A common market is generally a good economic idea, but it all depends on the detailed legal framework of such treaties, e.g. the currency question. As we currently experience with the EU, a resulting centralization of political power leads to national antagonisms or conflicts of national interests (e.g. economic gain vs. political indepencence). Step-by-step design (like a chess game) is definitely a preferable strategy and no 'big bang' of political economics.

How do countries in such treaties manage their macroeconomy? Or is it left to the 'big union'?

Dear Chibuzor Azodo,

I welcome your phrase “Nigeria as a country has refused to join the movement, is this decision good?” because I don’t think that the EC is a very good solution for Eastern European countries (Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary), Greece, the Baltic states ( Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia), the countries of the former Yugoslavia except Serbia. The main motivation for joining the EU was the subsequent joining of NATO to get a guarantee to protect themselves from the so-called Russian military threat. If you compare the economies of these countries before EU accession and after joining the EU, you will see a lot of negative results of such accession. So, what we saw as the result:

a) The sharp fall in the economies of these countries

b) Abrupt population relocation to other countries like Germany to get a job

c) Reducing fertility in these countries

d) Real loss of sovereignty

So I think that Nigeria made a wise decision.

Thank you Dr. Gennady Fedulov,

This statement is one of my concerns about the African Continental trade agreement.

Technically, most African countries are importing countries. Hence, what do we trade?

Dear all,

I disagree with Gennadys analysis.

The economic integration of the EU is a huge success story over the last 60 years...

The small new member states have clealy not lost newly won souvereignity after the fall of the USSR and now in the EU are sitting at the political table of the EU, the second largest trading block of the world...

we are discussing the effects of the ccession of new member states in the EU here on RG, see https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_the_EU_when_taking_up_a_new_member_state_destroyed_the_economy_of_this_new_member_state_Is_the_EU_only_good_for_the_old_and_strong_member_states

available data shows that there is an economic transition and inefficient costly firms close but new businesses energe and unemployment mostly drops...

A large trading block like the EU can get much better free trade agreements than a small nation on its own like Malta, Cyprus or Latvia.

The UK on its own aims to negotiate the many benefitial trade deals that were promised by wide opened leave campaigners....

Thank you Carsten for your contributions.

Chibuzor,

regarding your question in the macroeconomic management in the EU: though there is a customs Union and a part-currency Union there is no political Union which means that the management of the macroeconomy mistly lies with the national member States...

The EU is not perfect and currently in its greatest poly-crisis...

We are discussing this issue here on RG in another thread...

Reforms must occur. But what can be learned is that economic Integration is useful when done modestly, with an adequate speed and with countries at similar economic levels and with common aims...

Thanks for the link. It was very informative.

However, I am strongly of the opinion that the African Continental free trade agreement is a bit premature.

With the high level of dictatorial tendencies in African States, one can only wonder if the AU will be able to drive central economic and political directions within member countries effectively.

This is interesting, I want to take a moment to look at the capacities of the founding countries of the EU and see if Africa has such capabilities to pull a good continental trade agreement.

Otherwise, Africa might just be the biggest consumers of goods they don't produce.

Chibuzor Azodo Just saw that I am owing you that answer on 'macroeconomy' and 'big

union'; in any given case, we will see some 'central banking policy' emerging. Once an economic market integration starts, the 'central bank question' will gain momentum.

Thank you Steven, your inputs have been valuable

we are discussing the issue of the poly-crisis of the EU here on RG in the thread

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_European_Union_EU_is_in_its_greatest_crisis-a_so_called_poly-crises_many_argue_there_must_be_reforms_to_make_it_survive_Any_suggestions

Chibuzor,

one of your idas was not to join the movement in order not to make errors.

The idea of forming a free trade agreement or a customs union is not an error as such.

History shows, that even the fall of such an Free Trade Area may give rise to new FTAs or Customs Unions...

In Europe the EFTA was rather successful but hs been outrun by the early European Economic Community (EEC) which gave rise to the European Community (EC) and later to the European Union (EU).

The EU is now under strong pressure, because the integration possibly has gone too far (the common currency of 18 out of the 28 Member states), the uptake of 10 member states at one fixed time in 2004, further two members in 2007 and another in 2013... (strong growth in a short time)...