EMU and International Conflict

TLDR

The EMU would replace national currencies with the euro, transfer monetary policy to the ECB, and ultimately create a political union, a goal driven primarily by political motives rather than economic benefits. The study finds that the adverse effects of a single currency on unemployment and inflation outweigh the benefits of trade and capital flows, and the Maastricht Treaty explicitly envisions a future political union.

Abstract

The immediate effects of emu would be to replace the individual national currencies of the participating countries in 2002 with a single currency, the euro, and to shift responsibility for monetary policy from the national central banks to a new European Central Bank (ecb). But the more fundamental long-term effect of adopting a single currency would be the creation of a political union, a European federal state with responsibility for a Europe-wide foreign and security policy as well as for what are now domestic economic and social policies. While the individual governments and key political figures differ in their reasons for wanting a political union, there is no doubt that the real rationale for emu is political and not economic. Indeed, the adverse economic effects of a single currency on unemployment and inflation would outweigh any gains from facilitating trade and capital flows among the emu members.1 The 1992 Maastricht Treaty that created the emu calls explicitly for the evolution to a future political union. But even without that