaman (2015). The first step is to represent the 

corresponding indicators in a Pentagon of Structural Changes (PSC); this gives visual information about their 

respective individual contribution to the overall performance of the country during the period. Then we calculate 

the area delimited by the five indicators; the ISC is the percentage share of the corresponding area in the total 

surface of the pentagon. 

 

 

 



47 
 

3. The interpretation of results  

 
In Figure 1 we represented the PSC in 2006 – the year before EU integration – respectively in 2016 (Annex 1 

provides the pentagons for the remaining years from 2007 to 2015). It can be observed that over the whole 

decade of EU membership Romania recorded a net progress with respect to three indicators: Labour Freedom, 

which increased from 57.5 to 65.1; Corruption, where the CPI gained 16 units; and Paying Taxes, which 

recorded the most significant progress (an overall increase by 80%). However, there is a net regress of the 

Business Freedom indicator (by 8.5 units lower), respectively Human Development Index, which passed from 

83.2 in 2006 to 79.3 in 2016. 

Figure 1: The Pentagon of Structural Changes in Romania (2006 and 2007) 

 
Overall, the ISC gained almost 10 units over the period (Figure 2). However, this progress was achieved 

practically during the last 4 years, starting with 2013; In 2012 Romania was practically at the same level as the 

one recorded in 2006, prior to the integration. Moreover, during the first three years after joining the EU, there 

was a regress in the overall performance, but this seems to be a common trend for most of the other countries in 

Europe. The highest ISC was recorded in 2015 (48.71); the decline in 2016 is due to the deterioration of two 

indicators: Labour Freedom and Business Freedom; each of them lost in 2016 more than 5% of their previous 

values.  

At the level of individual indicators, the most impressive improvement is recorded by Paying Taxes, which 

almost doubled its value over the ten-year period, followed by the Corruption index, which increased by 53.3% 

over the same time horizon (Figure 3). Modest progress has been recorded in the field of Labour Freedom, while 

the Human Development Index in 2016 was lower than a decade ago. The HDI deterioration is essentially 

caused by the massive emigration of educated Romanians; in 2008, one year after joining the EU, the indicator 

dropped suddenly by 11.6% as a result of the emigration phenomenon.  

As compared to neighbouring Bulgaria (BG), which joined the EU the same year, Romania (RO) started the 

period with a handicap of more than 7 units in terms of structural performance. 

In 2006, the ISC of Bulgaria amounted to 44.93, while the Romanian one was only 37.76; that year, the highest 

difference between the two countries was at the level of Labour Freedom (1.4 times superior in Bulgaria) and 

Corruption (33.3% higher in Romania). Only the Business Freedom indicator of Romania was above the 

Bulgarian level in 2006 (5.8% higher). However, ten years later, Romania recorded an ISC of 47.79, which is 

slightly higher than the one recorded the same year by Bulgaria (46.23). It means that the pre-accession reforms 

were better prepared in Bulgaria, but the EU integration helped significantly the structural convergence between 

the two countries. 

 



48 
 

 

 

When compared to some of the “old” member states (Figure 4), Romania is still far from countries like Germany 

(GE) and United Kingdom (UK) with respect to the Index of Structural Changes, but relatively close to France 

(FR). However, the ISC gap between EU average and Romania has shrunk significantly since the accession 

(Figure 5). This is partially due to the decline in the overall performance in France and UK, but mostly to the 

major increase of ISC in Romania between 2006 and 2016 (Figure 6). 

 



49 
 

 

 



50 
 

 
 

 

 

 
As a first conclusion, the EU integration has contributed to a large extent to the convergence between the new 

members of the union and their Western counterparts. This process has been facilitated by the rapid progress of 

reforms, in particular in Romania, but also by the relatively lower speed of progress in Western countries. It 

seems that the economies of “old” members of the union have reached a steady state level of growth in overall 

performance, which allows the new members to catch up: in ten years, the gap between the highest and lowest 

Index of Structural Changes passed from 41.85 (between UK and Romania) in 2006 to only 25.8 (between UK 

and Bulgaria) in 2016. If the current trend persists, by 2022 Romania will reach the French level of performance; 

however, in order to catch up with the most advanced countries (Germany and UK), Romania will need 20 years 

from now, under the assumption that the current trend remains the same in the future.  

Another interesting comparative analysis is between Romania and the group of countries from the former 

communist block that joined the EU earlier, in 2004. The aim of this comparison is to see if a common path of 

transformations is present in the two situations. In Figure 7 we represented the ISC for Romania on one hand, 

and for Poland (PO), Hungary (HU) and Czech Republic (CR) on the other hand. For the sake of consistency in 

terms of comparison, we represented the index over the period 2006 – 2016 in case of Romania, respectively 

between 2003 and 2013 for the other three countries. In this way, we analyse the ISC evolution over the first 

decade of EU membership in both situations. We can observe that Romania, Czech Republic and Poland are very 

similar at the starting point; only Hungary entered the EU from a better position, but after ten years all countries 

in the sample are very close with respect to Index of Structural Changes. Moreover, Romania, Poland, and Czech 

Republic follow an almost identical evolution. A decade of EU membership has therefore brought a strong 

convergence between those four countries. 

 



51 
 

 
 

4. Concluding remarks 

 
The EU membership is first of all an institutional status. A new member state has to comply primarily with a 

clear set of rules and obligations of legal and institutional nature at state level, aimed at building good 

governance principles in the country. This will translate into well-functioning public administration, where 

corruption is reduced considerably and the relations with the citizens are based on confidence and transparent 

practices. In turn, good governance induces a friendly and incentive-based environment in the economy, which 

will stimulate business development and wellbeing of individuals.  

It follows that there is an order of importance within the above group of indicators used to calculate the ISC. The 

essential element that ensures a successful path of transformations is the one related to state administration and 

institutions, expressed by the CPI in our analysis. Reducing and eliminating the corruption in public 

organisations will ease the relations between authorities and citizens (Paying Taxes indicator) and will induce 

fair competition in the economy – thus improving the business environment (BF indicator) and labour market 

environment (LF indicator). Not surprisingly, the most impressive progress of reforms in Romania, which 

boosted the ISC, started in 2013; this coincides with the extensive anti-corruption operations of the specialised 

Romanian agency.  

The EU membership is therefore a guarantee for remediating the legal and institutional dysfunctionalities, which 

will trigger the improvement of business and employment conditions in the economy. However, the euro-

sceptical views on the role of EU integration argue that this sequential process of reforms can take place without 

being part of the European Union. This opinion is contradicted by the comparison between an EU insider 

(Romania) and an outsider (Albania). In Figure 8 we represented the Index of Structural Changes of the two 

countries. As an outsider, Albania has achieved some progress in the field, but this progress is not sustainable in 

long run. The initial convergent path between the two countries over the period 2006 – 2012 is reverted starting 

with 2013, when a divergent trend is observed. The highest ISC recorded by Albania (37.6) is practically at the 

level of the lowest Romanian value. This is mainly because in 2016 the Corruption indicator of Albania 

corresponds to the Romanian CPI prior to 2008. 

 



52 
 

 
 

References 

 
Avery, G., Faber, A., Schmidt, A. (2009). Enlarging the European Union: Effects on the new member states and 

the EU. Trans European Policy Studies, Brussels. Retrieved from 

https://www.um.edu.mt/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/71054/Enlarging_the_European_Union.pdf 

Bchir, H., Fontagné, L., Zanghieri, P. (August, 2003). The Impact of EU Enlargement on Member States: a CGE 

Approach. CEPII Working Paper No. 2003-10. Retrieved from http://www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/wp/2003/wp2003-

10.pdf 

Campos, N. F., Coricelli, F., Moretti, L. (April, 2014): Economic Growth and Political Integration: Estimating 

the Benefits from Membership in the European Union Using the Synthetic Counterfactuals Method. IZA 

Discussion Paper No. 8162. Retrieved from http://anon-ftp.iza.org/dp8162.pdf 

European Commission (May 2006). The Economics of Enlargement. Economic and Financial Affairs. 

Retrievedfrom http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/international/enlargement/economics/index_en.htm 

Efstathiou, N. (October, 2011). The Impact of the European Union Enlargement on the Member Countries 

Economic Growth. An Econometric Analysis. Erasmus University.  

EURACTIV (January, 2010). Economic and Social Impact of Enlargement for the European Union and France. 

Retrieved from http://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/opinion/economic-and-social-impact-of-

enlargement-for-the-european-union-and-france/ 

Heritage Foundation (2016). Index of Economic Freedom. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/index/  

Meunier, B., Zaman, C. (December 2016). A Proposed Index for Measuring the Implementation of Reforms. 

Domestic Development Strategies Journal, Vol. 3, Issue 185.  

Sedelmaier, U. (June, 2014). Europe after the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union: 2004-2014. 

Retrieved from https://eu.boell.org/en/2014/06/10/europe-after-eastern-enlargement-european-union-2004-2014 

Transparency International (2015). Corruption Perception Index. Retrieved from 

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015   

United Nations (2015). Human Development Report. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/2015-report   

Weise, C., Bachtler, J., Downes, R., McMaster, I., Toepel, K. (March, 2001). The Impact of EU Enlargement on 

Cohesion. DIW & EPRC report. Retrieved from 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/enlarge.pdf   

World Bank (2016). Doing Business. Measuring Business Regulations. Retrieved from 

http://www.doingbusiness.org/ 

 

 

https://www.um.edu.mt/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/71054/Enlarging_the_European_Union.pdf
http://www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/wp/2003/wp2003-10.pdf
http://www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/wp/2003/wp2003-10.pdf
http://anon-ftp.iza.org/dp8162.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/international/enlargement/economics/index_en.htm
http://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/opinion/economic-and-social-impact-of-enlargement-for-the-european-union-and-france/
http://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/opinion/economic-and-social-impact-of-enlargement-for-the-european-union-and-france/
https://eu.boell.org/en/2014/06/10/europe-after-eastern-enlargement-european-union-2004-2014
http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015
http://hdr.undp.org/en/2015-report
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/enlarge.pdf
http://www.doingbusiness.org/


53 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 


