Talk:Single market

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Factors of Production - 4?

Well, I was always thaught (also by the link provided in wikipedia) that there are only three factors of production. Some care to change this? 195.244.169.43 14:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The fourth factor is entrepeneurship (aka enterprise). It is sometimes not considered, as entrepeneurship is a mental phenomenon.

this is very true but you have not mentioned the benifits that each member state gets.

and freedom of movement of all the three factors of production (land, capital and labour) This part needs to be changed. The notion that land can have the attribute of "freedom of movement" is preposterous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.46.57 (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Single market without Customs Union?

I think that there are exceptional cases, where a Single market is created without to form a Customs Union - for example EEA non-EU members are not applying EU Common External Tariff, but are part of the EEA common market (4 freedoms). Can someone clearify this?Alinor 10:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed an exeptional case. The Common Market (!) of the EU was extended to the countries of the EFTA since 1994 (treaty in 1991) making the EEA. This means the 4 freedoms, but no common tax or external tariff policies. Because the customs are different, they keep the system of "certificate of origin" which is typical for the free trade areas. They also have checks on the borders. Some goods have special regulations: food, coal, steel, energy and fishery products. The EFTA countries have also no participation in the CAP and in the political institutions of the EU. But they do made a lot of agreements on different issues which have common EU regulation, e.g. environment protection, R&D, education. --bodben 08:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Single and Common markets

They are not so different as to envsion additional "stage in economic integration". Alinor 13:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that it is. If we look at the basic example, the European Union, it was an important step. The common market came into life between 1958 and 1968. The theoretical freedom of the four factors of production came true. But the political and economical leaders of the EU realized that it was not enough. They already made some changes in connection with the tax policies in the 70's, but the Maastricht Treaty was the step when they made detailed agreement about the further barriers (tax, border, standards, etc). --bodben 07:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but let's not mix all integration issues in the difference between single/common market. Also, it would be helpfull to find some sources that make comparision and distinction between both to clear things out - what exactly are the differences between them. Between FTA and CU the difference is CET. Between CU and "integrated market" (whatever type) the difference is "the 4 freedoms (movement of goods, workers, capital and freedom to provide services)". Between "int.market" and EMU the difference is monetary and budgetary policy. Every one of the differences can be divided in sub-types. For example "CET for all items" vs. "CET for 60% of the tariff lines (some are excluded)"; "full 4 freedoms" vs. "4 freedoms with some exclusions like special law regarding capital transfers between 10$ and 1000$". So, while technical&other barriers are important, I don't think that we should change the current "economic integration ladder" by adding a new stage in the middle.

As a side note - removing border checks (Schengen treaty) is not VERY important from the market prespective. It helps trade, but not by much. Other factors have much bigger impact on trade... Alinor 18:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point Alinor, but I would tend to agree with Bodben. You note that each stage in the "integration ladder" is distinguished by certain differences. According to the link I provided in the common market discussion page (http://www.karl.aegee.org/oem/articles/lessons.htm) the basic difference between a common market and a single market is that a common market has no quantitative barriers (tariffs) to "the 4 freedoms" while a single market has no quantitative nor qualitative barriers (such as regulations). According to that link these qualitative barriers were "a serious impediment to the development of a real internal market" and thus "EU business leaders started to lobby to continue on to a real `single market'.." (which is basically what Bodben outlined). If these remaining barriers presented a serious impediment then the difference between a common market and a single market would appear to be significant enough to warrant two articles. In addition The EEC/EU (and especially Britain) used the term "Common Market" during the 60s and 70s but then began to use "Single Market" during the late 80s and 90s. I doubt you would find very few references to Europe's Common Market in publications dealing with European integration since the 90s. This website (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/3_1_0_en.htm) also has info on the European common market and the "internal market" (the latter term also being called the "single market"). Also another economic organization, Caricom, also originally used the term "Common Market" in its name and in practice during the 70s and only recently launched a "Single Market" (http://www.mfaft.gov.jm/Intl_Community/Caricom.htm). In both cases So a CU is more integrated than an FTA, IMs (integrated markets) are more integrated than FTAs with SM (single markets) being more integrated than CMs (common markets) and EMUs are more integrated than IMS. As for the ladder, I don't see the need to actually add a next step. The ladder could easily be changed from just having "Common market" to having either: "Common market & Single market" or perhaps use the super-category of "Integrated market(s)" with "Common market" and "Single market" being shown as subsets (and single market being shown as basically a more integrated "half-step" on the ladder). Even though common market and single market are often used interchangeably, that doesn't necessarily mean they are the same (just as how when people use "country" and "state" or "nation" interchangeably does not mean those terms are the same).72.27.26.133 04:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"...economic policies and ting." I removed the "and ting". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.175.10 (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)