## _wp04116

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_wp04116](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2004/_wp04116.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2004/_wp04116.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2004/_wp04116.pdf.json)

---

### Overview of the U.K. EMU membership assessment and its conclusions
- Government policy set by Chancellor Gordon Brown in October 1997 committed to the principle of joining EMU subject to a requirement that the economic case be “clear and unambiguous” as specified by five economic tests:
  - (1) Convergence test: Are business cycles and economic structures compatible?
  - (2) Flexibility test: If problems emerge is there sufficient flexibility?
  - (3) Investment test: Would joining EMU create better conditions for long-term investment?
  - (4) Financial services test: Impact on the competitive position of the City’s wholesale markets?
  - (5) Growth, stability, and employment test: Will joining promote higher growth, stability and jobs?
- 1997 conclusion: case for entry not yet clear; reassessment after subsequent elections (2001).
- June 2003 Treasury Assessment (plus 18 studies): concluded the case for entry was not yet clear and unambiguous.
- Test-by-test conclusions in the Assessment:
  - Convergence test: not met; substantial convergence since 1997 but remaining differences (notably housing markets) pose significant risks to stability.
  - Flexibility test: not met; insufficient assurance economy could withstand idiosyncratic shocks without unacceptable welfare losses absent monetary independence.
  - Financial sector test: met; entry expected to enhance the City’s wholesale financial services competitiveness.
  - Investment and growth/stability/employment tests: regarded as met only once sustainable and durable convergence achieved; since convergence not met, these were not met.

### Reform initiatives and policy actions highlighted in the Assessment
- Inflation target redefined in terms of the harmonized index used in the euro area (HICP, renamed CPI) instead of RPIX (as of December 2003).
- Government consultations launched on housing-market-related areas to dampen house-price and consumption volatility.
- Commitment reiterated to promote flexibility in labor, product, and financial markets; several ongoing initiatives summarized.
- Discussion opened on possible post-entry fiscal-framework reforms to reinforce fiscal stabilization: strengthen automatic stabilizers and introduce rules for countercyclical fiscal action.

### Author’s appraisal of the Assessment and recommended analytical improvements
- Paper does not judge the Treasury’s final conclusion as “right” or “wrong,” but examines rationale and coverage.
- Strengths of Treasury work:
  - Unprecedented quality and breadth of analysis for such a decision.
  - Most relevant issues addressed; conclusions backed by state-of-the-art economic reasoning and empirical evidence.
- Recommended improvements:
  - Clarify the overall analytical framework underpinning the five tests, including their role with respect to timing of entry.
  - Explore explicitly several important issues that received limited treatment.
  - Clearly highlight areas involving economic judgment vs. measurement to acknowledge uncertainty margins.
- Suggested that more complete analysis might not have changed the Treasury’s overall assessment but would have strengthened its conclusions.

### Analytical framework, investment interpretation, and the 12 critical issues
- Five tests map to growth, employment, trade, stability/flexibility, investment, and financial services and are “broadly appropriate.”
- Entry framed as an investment decision: evaluate NPV of entry and choose entry date τ maximizing NPV at time 0:
  - NPV maximization problem (as in source): NPV_τ = max Σ_{t=0}^∞ (1/(1+r)^{t}) (g + f_t(τ)), where g = growth rate of output under no-entry, r = time discount rate, and f_t(τ) = relative return curve.
- Full-convergence (or full-flexibility) benchmark assumptions:
  - (i) shocks hitting U.K. fully correlated with euro-area shocks;
  - (ii) transmission mechanism of monetary policy in U.K. equals euro-area average (or U.K. fully flexible).
- Under full-convergence/flexibility: f_t(τ) positive from entry date τ; immediate entry optimal if f_t(τ) time-invariant and r > g.
- If f_t(τ) time-dependent, postponing entry may increase NPV.
- Twelve critical issues identified for assessing timing and entry decision:
  1. How should the entry decision problem be formulated?
  2. What is the return from entry (shape of return curve) under full convergence/flexibility?
  3. What is the cost of delaying entry arising from the time discount factor?
  4. How is the return curve affected by the passage of time?
  5. How convergent is the U.K. economy with respect to the euro-area average (idiosyncratic shocks and transmission)?
  6. How flexible is the U.K. economy and how much flexibility is needed to compensate for imperfect convergence?
  7. What is the effect of output volatility on average output growth?
  8. What is the welfare cost of increased output volatility?
  9. How fast is endogenous convergence?
  10. How much can be gained in improved convergence and flexibility as a result of waiting (reforms)?
  11. Is the case for no entry made stronger by current particular idiosyncratic shocks?
  12. What weight should be given to the value of more information gathered over time?

### Imperfect convergence/flexibility — implications for returns and welfare
- Absence of full convergence implies monetary policy may be inadequate for idiosyncratic shocks; endogenous convergence may reduce these risks over time.
- Return-curve implications under imperfect convergence:
  - Greater volatility of the return curve vs. full-convergence case.
  - Lower average growth if stability matters for growth.
  - Larger entry costs if entry occurs during a strong idiosyncratic shock (e.g., housing boom or exchange rate far from equilibrium).
- Flexibility mitigates impacts of shocks monetary policy cannot offset; full flexibility would in principle eliminate output impacts from demand shocks (unlikely in practice).
- Transforming a volatile output-return curve into a welfare-equivalent curve reduces average return and can place sizable portions of the curve below zero, potentially making NPV negative given a sufficiently large intertemporal discount.

### Uncertainty and the value of waiting (option value)
- Uncertainty arises from random shocks and limited information; passage of time yields information improving assessment of the return curve.
- Two reasons that delay can have value:
  - Entry is irreversible; postponing is reversible and allows use of future information.
  - The euro area is new; more information on institutional workings, trade/growth/investment effects, and endogenous convergence will emerge.
- Appendix I formal model (option-value framework):
  - Main result: under irreversibility and uncertainty, a simple NPV>0 rule is insufficient; optimal entry may be delayed even if current expected NPV positive.
  - Greater uncertainty about the return curve increases reluctance to enter.
  - Model definitions and result (as presented):
    - V_t follows geometric Brownian motion with drift α and variance σ^2.
    - Optimal rule: enter iff V ≥ V*, where V* = μ I and μ = λ1/(λ1 − 1) with λ1 determined by (σ, α, ρ). The wedge μ increases with uncertainty.

### The five tests and coverage of the twelve issues (evaluation)
- The Assessment addresses the twelve issues unevenly; some covered in depth, others less so.
- Issue 1 (formulation of entry problem): Assessment unclear whether five tests target NPV maximization or NPV>0 (the government’s “clear and unambiguous” phrasing may imply NPV>0). Clarification recommended.
- Issue 2 (return under full convergence/flexibility): Treasury thorough on output-level effects; identified channels include lower transaction costs, reduced exchange-rate variability, increased trade, easier credit access for some firms, higher investment and inward FDI.
  - Treasury’s quantitative estimates (as presented):
    - Under sustainable convergence, trade could rise by up to 50 percent over a 30 year period.
    - Trade rise of that magnitude would imply an increase in output over the same period of some 5–9 percent (¶5.68-¶5.82 and Box 1).
    - Step increase in output due to lower transaction costs estimated at 0.1–0.2 percent of GDP.
    - Assuming post-entry deviation of output from baseline increases log-linearly over a 30-year horizon and then stays constant, the NPV of entering equals 3–5 times current GDP at the time of decision (corresponding to the 5–9 percentage point long-run output difference).
    - Calculation assumes a real discount rate of 3½ percent and “reasonable base growth assumptions.”
    - Notes: likely an underestimate of NPV under full convergence because only trade gains considered and trade effects may be frontloaded.

### Costs of delay — Issue 3 (time discounting examples)
- Time discount factor = intertemporal discount rate − output growth rate.
- Assuming this difference at 1 percent implies that a five-year delay could reduce the NPV by over 5 percent.
- Taking the NPV estimate under full convergence at face value (3–5 times current GDP), such a five-year delay would cost 15–25 percent of current GDP.
- The Assessment mentions postponement costs but does not quantify them; only two specific textual references cited:
  - ¶3.93: “There is a risk that the longer membership of the euro is delayed, the longer the potential gains in terms of increased inward investment are postponed.”
  - ¶4.70: reference to benefits for financial services as “benefits which are postponed while the United Kingdom is not in EMU.”
- Neglecting postponement costs would be justified only if NPV from entry assessed to be negative; Assessment appears to adopt that view.

### Effects of EMU on trade and growth (Box 1 summary of findings and evidence)
- Earlier literature inconclusive; H.M. Treasury argues medium-to-long horizon relevant for strong trade links.
- Empirical estimates cited:
  - Rose (2000): currency-union members trade about three times more with each other than with non-members (sample dominated by small/low-income economies).
  - Meta-analysis of 443 point estimates from 24 studies yields an estimate of a 100 percent increase in trade between EMU countries and the U.K. should it join.
  - Correcting for biases, currency-union trade effects of 60–100 percent are not uncommon.
- Studies focusing on euro’s actual effect:
  - Micco, Stein, and Ordoñez (2003): EMU membership among country pairs resulted in bilateral trade increases of 4–10 percent relative to all other country pairs; dynamic panel long-run effect on a typical EMU-member pair estimated at 34 percent increase in trade with 9 percentage points in the first year; long-run effect on a pair with only one EMU member estimated at 16 percent, 4.5 percent in the first year.
  - Bun and Klaassen (2002): long-run trade gain 40 percent, with 4 percent in the first year.
  - Barr, Breedon, and Miles (2003) summarized as supporting Treasury’s 50 percent trade increase conclusion, but quantitative estimates sensitive to sample and trend specifications.
- Relevance for output:
  - Treasury considers effect of trade on output to range between 1/3 and 2/3 of a percentage point of GDP per 1 percentage point of GDP in additional trade (one-time level effect over extended period).

### Housing, consumption, and monetary transmission (Box 2 and Box 4 key statistics)
- Private consumption was main driver of U.K. demand growth in the 1990s.
- Contribution of private consumption to GDP (1992–2002): annual average contributions of 2.1 and 1 percentage points of GDP respectively for the United Kingdom and the euro area.
- Owner-occupied housing prevalence: United Kingdom 69 percent.
- Outstanding stock of mortgages: about 60 percent of GDP in the United Kingdom (Table 2 entry: Outstanding mortgage (% GDP): 59.5).
- Mortgages at variable rates: United Kingdom proportion presented as 13.3 percent (selected table extract).
- Pass-through of a one percentage point rise in policy rates into variable-mortgage rates after three months: United Kingdom 0.97, Germany 0.78, Italy 0.62, Spain 0.66, France 0.33.
- Estimated impact on household spending of a one percentage point rise in interest rates (in percentage points of GDP): United Kingdom 0.37, France 0.07, Italy 0.03, virtually nil in Spain and Germany.
- Long-run real house price growth (1971–2001, annual %): United Kingdom 3.3 percent; Germany 0.1 percent; France 1.2 percent; Italy 1.5 percent.
- Box 4 housing specifics:
  - Since trough around 1996, U.K. annual real house price increases averaged close to 10 percent.
  - By mid-2003 real house prices had a deviation from their log-linear trend of about 30 percent.
  - U.K. policy and short-term market interest rates have remained on average 1½ percentage points above those of the euro area since 1999.
  - Average gap in short-term real interest rates since January 1999 between the United Kingdom and the euro area has been about 2½ percentage points.

### Simulations, nonlinear risks, and timing
- Counterfactual NiGEM-based simulation of hypothetical U.K. entry in 1999 indicates:
  - Output growth about 2 percentage points higher in 2000.
  - Output growth 1½ percentage points lower by 2002 and significantly lower over the medium term.
  - Inflation 4½ percent by end-2000.
  - Real interest rates negative until mid-2003.
- Nonlinear risks: linear-model averages may understate downside scenarios from abrupt corrections in housing/credit markets (historical precedent of late-1980s house-price correction).
- Entering during a large idiosyncratic shock (e.g., housing/debt boom) could raise NPV cost of entry; policy option to reduce entry shock includes fiscal tightening.
  - Background estimate cited: a cut in government spending of about 6 percent might be required to offset monetary relaxation from EMU entry (Wren-Lewis (2003) cited).

### Welfare cost of volatility and illustrative calculations
- Welfare cost hard to quantify; following Lucas (2003) approach:
  - Representative utility and consumption volatility example: risk aversion γ = 4; volatility parameter set at 0.0004 (equivalent to an increase in standard deviation of consumption of 2 percentage points).
  - Approximate consumption premium λ ≈ 0.5 γ σ^2 yields λ = 0.08 percent (consumption should be higher on average by 0.08 percent to compensate for specified volatility increase).
  - Example indicates consumption-equivalent costs from moderate volatility increases are small relative to potential gains under full convergence.
  - Text also presents an example welfare cost order of 0.1 percent of GDP ongoing, corresponding to a one-time NPV loss of 10½ percent of GDP at a discount rate of 3½ percent.

### Investment and FDI considerations (Appendix II summary)
- EMU entry expected to benefit investment given sufficient stability: higher returns and lower cost of capital via rising trade/incomes, economies of scale, enhanced competition, and price transparency.
- Entry not expected to lower underlying long-term interest rates; differentials on long-term government bond yields with euro area generally close to nil since euro introduction (Appendix Figure A1).
- Volatility of effective exchange rate negatively affects FDI; EMU entry would likely stabilize effective exchange rate and could raise inward FDI, especially for U.K. as platform to supply euro-area markets.
- Early evidence inconclusive but suggestive: U.K. share of inward FDI flows appears to have declined overall since euro introduction; evidence mixed but leans positive on EMU effect on investment.

### Conclusions and suggested further work (summary)
- Future assessments would benefit from clearer analytical framing of the five tests and explicit treatment of timing (enter when return is positive vs. when return is maximized).
- Seven priority areas for more thorough discussion identified:
  - Whether entry is expected at NPV>0 or when NPV is maximized.
  - Quantification of how insufficient convergence lowers long-run benefits in trade and growth.
  - Explicit parameters and quantification for “sufficient” flexibility.
  - Costs of delaying entry from discounting and missed structural change opportunities.
  - Why differences in consumption transmission speed matter despite similar overall demand elasticity.
  - Costs arising from higher output volatility per se.
  - Policy options to reduce the euro entry shock, including possible policy-mix changes if U.K. interest rates are higher than euro-area rates at entry.
- Further work can reduce but not eliminate uncertainty; for complex irreversible decisions a realistic benchmark is conditioning entry on a sufficiently clear and unambiguous economic case.

*Source: Excerpts from _wp04116 (IMF working paper content supplied in the content unit).*

### References..............................................................................................................

### _wp04116 - References..............................................................................................................

### Overview of the U.K. EMU membership assessment and its conclusions
- The U.K. Government’s policy on European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) membership was set by Chancellor Gordon Brown in his October 1997 statement to parliament, which included a commitment to the principle of joining EMU.
- The government specified that at the time the actual decision to join is taken by the government, the economic case for euro adoption must be “clear and unambiguous,” as further specified by five economic tests (the term each test is commonly referred to indicated in parenthesis):
  - (1) Are business cycles and economic structures compatible so that we and others could live comfortably with euro interest rates on a permanent basis? (convergence test)
  - (2) If problems emerge is there sufficient flexibility to deal with them? (flexibility test)
  - (3) Would joining EMU create better conditions for firms making long-term decisions to invest in Britain? (investment test)
  - (4) What impact would entry into EMU have on the competitive position of the United Kingdom’s financial services industry, particularly the City’s wholesale markets? (financial services test)
  - (5) In summary, will joining EMU promote higher growth, stability and a lasting increase in jobs? (growth, stability, and employment test)
- In 1997 the government concluded the case for entry was not yet clear and unambiguous and decided to reassess after the following elections, which took place in 2001.
- In June 2003, the U.K. Treasury issued a new assessment (thereafter referred to as the Assessment), together with 18 related studies covering a comprehensive range of issues, and concluded that the case for entry was not yet clear and unambiguous.
- The Assessment’s test-by-test conclusions:
  - The convergence test was not yet deemed to have been met. Although there had been substantial convergence since 1997, remaining differences in cyclical dynamics and economic structures between the United Kingdom and the euro area still posed significant risks to stability. The Assessment underscored risks stemming from differences in housing markets, which made U.K. consumption more sensitive to interest rates and more volatile as a consequence of house-price cycles.
  - The flexibility test was not met either. Although there had been progress, there was insufficient assurance that, in the absence of monetary independence, the economy could withstand idiosyncratic shocks without risking unacceptable welfare losses.
  - The financial sector test was met, as entry was expected to enhance further the already strong competitive position of the City in the wholesale financial services business.
  - The investment test and the growth, stability, and employment test were concluded to be met only once sustainable and durable convergence had been achieved; since the convergence test was regarded as not having been met, the third and fifth tests were also regarded as not having been met.

### Reform initiatives and policy actions highlighted in the Assessment
- As of December 2003, the inflation target of the Monetary Policy Committee has been defined in terms of the harmonized index used in the euro area (HICP, renamed CPI), rather than in terms of the traditional U.K. retail price index (RPIX).
- The government launched a program of consultations in areas related to the housing market with a view to dampening house price and consumption volatility.
- The Assessment reiterated the government’s commitment to promote flexibility in labor, product, and financial markets, and summarized several ongoing initiatives in these areas.
- The government opened a discussion on possible reforms of the United Kingdom’s fiscal framework after joining EMU to reinforce the stabilization role of fiscal policy, including strengthening automatic stabilizers and introducing rules for countercyclical fiscal action.

### Author’s appraisal of the Assessment and recommended analytical improvements
- The paper does not judge whether the Treasury’s final conclusion was “right” or “wrong,” but discusses the rationale for the choice and whether all relevant economic aspects received sufficient attention.
- Strengths of the Treasury work:
  - Quality and breadth of analysis were unprecedented for an economic decision of this sort.
  - The assessment deals with most of the issues relevant for assessing the case for euro entry and its conclusions are typically backed by state-of-the-art economic reasoning and empirical evidence.
- Recommended improvements to strengthen future reassessments:
  - Clarify the overall analytical framework from which the five tests are derived to highlight their specific role with respect not only to whether to enter but also when to enter.
  - Explore more explicitly and thoroughly some important issues (not all of which were specified in detail in the excerpt).
  - Highlight more clearly areas where the Assessment involves a high degree of economic judgment rather than economic measurement, to acknowledge that margins of uncertainty will inevitably remain.
- The paper suggests that exploring these issues along its proposed lines might not have changed the Treasury’s overall assessment but would have strengthened any conclusion reached.

### Document structure and supporting materials (contents listing)
- Appendixes listed:
  - I. The Option Value of Delaying EMU Entry
  - II. Domestic and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)
- Boxes listed (titles only):
  - 1. Effects of European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) on Trade and Growth
  - 2. Consumption and the Housing Market
  - 3. Quantifying the Welfare Cost of Output Volatility
  - 4. Is the United Kingdom Currently Affected by an Idiosyncratic Shock?
- Figures listed (titles only), including: The Relative Return Curve; Private Consumption Contribution to GDP Growth; Relative Contribution of Private Consumption to GDP Growth; Real House Prices and Consumption per Capita; Correlation Coefficients Between Private Consumption Growth and House Price Inflation, 1971–2001; Real House Prices.
- Appendix Figure:
  - A1. France, Germany, and the United Kingdom: Ten-Year Benchmark Government Bond Yields
- Tables listed (titles only), including: Implied Effect of Joining EMU; Selected Housing Market Features.
- Appendix Tables listed (titles only), including FDI flow breakdowns.

*Source: _wp04116 - References..............................................................................................................*

### conclusions.

### _wp04116 - conclusions.

### An analytical framework
- The five tests cover growth, employment, trade, economic stability and flexibility, investment, financial sector services and are "broadly appropriate to evaluate the economic case for entry."
- The assessment would benefit from clarification of the analytical framework from which the five tests are derived, particularly regarding the appropriate timing of entry.
- The tests can be linked to the optimal currency area literature: entry may boost trade, investment and growth, but must be weighed against increased output volatility from lost monetary independence unless (i) the economy is sufficiently similar to the common currency area (first test) or (ii) the economy is sufficiently flexible (second test).
- Assessing not only whether but also when to enter requires a more complex framework; the section identifies 12 critical issues to assess the entry decision.

### Euro entry as an investment decision: full convergence (or flexibility) and no uncertainty
- The entry decision can be modeled as an investment decision by evaluating the net present value (NPV) of entry at the time of assessment.
- Two simplifying assumptions for the full-convergence (or full-flexibility) benchmark:
  - (i) economic shocks hitting the U.K. are fully correlated with shocks hitting the euro area;
  - (ii) the transmission mechanism of monetary policy in the United Kingdom equals the euro-area average (so euro-area monetary policy is optimal for the U.K.);
  - alternative assumption: U.K. economy is fully flexible such that nominal monetary policy instruments become entirely irrelevant.
- Under these assumptions, the relative return curve f_t(τ) is always positive from the entry date τ, reflecting gradual output gains via increased trade, higher investment and FDI, reduced transaction costs, reduced exchange rate variability.
- The area under f_t(τ) relates directly to the NPV of entering EMU.
- Objective: choose τ (entry date) that maximizes the NPV at time 0 of the total return curve F_t(τ) = f_t(τ) + g(t) (presented as equation (1) in the source), where:
  - g is the growth rate of output in the no-entry case (assumed constant),
  - r is the time discount rate,
  - the maximization problem is expressed as 0
    NPV
    τ
    = max Σ_{t=0}^∞ (1/(1+r)^{t}) (g + f_t(τ)) (equation (1) in the source).
- If f_t(τ) is time-invariant and always positive, immediate entry is optimal because discounting penalizes delay (this assumes r > g).
- If f_t(τ) depends on τ (time-dependent shape), postponing entry can increase NPV; thus timing matters.
- Issues raised from this benchmark:
  - Issue 1: How should the entry decision problem be formulated?
  - Issue 2: What is the return from entry (shape of the return curve) under full convergence or flexibility?
  - Issue 3: What is the cost of delaying entry arising from the time discount factor?
  - Issue 4: How is the return curve affected by the passage of time?

### Imperfect convergence (or imperfect flexibility)
- Absence of full convergence implies monetary policy response may be inadequate because of idiosyncratic shocks or differing transmission mechanisms; endogenous convergence may reduce these over time, but initial effects can be significant.
- Implications for the return curve when convergence is imperfect:
  - The return curve would be more volatile than under full convergence.
  - Average growth may be lower if stability is important for growth.
  - Entry costs are larger if entry occurs during a strong idiosyncratic shock (e.g., housing market boom or exchange rate far from equilibrium); if such large shocks are unlikely to recur, waiting could be justified.
- A more flexible economy can better absorb shocks that monetary policy cannot offset; full flexibility would in principle eliminate output impacts from demand shocks, though this is unlikely in practice.
- Accounting for welfare costs of volatility: transforming a volatile output-return curve into a welfare-equivalent curve reduces average return and can place a sizable portion of the curve below zero, potentially making NPV negative with a sufficiently large intertemporal discount.
- Issues raised under imperfect convergence/flexibility:
  - Issue 5: How convergent is the U.K. economy with respect to the euro-area average, in terms of both idiosyncratic shocks and idiosyncratic transmission mechanism?
  - Issue 6: How flexible is the U.K. economy and how much flexibility is needed to compensate for imperfect convergence?
  - Issue 7: What is the effect of output volatility on average output growth?
  - Issue 8: What is the welfare cost of increased output volatility?
  - Issue 9: How fast is endogenous convergence?
  - Issue 10: How much can be gained in terms of improved convergence and increased flexibility as a result of waiting (as reforms are implemented)?
  - Issue 11: Is the case for no entry made stronger by current particular idiosyncratic shocks?

### Uncertainty and the value of waiting
- Uncertainty arises from random shocks and insufficient information; passage of time yields additional information and clearer assessment of trends.
- Two reasons delay has additional value in the EMU entry decision:
  - Entry is irreversible while postponing is reversible—if the U.K. enters, new information afterward is useless for that choice; deferral allows use of future information.
  - The euro-area is new; more information will become available on institutional workings, effects on trade, growth, investment, speed of endogenous convergence, etc., improving assessment of the return curve shape.
- Formal investment-option modeling (reference to Appendix I) shows:
  - A simple net present value rule is insufficient under irreversibility and uncertainty.
  - It may be optimal to defer entry even if current NPV is positive because of the option value of waiting.
  - Greater uncertainty about the return curve increases reluctance to enter.
- Issue arising:
  - Issue 12: What weight should be given to the value of more information that can be gathered with the passage of time?

### The five tests and the twelve issues — evaluation of coverage
- The Assessment addresses the twelve issues unevenly; some issues are explored at length while others receive less detail.
- Issue 1 (how to formulate the entry decision): From an economic perspective, entry should occur when the current NPV (or expected NPV under uncertainty, corrected for risk-aversion) is maximized. The Assessment is unclear whether the five tests are intended to identify the time of NPV maximization or merely to determine when NPV is clearly positive.
  - The U.K. government has stated it will support entry when, based on the five tests, the economic case for entry is "clear and unambiguous," which could mean entry when NPV appears positive rather than maximized; clarification would be useful.
  - If the benchmark is simply NPV>0 (rather than maximization), rationale for using the less ambitious benchmark should be explained.
  - The Assessment seems to imply the current NPV is negative or that a positive NPV is not yet clear and unambiguous, so entry is not appropriate now.
  - Clarifying whether the five tests aim at NPV maximization or at establishing NPV>0 would aid interpretation of future assessments and understanding of the decision not to enter now.
- Issue 2 (return from entry under full convergence/flexibility): Treasury’s analysis of investment, financial services, growth, stability, and employment tests focuses on output (income level) effects and is thorough, supporting the conclusion that under full convergence the benefits to output would be large.
  - Treasury identifies channels: lower cross-border transaction costs, lower exchange rate volatility, increased trade and competition, easier access to credit for some firms, higher investment including inward FDI; many benefits interact and overlap.
  - Double counting is not judged to be a major problem because the output impact of increased trade alone appears to dominate other factors.
  - Treasury’s estimates:
    - Under sustainable convergence, trade could rise by up to 50 percent over a 30 year period.
    - Based on studies of trade-output relations, this trade rise would imply an increase in output over the same period of some 5–9 percent (¶5.68-¶5.82 and Box 1).
    - Evidence from the first few years after the euro’s introduction indicates trade and output expansion might be frontloaded.
    - The step increase in output due to lower transaction costs is estimated at 0.1–0.2 percent of GDP.
  - NPV implications under assumed path:
    - Assuming the post-entry deviation of output from baseline increases log-linearly over a 30-year horizon and then stays constant forever, the NPV of entering equals 3–5 times current GDP at the time of decision (corresponding to the 5–9 percentage point long-run output difference).
    - This calculation assumes a real discount rate of 3½ percent and "reasonable base growth assumptions."
    - Notes:
      - This is likely an underestimate of the NPV under full convergence because it considers only trade gains and ignores other sources, and because trade effects may be frontloaded.
      - The NPV would not be greatly affected by failure to reap benefits during a limited initial period (e.g., due to initial lack of convergence), provided later-period outcomes are not affected.

*Italic line: Source: _wp04116 - conclusions.*

### 0.4 percent of GDP if all EU countries adopted the euro. Savings, however, were thought to

### _wp04116 - 0.4 percent of GDP if all EU countries adopted the euro. Savings, however, were thought to

### C. Issue 3: What is the Cost of Delaying Entry Arising from the Time Discount Factor?
- The time discount factor = intertemporal discount rate − output growth rate.  
- Assuming this difference at 1 percent implies that a five-year delay could reduce the NPV by over 5 percent.  
- Taking at face value the NPV estimate of the return under full convergence discussed under Issue 2, such delay would cost 15–25 percent of current GDP.  
- The Assessment mentions costs from delaying entry but, with only two minor exceptions, does so unspecifically.  
- Exception 1: ¶3.93 notes: “There is a risk that the longer membership of the euro is delayed, the longer the potential gains in terms of increased inward investment are postponed.”  
- Exception 2: reference to benefits from entry for the financial services industry as “benefits which are postponed while the United Kingdom is not in EMU” (¶4.70).  
- No attempt is made in the Assessment to quantify the costs of postponing the expected increase in output levels.  
- Neglecting postponement costs would be justified only if the NPV from entry were assessed to be negative; the Assessment appears to adopt that view (see Issue 7 reference).

*Footnotes from source (as presented in text):*
- The Assessment concludes that also the long-term benefits would not materialize in the absence of sustainable convergence (¶5.82).
- Executive Summary statements: “The assessment addresses ... the risks and costs from delaying the benefits of joining” (page 4). Later (page 6) it notes that the case for entry is not yet established, “despite the risks and costs from delaying the benefits of joining.”
- The reference in ¶3.93 to a “risk” is characterized as unfortunate because the longer membership is postponed, the longer potential gains are postponed (tautological).

### Box 1. Effects of EMU on Trade and Growth (findings and evidence)
- Earlier literature gauged currency-union effects on trade as the limiting case of lower exchange rate volatility with inconclusive results.  
- H.M. Treasury (2003b) argues short-term volatility focus may be inappropriate; relevant horizon for strong trade links is medium to long term.  
- Rose (2000) finds countries in currency unions trade about three times more with each other than with non-members (sample dominated by small/low-income economies).  
- Meta-analysis synthesizing 443 point estimates from 24 recent studies yields an estimate of a 100 percent increase in trade between EMU countries and the United Kingdom, should the latter join the euro.  
- After correcting for biases (adverse selection, simultaneity), estimates of the trade effect of currency unions of 60–100 percent are not uncommon.  
- Studies focusing on the euro’s actual effect:
  - Micco, Stein, and Ordoñez (2003): EMU membership shared by country pairs has resulted in bilateral trade increases of 4–10 percent relative to all other country pairs; and 8–6 percent relative to trade between non-member country pairs (as of end-2002).  
  - Dynamic panel long-run effect on a typical EMU-member country pair estimated at a 34 percent increase in trade, with 9 percentage points in the first year.  
  - Long-run effect on a pair with only one EMU member estimated at 16 percent, 4.5 percent in the first year.  
  - Bun and Klaassen (2002): long-run trade gain is 40 percent, with 4 percent experienced in the first year.  
- Barr, Breedon, and Miles (2003) addresses potential effects for Denmark, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; results summarized in Table 1 and support Treasury’s conclusions of a 50 percent increase in trade, but quantitative estimates sensitive to sample length and time-trend specifications (Bun and Klaassen (2003)).  
- Relevance for output:
  - The Assessment considers the effect of trade on output ranges between ⅓ and ⅔ of a percentage point of GDP per 1 percentage point of GDP in additional trade (imports plus exports).  
  - This is considered a one-time level effect, taking place over an extended period, not a permanent change in the growth rate.  
  - These quantitative estimates fall within range of literature (e.g., Frankel and Romer (1999); Frankel and Rose (2000)).

### Table 1 / Implied Effect of Joining EMU (Barr et al. (2003)) — selected figures (as presented)
- Effect on Trade 1/ (Increase in trade with EMU members) — Increases in percent:
  - Denmark: 29 43 36 (columns labeled Pure Currency Union Effect, Exchange Rate Volatility Effect, Total) — presented as “294336” in source formatting.
  - Sweden: 29 20 49 7 — presented as “2920497” in source formatting.
  - United Kingdom: 29 43 72 7 — presented as “294372 7” in source formatting.
- Note: Source lists these numbers under “Effect on Trade 1/” and “Effect on Pure Currency Union Effect / Exchange Rate Volatility Effect / Total / GDP 2/” with caveat: 1/ Increase in trade with EMU members. 2/ Assumes that 1 percent of GDP increase in trade results in 1/3 percent increase in GDP, as in HM Treasury (2003b).

### D. Issue 4: How Does the Shape of the Return Curve Change over Time?
- The Assessment notes a reason why later entry can improve returns: evolution of ECB price stability objective and interpretation of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) could currently increase chances that output and employment would be less stable inside EMU.  
- As monetary and fiscal frameworks are evolving in the right direction, late entry would allow participation in a monetary union managed through more appropriate rules (Executive Summary page 6; ¶5.12-¶5.36; ¶5.166).  
- Quantifying this argument is difficult due to unknowns: pace of expected improvement and effect on output volatility.  
- Countervailing argument from euro-supporters (e.g., Layard (2002)): euro area experiences front-loaded relocation of productive activities and new business contacts; delay risks “missing the train.” Layard quote: “We cannot wait and see because, by the time we joined, the new pattern of the European economy would have been established. It would be much harder then than it would be now to find our own niche.”  
- Two mechanisms for front-loaded costs:
  - FDI may flow more to the euro area; if relocation is front loaded, non-members miss the first and larger wave of FDI.  
  - Trade expansion due to EMU appears frontloaded; hysteresis effects may make it difficult to enter new markets once established.  
- Assessment would have been strengthened by discussing these issues explicitly.

### E. Issue 5: Convergence of the U.K. Economy with Euro-Area Average (idiosyncratic shocks & transmission)
- The Assessment reviews differences in current cyclical phase (¶1.8-¶1.40), past correlation of business cycles and shocks (¶1.40-¶1.65), and structural differences (¶1.69-¶1.116).  
- Overall finding: convergence has increased since 1997, but remains insufficient.  
- Key idiosyncrasies arise from differences in housing and household credit markets.  
- Housing/household credit specifics:
  - Strong link between consumption and house price movements in the United Kingdom adds U.K.-specific cyclicality.  
  - Large mortgage market and its specificities raise elasticity of consumption to interest rates above euro average.  
- These features generate idiosyncratic shocks and idiosyncratic responses to monetary policy shocks.  
- Assessment shows monetary policy has a stronger effect on consumption in the United Kingdom than in the euro area average, but also acknowledges that the effect on aggregate demand is similar because higher consumption elasticity is offset by lower elasticity of investment.  
- Implication: if total demand is the determinant of inflationary pressures, an optimal response of monetary policy to demand shocks common between the United Kingdom and the euro area could be possible.

### F. Issue 6: Flexibility of the U.K. Economy and Needed Flexibility to Compensate for Imperfect Convergence
- The Assessment devotes nearly 60 pages to degree of U.K. flexibility, covering:
  - Wage and price flexibility.
  - Labor and product markets (geographical/sectoral labor mobility).
  - Capital market features.
  - Use of fiscal policy within a revised fiscal framework to compensate for lost monetary flexibility.  
- Findings:
  - U.K. flexibility has improved and is high compared with other European countries.  
  - Challenges remain in the labor market (see ¶2.83).  
  - Product market flexibility is still not as high as in the United States (¶2.111).  
- Assessment conclusion that flexibility is insufficient to compensate for insufficient convergence is not clearly demonstrated in the Assessment.  
- Question posed: How much flexibility is needed? (Assessment section ¶2.29-2.33 titled “How much flexibility is needed in principle?” primarily addresses effects on inflation volatility and macro management implications, rather than explicit quantitative thresholds of needed flexibility.)

### Box 2. Consumption and the Housing Market (selected findings and statistics)
- Private consumption was the main driver behind U.K. demand growth during the 1990s.  
- Contribution of private consumption to GDP (1992–2002): annual average contributions of 2.1 and 1 percentage points of GDP respectively for the United Kingdom and the euro area (Figure 2 reference).  
- Private consumption contributed more to each percentage point of GDP growth in the United Kingdom than in the euro area in all years 1992–2002 (except 1995).  
- Drivers of strong consumption:
  - Rising incomes and high employment rates.  
  - Dynamics of the housing market; evolution of consumption closely correlated with housing market in the United Kingdom since the 1960s (Figure 4).  
- Owner-occupied housing prevalence: United Kingdom at 69 percent, higher than in large euro-area countries (Table 2).  
- Mortgage and credit markets are highly developed; deep and liquid housing markets allow mortgage equity withdrawal (house-collateralized borrowing in excess of spending in residential purchases and house improvements).  
- Real house prices in the United Kingdom have shown higher trend growth and higher volatility than in the euro area, partly reflecting relatively price-inelastic supply.  
- U.K. housing prices are more sensitive to demand shocks and potential bubbles; error-correction models indicate high persistence, implying weak re-equilibrating forces and prolonged over- and under-shooting.  
- Research references: Housing, consumption and EMU (H.M. Treasury (2003b)); Ludwig and Slk (2002); IMF (2002).

*Italic source attribution:* _Source: Excerpts from _wp04116 (IMF working paper content supplied in the content unit)._

### Box 2. Consumption and the Housing Market (Continued)

Box 2. Consumption and the Housing Market (Continued)

### Consumption, housing markets, and monetary transmission
- U.K. private consumption is more responsive to interest rates due to several factors.
- Faster policy rate pass-through to banks’ lending rates in the United Kingdom:
  - Variable-rate mortgages react typically in just a few days.
  - Pass-through estimates of a one percentage point increase in policy rates to variable-mortgage rates after three months: United Kingdom 0.97, Germany 0.78, Italy 0.62, Spain 0.66, France 0.33.
- Higher household exposure to variable-rate debt in the United Kingdom:
  - Outstanding stock of mortgages is about 60 percent of GDP in the United Kingdom, most of which are at variable rates or with rates fixed only for a few initial years.
  - Mortgages as percent of GDP in other countries: France 19 percent, Italy 10 percent, Germany 55 percent.
  - Owner-occupied housing in Germany is low at 42 percent; long-term fixed-rate mortgages prevail in Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, and other EU countries—minimizing direct impact of interest rate changes on household consumption demand.
- More diversified financial market in the United Kingdom allows households to realize housing wealth gains more easily through mortgage equity withdrawal.
- Estimated impact on household spending of a one percentage point rise in interest rates (in percentage points of GDP), taking into account share of mortgages in GDP and proportions of variable-rate mortgages: United Kingdom 0.37, France 0.07, Italy 0.03, and virtually nil in Spain and Germany.
  - Note: these estimates may still underestimate the U.K. idiosyncrasy as they do not consider owner-occupancy rates or faster pass-through into mortgage interest rates.

### Selected housing market statistics (as presented in Table 2)
- U.K. entries shown in table extract:
  - Owner-occupation rate (average %): 69
  - Housing transactions (annual average %): 8.5
  - Outstanding mortgage (% GDP): 59.5
  - HICP inflation 1999-2001 (annual average %): 1.0
  - Real house price inflation 1999-2001 (annual average %): 3.1
  - Proportion of mortgages at variable rates (% of total): 13.3
  - Mortgage market completeness (index 0–100): 72
- Long-run real house price growth (1971–2001) (annual %):
  - United Kingdom 3.3 percent
  - Germany 0.1 percent
  - France 1.2 percent
  - Italy 1.5 percent
- Additional table notes and country cells (selected examples) are presented in the source table without alteration.

### Key analytic questions about flexibility and convergence
- The text raises these unanswered questions:
  - How much is the United Kingdom away from the degree of flexibility needed to compensate for imperfect convergence?
  - How much increased flexibility is needed to offset differences in the degree of convergence?
  - How much can further progress in reforming the U.K. economy over the next few years buy in terms of increased flexibility?
- The authors note these questions are not addressed directly and that answering them requires informed judgment rather than precise calculations. Waiting may improve flexibility but the marginal benefit of waiting is hard to assess.

### Issue 7 — Effect of output volatility on average output growth
- The Assessment views that average output growth over the next decades would be much lower in the absence of full convergence.
- Conclusion: to reap growth-enhancing benefits from euro entry, a sufficient degree of convergence must first be secured; investment and growth tests would be met only if the convergence test is met.
- The link: without convergence, output growth would be more volatile, and output volatility would depress average output growth.
- The magnitude and functional form (linear or threshold) of the effect of volatility on potential growth are not clearly quantified in the Assessment; the report suggests more explicit discussion would be useful.

### Issue 8 — Welfare cost of increased output volatility
- Increased output volatility imposes welfare costs because people dislike volatility; quantification is difficult and not addressed in detail in the Assessment.
- Following Lucas (2003), the welfare cost (consumption-equivalent) is likely small relative to potential gains from entry under convergence:
  - Example figures presented in the text: cost of volatility of the order of 0.1 percent of GDP on an ongoing basis.
  - In terms of NPV, this corresponds to a one-time loss of 10½ percent of GDP, at a discount rate of 3½ percent.
- Caveats: such estimates may understate costs for lower-income or liquidity-constrained individuals; endogenous convergence makes permanently higher volatility unlikely; the 0.1 percent of GDP figure is dwarfed by potential gains from entry under convergence (3–5 times GDP).

### Box 3 — Quantifying the welfare cost of output volatility (Lucas (2003) approach)
- Representative intertemporal utility function with risk aversion γ and time discount ρ (ρ set at 3½ percent for analysis).
- Deterministic consumption path if staying out of EMU: ct = A e^{μ t} with growth μ at 2½ percent.
- Random consumption under EMU entry: ct = B e^{μ t + 0.5 σ^2} ε_t^{-1} with log(ε_t) ~ N(0, σ^2); 2σ (text denotes 2σ as variance introduced) is the variance of log consumption around trend.
- Approximate expression for the consumption premium λ required to make the consumer indifferent: λ ≈ 0.5 γ σ^2.
- Numerical illustration in the text:
  - Risk aversion γ = 4.
  - Volatility set at 0.0004 (equivalent to an increase in the standard deviation of consumption of 2 percentage points).
  - Resulting λ = 0.08 percent (consumption should be higher on average by 0.08 percent to compensate for the specified volatility increase).
- The example underlines that consumption-equivalent costs from moderate increases in volatility are small, though distributional considerations could increase welfare losses for some households.

### Issue 9 — Speed of endogenous convergence
- The Assessment acknowledges endogenous convergence of policies and structures via increased trade and investment will reduce risks from entry, but expects it to operate only gradually and not to reduce the initial shock from EMU entry.
- The text notes it is hard to evaluate the speed of endogenous convergence a few years after EMU began; more time and data would help.

### Issue 10 — Gains from waiting while reforms are implemented
- U.K. government has taken or is considering reforms to facilitate convergence and increase flexibility.
- Critics argue reforms will take time to implement and to have effect; unless entry is postponed by several years, waiting may not make much difference.
- Whether waiting is valuable depends on the specific reforms adopted—particularly those addressing idiosyncrasies in the housing market—which are not yet specified.

### Issue 11 — Timing and current idiosyncratic shocks
- Entering EMU during a large idiosyncratic shock (e.g., a housing and household debt boom) could raise the NPV cost of entry; endogenous convergence and reform would make later idiosyncrasies less relevant.
- Developments in housing and household debt suggest the United Kingdom is affected by a strong idiosyncratic shock; euro-area interest rates could be inappropriate now, yielding high entry costs.
- The argument contributed to the Assessment’s conclusion that entry is not appropriate at this stage; focus in the Assessment on the 1¼ percentage point fall in interest rates that would arise from euro entry at the time of the Assessment.
- Policy options considered to reduce the euro entry shock include fiscal tightening aimed at offsetting expansionary effects of monetary relaxation.
  - The Assessment notes uncertainty on the scale of required fiscal tightening and argues the “first best solution is to ensure economic conditions are sustainable at entry.”
  - One background study estimates a percentage cut in government spending of about 6 percent might be required to offset relaxation of monetary conditions caused by EMU entry (Wren-Lewis (2003) cited in the Assessment).

### Issue 12 — Value of additional information from waiting
- The Assessment does not explicitly appraise the value of additional information over time, but acquiring sufficient information before an “irrevocable” decision is a theme in the U.K. government’s approach.
- The desire to wait until the case for entry is clear and unambiguous reflects the value placed on information gathered with the passage of time.

*Source: Box 2. Consumption and the Housing Market (Continued) — extracted content.*

### Box 4. Is the United Kingdom Currently Affected by an Idiosyncratic Shock?

### Box 4. Is the United Kingdom Currently Affected by an Idiosyncratic Shock?

### House prices, interest rates, and aggregate demand
- Since their trough around 1996, U.K. annual real house price increases have averaged close to 10 percent.
- By mid-2003 real house prices had reached a deviation from their (log-linear) trend of about 30 percent (Figure 6).
- Updated estimates (IMF (2002) methodology) indicate a similar overvaluation of 2003 U.K. house prices relative to long-run equilibrium determined by real disposable income per household and real interest rates.
- The rise in house prices contributed to the strength of aggregate demand; U.K. policy and short-term market interest rates have remained on average 1½ percentage points above those of the euro area since 1999.
- Given inflation differentials, the average gap in short-term real interest rates since January 1999 between the United Kingdom and the euro area has been about 2½ percentage points.

### Simulations of counterfactual EMU entry and macroeconomic implications
- H.M. Treasury (2003b) background studies use large-scale macro-econometric models and structural vector auto-regressions (models include Treasury Public Model, NIESR’s NiGEM, IMF Multimod, and a “Three Bears Model”).
- NiGEM-based counterfactual simulation of U.K. entry at the launching of the euro in 1999 (Assessment, H.M. Treasury (2003a)) indicates:
  - Output growth would have been about 2 percentage points higher in 2000.
  - Output growth would have been 1½ percentage points lower by 2002 and would have remained significantly lower over the medium term.
  - Inflation would have been 4½ percent by end-2000.
  - Real interest rates would have remained negative until mid-2003.
- Interpretation: adopting prevailing euro-area interest rates would have produced a sizable inflationary stimulus; with nominal rates reacting only mildly, U.K. real interest rates would have declined further, stimulating the economy. Re-equilibration would proceed via real exchange rate appreciation and losses in competitiveness, with inflation, output, and employment variation bearing most of the adjustment.

### Risks from nonlinearities and abrupt corrections
- Standard statistical/simulation results represent an average (essentially linear) response based on past behavior averaged over a long period.
- They may not capture risks of nonlinearities and abrupt corrections stemming from housing and credit market developments.
- Historical precedent: the correction in real house prices at the end of the 1980s shows re-equilibrating forces can lag fundamentals and then manifest abruptly, producing a protracted period of depressed demand.
- These nonlinear risks imply that linear-model-based projections may understate potential downside scenarios following a housing/credit correction.

### Uncertainty, option value of delay, and interpretation of the Assessment
- The Assessment’s quantitative estimates are subject to high uncertainty; this uncertainty may justify delaying entry even if expected NPV is positive.
- If gains from entry under full convergence are taken at face value (reported as 3–5 times current GDP in the Assessment), it is hard to believe they could be fully offset when full convergence is relaxed. Yet high uncertainty about those gains provides value to waiting.
- More evidence on EMU effects on current members and better understanding of microeconomic mechanisms by which currency unions foster trade and output would improve assessment of U.K. entry.
- The report notes it is unclear how much this uncertainty argument influenced the actual decision not to enter; more thorough discussion would have facilitated interpretation.

### Appendix I — The option value of delaying EMU entry (model summary)
- Main result: in the presence of uncertainty and irreversibility, a simple net present value rule is not sufficient; optimal entry may be delayed to preserve the value of information.
- Definitions (as in the model):
  - tV = value of joining EMU at time t;
  - I = sunk cost of entry;
  - ρ = discount rate;
  - T = unknown time of entry.
- Assumptions:
  - Assumption 1: tV follows a geometric Brownian motion with drift parameter α and variance σ2: VdzVdtdVσα+= (where dz is the increment of a Wiener process).
  - Assumption 2: entry is irreversible (incurs sunk cost I).
- Optimization problem: maximize E{ e−ρT (VT − I) } over T; the value of the opportunity to join EMU is F(V).
- The Bellman equation reduces to a second-order differential equation for F(V) and boundary conditions (F(0)=0; F(V*)=V*−I; F'(V*)=1) determine a critical threshold V*.
- Solution and comparative statics (as presented):
  - Optimal rule: enter iff V ≥ V*.
  - V* = μ I, where μ = λ1/(λ1 − 1) and λ1 is a root determined by the model parameters (σ, α, ρ) as in the text.
  - The wedge μ between V* and I increases with uncertainty; relationship shown in the text includes the statement 0> ∂/∂σ μ (as presented).

### Appendix II — Investment and FDI considerations
- EMU entry is expected to be beneficial for investment in the United Kingdom given sufficient stability: higher return prospects and lower cost of capital due to rising trade and incomes, economies of scale, enhanced competition, and price transparency.
- Membership is not expected to lower underlying long-term interest rates (medium- and long-term inflation and inflation risk premia converged to euro-area levels in the late 1990s).
- Differentials on long-term government bond yields and forward interest rates with the euro area have remained generally close to nil since the introduction of the euro (Figure A1).
- Effect on FDI:
  - Volatility of the effective exchange rate negatively affects FDI; EMU entry would likely make the effective exchange rate more stable (though possibly increase volatility vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar).
  - This could raise inward FDI, especially where the U.K. serves as a platform to supply euro-area markets.
  - Early evidence is inconclusive but suggestive: the U.K.’s share of inward FDI flows appears to have declined overall since the introduction of the euro, though FDI is highly volatile and data are limited; the balance of evidence on EMU membership’s effect on investment is mixed but leans positive.

### Conclusions and suggested areas for further work (summary of report’s recommendations)
- A future assessment would benefit from clearer analytical framing of the five tests and the timing question (enter when return is positive vs. when return is maximized).
- Seven areas identified for more thorough discussion:
  - Whether entry is expected to take place when return is positive or when return is maximized.
  - Quantification of how insufficient convergence lowers long-run benefits from entry in terms of higher trade and growth.
  - Reasons why flexibility is regarded as insufficient and parameters to assess sufficient flexibility.
  - Costs of delaying entry from time discounting and missed structural change opportunities.
  - Why differences in transmission speed for consumption are problematic despite similar elasticity of overall demand.
  - Costs arising from higher output volatility per se.
  - Policy options to reduce the euro entry shock, including possible policy-mix changes if entry occurs when U.K. interest rates are higher than in the euro area.
- Further work can reduce but not eliminate uncertainty; for complex decisions a realistic benchmark is conditioning entry on a sufficiently clear and unambiguous economic case.

*Source: Box 4 and Appendices I–II of the provided content unit.*

### References

### References

### References list

- Anderson, M. A., and S.S. Smith, 1999, “Do National Borders Really Matter? Canada-U.S. Regional Trade Reconsidered,” Review of International Economics, Vol. 7, No. 2.
- Barr, D., F. Breedon, and D. Miles, 2003, “Life on the Outside: Economic Conditions and Prospects Outside Euroland,” Economic Policy, October.
- Barrell, R., 2002, “The UK and EMU: Choosing the Regime,” National Institute Economic Review No. 180.
- ———, S.D. Gottschalk, and S.G. Hall, 2003, “Foreign Direct Investment and Exchange Rate Uncertainty in Imperfectly Competitive Industries,” NIESR Discussion Paper 220.
- Becker, B., and S.G. Hall, 2003, “Foreign Direct Investment in Industrial R&D and Exchange Rate Uncertainty in the UK,” NIESR Discussion Paper 217.
- Begg, D., O. Blanchard, D. Coyle, B. Eichengreen, J. Frankel, F. Giavazzi, R. Portes, P. Seabright, L. A. Winters, A. Venables, and C. Wyplosz, 2003, “The Consequences of Saying No: An Independent Report into the Economic Consequences of the UK Saying No to the Euro,” report published by Britain in Europe.
- Bun, M.J.G., and F.J.G.M. Klaassen, 2002, “Has the Euro Increased Trade?” Timbergen Institute Discussion Paper TI 2002-108/2.
- ———, 2003, “The Importance of Accounting for Time Trends When Estimating the Euro E
ffect on Trade,” unpublished (October 17, 2003).
- Byrne, J.P., and E.P. Davis, 2002, “Investment and Uncertainty in the G7,” NIESR Discussion Paper 198.
- ———, 2003, “Panel Estimation of the Impact of Exchange Rate Uncertainty on Investment in the Major Industrial Countries,” NIESR Discussion Paper 208.
- Chancellor Brown, Gordon, 1997, “Statement on EMU,” 17 October 1997 Speech in the House of Commons (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk
).
- Dixit, A. K., and R. S. Pindyck, 1994, “Investment Under Uncertainty,” Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
- Dubel, A., S. Low, and M. Sebag-Montefiore, 2003, “Study on the Financial Integration of European Mortgage Markets,” Mercer Oliver Wyman and European Mortgage Federation, Brussels (http://www.hypo.org
).
- European Central Bank, 2002, “Structural Factors in the EU Housing Markets,” March (http://www.ecb.int
).
-  
-  - 44 -
- European Commission, DG 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.
- Frankel, J.A., and D. Romer, 1999, “Does Trade Cause Growth?” American Economic Review Vol. 89 No. 3.
- Frankel, J.A., and A.K. Rose, 2000, “Estimating the Effect of Currency Unions on Trade and Output,” NBER Working Paper No. 7857.
- Griffith, R., S. Redding, and H. Simpson, 2002, “Productivity Convergence and Foreign Ownership at the Establishment Level,” Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) Working Paper W02/22.
- Hardt, J., and Earley, F. 2003, “European Integration in the Mortgage Lending Industry: Developments Since the Euro,” European Mortgage Federation, Brussels (http://www.hypo.org
).
- HM Treasury, 1997, “UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic Tests,” HM Treasury, October 1997 (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk
).
- ———, 2003a, “UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic Tests,” HM Treasury, June 2003 (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk
).
- ———, 2003b, “EMU Studies,” HM Treasury, June 2003 (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk
).
- Hubert, F., and N. Pain, 2000, “Inward Investment and Technical Progress in the UK Manufacturing Sector,” OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 268.
- International Monetary Fund (IMF), 2003, “An Analysis of House Prices in the United Kingdom,” in United Kingdom: Selected Issues, IMF Staff Country Report No. 03/47 (http://www.imf.org
).
- ———, 2000, “Costs and Benefits of Joining the EMU,” in United Kingdom: Selected Issues, IMF Staff Country Report No. 00/106 (http://www.imf.org
).
- Layard , R., 2002, “Britain Will Pay the Price of Exclusion,” Financial Times, October 15.
- Lucas, R. E. Jr., 2003, “Macroeconomic Priorities,” American Economic Review, March.
- Ludwig, A., and T.M. Slk, 2002, “The Impact of Changes in Stock Prices and House Prices on Consumption in OECD Countries,” IMF Working Paper No. 02/1.
- McCallum, J., 1995, “National Borders Matter: Canada–U.S. Regional Trade Patterns,” American Economic Review, Vol. 85, No. 3.
-  
-  - 45 -
- McDonald, R., and D. Siegel, 1986: “The Value of Waiting to Invest,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 101, No.4.
- Micco, A., E. Stein, and G. Ordoñez, 2003, “The Currency Union Effect on Trade: Early Evidence from EMU,” Economic Policy, October.
- Mundell, R., 1961, “A Theory of Optimum Currency Areas,” American Economic Review, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 657–65.
- Pain, N., 2002, “ EMU, Investment and Growth: Some Unresolved Issues,” National Institute Economic Review No. 180.
- Ramey, G., and V. A. Ramey, 1995, “Cross-Country Evidence on the Link Between Volatility and Growth,” American Economic Review, Vol. 85, No. 5., December.
- Rose, A. K., 2000, “One Money, One Market: The Effect of Common Currencies on Trade,” Economic Policy, April.
- Swank, J., J. Kakesa and A. F. Tiemana, 2002, “The Housing Ladder, Taxation, and Borrowing Constraints,” De Nederlandsche Bank, Monetary and Economic Policy Department, MEB Series Working Paper 2002-9 (http://www.dnb.nl/zoeken/index.htm
)
- Wren-Lewis, S., 2003, “Changing the Rules: Why We Should Not Accede to EMU's Current Fiscal Regime,” New Economy, Vol. 10, No. 2.

*Source: _wp04116 - References*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2004/_wp04116.pdf_