|
Archived Articles
Simeon Mitropolitski is a Canadian analyst, of Bulgarian origin, and a former syndicated columnist with the Bulgarian News Agency (BTA). He is the author of several hundred articles dealing with hot political and economic topics, both national and international.
He was part of the first group of Bulgarian intellectuals and students that began the opposition movement that finally put an end to the communist regime in this country in 1989, and in 1996-1997 participated in international observation teams during the elections in several Balkan countries - Romania, Albania and Bulgaria.
In 2002 Simeon and his family moved from Bulgaria to Canada where they live now in Montreal, province of Quebec. Simeon is a Master of Political Science from McGill University and a B.A. of Political Science and History.
Global Real Estate Project
|
 |
EU enlargement: Two years later
When two years ago the EU accepted 10 new members, 8 of them former communist countries, there were many hopes in the East and not less fears in the West as to what may come as a result of this 'unnatural' marriage between rich and poor nations. There was some precedents from 1980s in accepting Greece, Portugal, and Spain, but the main reason then was political, to strengthen their democratic institutions. This time the primary reason is to help the post-communist countries catching up with the 'core' EU members in terms of per capita GDP, and this is much more difficult task given the gap between the two halves of the continent. Just to make the picture clear, the economic gap between the poorest new EU members and the pre-enlargement EU average is more than 100%. This gap may only get wider if the enlargement keeps on going as planned. Two years ago the East was hoping that finally it's given a pass to the highway of fast economic development, and that the EU will keep its promises of helping the newcomers as it did help Greece or Portugal 30 years ago. The West looked at the same process as a threat for its jobs that were in short supply, as well as for its overburdened social and medical systems. It fantasized about mass population move on the scale of the ancient barbarians' invasions. Many 'core' EU countries initially took measures to stop the influx of guest workers. In addition they turned to be much more stingy when providing aid that was already agreed upon. The facts show well what happened and what didn't two years after the 'big bang' enlargement. The 'barbarians' invasion' didn't took place. Hundreds of thousands moved temporarily or permanently to the West, but it was done in organized manner precisely in the countries that opened wide open their doors for guest workers like UK and Ireland. The 'Polish plumbers' there pay taxes and social premiums. In the countries that locked their doors, those who moved worked illegally, paid no taxes, had no rights and thus by working for 'cents' pulled down the price of the labor. The West after decades of liberal rhetoric found itself 'entrapped' to pay for it by inviting post-communist countries to join the EU. Once inside, it seems it doesn't care too much making some additional efforts to help them catching up economically. The financial aid delivered during the first 2 years of EU membership is almost four times less than initially promised, meaning the rich EU countries are already saving billions per year on grants and other projects. This method of saving money looks so promising that the EU has already announced that the next enlargement countries Romania and Bulgaria may under certain conditions get nothing after they join the Union. On the other side of the 'barricade' however the East looks remarkably well, showing record economic growth rates. It seems that the promised and undelivered western aid isn't an obstacle for this growth keeping on. What makes this growth possible is the constant influx of western capitals, unable to find interesting niches in countries like Germany, France or Italy because of their economic stagnation. To a degree the Western government stinginess is also playing against its own architects. By refusing to invest additional state funds East, the West keeps the Eastern physical infrastructure from overheating, thus making more profitable the western private investments. In addition to this, by not helping explicitly the East to improve economically, the West doesn't help the East appreciate its labor, thus increasing the incentives for millions to move West. This private financial move East is really a phenomenon that need constant surveillance because it contributes largely for the real estate fluctuations we see in some post-communist countries. With EU buyers representing a quarter or more in some local markets, it becomes impossible to make any viable prediction without looking at the expectations and motivations of these foreign investors.
--------------------
See also the directory of companies providing real estate services in, and general real estate information of Europe.
|
See also:
