Avrupa Bütünleşmesinin Euro Bölgesinin Çevre Ekonomileri Üzerindeki Etkileri: İrlanda, İspanya, Portekiz ve Yunanistan Örnekleri

Öz

amaçlara sahip oldu: kapitalizmin “barış” koşullarında zor dışı yollarla yayılması ve işlemesi; Doğu blokundan korunma arzusu, bununla da bağlantılı olarak ABD sermayesiyle bütünleşme ihtiyacı; daha sonrasında emperyalistler arası rekabette ayakta kalma ihtiyacı, bununla da bağlantılı olarak Euro bölgesi, Schengen sistemi gibi Avrupa sermayesinin elini güçlendirecek bütünleşme adımları ve bunların AB dışındaki bölgeleri de dâhil edecek şekilde genişlemesi. Bu bütünleşme sürecini meşrulaştırmak için de çeşitli teoriler ortaya atıldı veya bazı bütünleşme teorileri bu süreçleri meşrulaştırmak için kullanıldı; 1980’lerden itibaren AB’nin bütünleşmesinin hızlanmasıyla bu teoriler de gelişti ve büyük ölçüde AB bütünleşmesiyle ilgili süreçlerin sorgulanmasını, bunlara eleştirel yaklaşılmasını engellemeye dönük ideolojik ve kültürel bir ortam yarattı. Halbuki bu yaklaşımlar Euro bölgesinin çevre ülkelerinin gerçekliğini açıklamaktan uzaktır. Bu çalışma, İrlanda, İspanya, Portekiz ve Yunanistan’ın dünya ekonomisi içindeki yerlerini, bu ülkelere gerçekleşen sermaye hareketleri ile bunların sabit sermaye yatırımı yaratma kapasitelerini, bu durumun bu ülkelerin emek maliyetlerini nasıl etkilediğini inceleyerek Avrupa bütünleşmesine dair anaakım yaklaşımların sunduğu çerçevenin yanıltıcı olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Özellikle Euro bölgesinin hayata geçmesinin ardından, incelenen ülkelerin rekabet güçleri aşınmış, ücretlilerin gelirleri düşmüş, sermaye akımları sabit sermaye yatırımlarına dönüşmemiş, imalat sanayileri yüksek teknolojili ve katma değer yaratan bir yapıdan uzak kalmıştır. Euro bölgesi krizi de bu eğilimleri özellikle ücretlerin baskılanması konusunda daha da kuvvetlendirmiştir. Krize karşı çevre ülkelere dayatılan politikalar da mevcut çelişkileri yeniden üretme eğilimindedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Avrupa Bütünleşmesi, Ekonomik ve Parasal Birlik, Euro Bölgesi Krizi, Çevre Ülkeler, Ücretlerin Baskılanması

The Impacts of European Integration on the Periphery Countries of the Eurozone: The Case of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain

Öz

The European Union EU has had several aims during its establishment and development processes: expansion and functioning of capitalism in “peace” conditions without coercion; the desire of protecting itself against Eastern Bloc, correspondingly the need to integrate to the U.S. capital; later on, the need to survive in the interimperialist rivalry, correspondingly the integration steps such as Eurozone and Schengen system that would strengthen European capital and enlargement of these practices to the new regions of Europe. In order to legitimise this process of integration, various theories were developed or some existing integration theories were employed. From 1980s onwards, together with the acceleration of the EU integration, these theories as well have gained momentum, and they have created an ideological and cultural environment oriented at preventing the questioning of and critical approaches about the EU integration. However, these texts are far from explaining the realities of the periphery countries of the Eurozone. By examining the place of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain in the world economy, capital movements to these countries and their capacity to create fixed capital formation, how these facts affect the labour costs in these countries, this paper reveals that mainstream approaches about the EU integration are fallacious. Especially after the establishment of the Eurozone, their competitive powers have deteriorated, wages have decreased, capital movements have failed to turn into fixed capital formation, and their manufacturing industries have been far from creating high technology and value-added. And the Eurozone crisis has reinforced these tendencies, not least the suppression of wages. The policies imposed on the periphery countries as a response to the crisis tend to reproduce the current contradictions

Anahtar Kelimeler

• European Integration, Economic and Monetary Union, Eurozone Crisis, Periphery Countries, Suppression of Wages

Kaynakça

1. Albo, G. & Zuege, A. (1999). European Capitalism Today: Between the Euro and the Third Way. Monthly Review, 51(3), 100-119.
2. Bluenomics. Gross External Debt. https://www.bluenomics.com/data# data/country_overview/key_risk_indicator s/gross_external_debt/1344981569|chart/line&countries=eu (04.02.2016).
3. Bonefeld, W. (2001). European Monetary Union: Ideology and Class. W. Bonefeld (ed.), The Politics of Europe: Monetary Union and Class içinde (ss. 64-106). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
4. Börzel, T. A. (2013). Comparative Regionalism: European Integration and Beyond. W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse & B. A. Simmons (ed.), Handbook of International Relations içinde (ss. 503-530). London: Sage Publications.
5. Burgess, M. (1996). Federalism and Building the European Union. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 26(4), 1-15.
6. Burgess, M. (2009). Federalism. A. Wiener & T. Diez (ed.), European Integration Theory içinde (ss. 25-44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Carchedi, B. & Carchedi, G. (1999). Contradictions of European Integration. Capital & Class, 23(1), 119-153.
8. Carchedi, G. (2001a). For Another Europe: A Class Analysis of European Economic Integration. London: Verso.

9. Carchedi, G. (2001b). The EMU, Monetary Crises, and the Single European Currency. W. Bonefeld (ed.), The Politics of Europe: Monetary Union and Class içinde (ss. 37-63). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
10. Carchedi, G. (2018). From the Crisis in Surplus Value to the Crisis in the Euro. G. Carchedi & M. Roberts (ed.), World in Crisis: A Global Analysis of Marx’s Law of Profitability içinde (ss. 452-468). Chicago: Haymarket Books.
11. Cecchini, P. (1988). The European Challenge 1992: The Benefits of a Single Market. Aldershot: Wildwood House.
12. CEIC. External Debt: % of GDP. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/external- debt--of-nominal-gdp (28.08.2018).
13. Dahlberg, E. (2015). Economic Effects of the European Single Market: Review of the Empirical https://www.kommers.se/Documents/dokumentarkiv/publikationer/2015/Pub l-economic-effects-of-the-european-single-market.pdf (10.07.2018) of Trade.
14. Delors, J. (1989). Report on Economic and Monetary Union in the European Community. Committee for the Study of Economic and Monetary Union. http://aei.pitt.edu/1007/1/monetary_delors.pdf (31.05.2018).
15. Dias, J. D. (2010). External Debt Statistics of the Euro Area. Bank for International Settlements. https://www.bis.org/ifc/events/5ifcconf/dias.pdf (29.01.2016).
16. Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (1990). One Market, One Money: An Evaluation of the Potential Benefits and Costs of Forming an Economic and Monetary Union. European Economy, 44. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/pages/publication7454_en. pdf (10.07.2018).
17. Farrell, M. (2005). The EU and Inter-regional Cooperation: In search of global presence? E. Jones and Amy Verdun (ed.), The Political Economy of European Integration: Theory and analysis içinde (ss. 128-148). London: Routledge.
18. Frankel, J. A. & Rose, A. K. (1998). The Endogeneity of the Optimum Currency Area Criteria. The Economic Journal, 108(449), 1009-1025.
19. Friedman, G. (2005). Has European Economic Integration Failed? B.H. Moss (ed.), Monetary Union in Crisis: The European Union as a Neo-liberal Construction içinde (ss. 173-195). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
20. Haas, E. B. (2004). The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces 1950-1957. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press (originally published in 1958).
21. Kennedy, G. (2018). Austerity, Labour Market Reform and the Growth of Precarious Employment in Greece during the Eurozone Crisis. Global Labour Journal, 9(3), 281-302.
22. Lapavitsas, C., Kaltenbrunner, A., Labrinidis, G., Lindo, D., Meadway, J., Michell, J., Painceira, J.P., Pires, E., Powell, J., Stenfors, A., Teles, N. & Vatikiotis, L. (2012). Crisis in the Εurozone. London: Verso.
23. Lucarelli, B. (2014). The Euro: A Currency in Search of a State. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 25(3), 484-496.
24. McKinnon, R. I. (1963). Optimum Currency Areas. The American Economic Review, 53(4), 717-725.
25. Moravcsik, A. & Schimmelfennig, F. (2009). Liberal Intergovernmentalism. A. Wiener & T. Diez (ed.), European Integration Theory içinde (ss. 67-87). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Moss, B.H. (2005). Raisons d’être: The Failure of Constructive Integration. B.H. Moss (ed.), Monetary Union in Crisis: The European Union as a Neo-liberal Construction içinde (ss. 51-73). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
27. Moussis, N. (2004). Avrupa Birliği Politikalarına Giriş Rehberi (çev. A. Fethi). İstanbul: Mega Press.
28. Mundell, R. A. (1961). A Theory of Optimum Currency Areas. The American Economic Review, 51(4), 657-665.
29. Münch, R. (1996). Between Nation-State, Regionalism and World Society: The European Integration Process. Journal of Common Market Studies, 34(3), 379-401.
30. Niemann, A. (2006). Explaining Decisions in the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Niemann, A. & Schmitter, P. C. (2009). Neofunctionalism. A. Wiener & T. Diez (ed.), European Integration Theory içinde (ss. 45-66). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32. National Science Board (2008). Science and Engineering Indicators 2008: Volume 2, Appendix Tables. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
33. National Science Board (2014). Science and Engineering Indicators 2014: Appendix Tables. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
34. National Science Board (2018). Science and Engineering Indicators 2018: Appendix Tables. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
35. OECD. GDP, volume – annual growth rates in percentage. https://stats.oecd.org/# (03.08.2018).
36. OECD. Productivity and ULC by main economic activity (ISIC Rev.4). https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDBI_I4# (03.08.2018).
37. Ohrgaard, J. C. (1997). ‘Less than Supranational, More than Intergovernmental’: European Political Cooperation and the Dynamics of Intergovernmental Integration. Journal of International Studies, 26(1), 1-29.
38. Önaran, Ö. (2010). Fiscal Crisis in Europe or a Crisis of Distribution? Discussion Papers 18, Research on Money and Finance, http://www.researchonmoneyandfinance.org/media/papers/RMF-18- Onaran.pdf (17.10.2010)
39. Pataki, Z. (2014). The Cost of Non-Europe in the Single Market, ‘Cecchini Revisited’: An Overview of the Potential Economic Gains from Further Completion of the European Single Market. European Parliamentary Research Service European Added Value Unit. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2014/510981/EPRS _STU%282014%29510981_REV1_EN.pdf (11.07.2018).
40. Pinder, J. (1996). Economic and Monetary Union: Pillar of a Federal Polity. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 26(4), 123-140.
41. Pistor, M. (2005). Agency, Structure and European Integration: Critical political economy and the new regionalism in Europe. E. Jones and Amy Verdun (ed.), The Political Economy of European Integration: Theory and analysis içinde (ss. 108-127). London: Routledge.
42. Sarımehmet Duman, Ö. (2018). The Political Economy of the Eurozone Crisis: Competitiveness and Financialization in PIIGS. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 20(3), 211-229.
43. Silva, E.G. (2017). EU Integration and the Centre Periphery Divide: Growth and Structural Change in Southern and Eastern European Countries. G. Pascariu & M. Duarte (ed.), Core-Periphery Patterns Across the European Union içinde (ss. 89- 112). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78714-495- 820171003
44. UNCTAD Statistics. http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx (27.08.2018).
45. World Bank. Global Competitiveness Index. https://tcdata360.worldbank.org/indicators/gci?country=GRC&indicator=632 &countries=IRL,PRT,ESP&viz=line_chart&years=2007,2017 (24.07.2018).
46. World Bank. High-Technology Exports (current US$). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TX.VAL.TECH.CD (28.08.2018).
47. World Bank. World Development Indicators, High-Technology Exports (% of manufactured exports). http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=TX.VAL. TECH.MF.ZS&country=# (27.08.2018).
48. World Bank. World Development Indicators, Gross Capital Formation. http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=NE.GDI. TOTL.ZS&country= (28.08.2018).
49. World Bank. World Development Indicators, Portfolio Equity, Net Inflows. http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=BX.PEF. TOTL.CD.WD&country=# (27.08.2018).
50. World Trade Organization. International Trade and Market Access Data. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/statis_bis_e.htm (28.08.2018).
51. Yılmaz, G. (2003). “Farklı” Bir Kapitalizm: AB AB’nin Uluslararası Güç İlişkilerindeki Yeri. M. Türkay (ed.), AB Türkiye Gerçekler Olasılıklar içinde (ss. 101-140). İstanbul: Yeni Hayat Kütüphanesi.