本研究由二篇獨立論文組合而成，研究主題是探討歐元成立後對歐元區國家的經濟與貿易的影響。第一篇為「Assessing the Growth Effect of Common Currency Adoption: Synthetic Control Approach」，研究對象為12個歐元區國家，加上三個非歐元區國家。我們採用合成控制法來評估12個歐元區國家採用歐元之後對他們的經濟的影響，以及3個非歐元區國家沒有採用歐元對他們經濟的影響。觀察期間是1991年至2015年。在合成控制法中我們視12個歐元區國家為治療組，另外我們選定24個沒有使用歐元的國家當作控制組。我們運用合成控制法的計量模型令其創造出虛擬的治療組國家，這虛擬的治療組國家模擬出實際治療組國家若沒有使用歐元的經濟狀況，藉此我們可以觀察實際治療組國家與虛擬治療組國家中間的差異，也就是我們可以找出治療組國家(即使用歐元的國家)和模擬出來的虛擬治療組國家中間經濟變化的狀況。除此之外，我們也利用12個歐元國當作控制組來模擬出3個非歐元國若有使用歐元的狀況。最後我們所得到的結果為：我們無法明確認定12個歐元國採用歐元之後對他們的經濟有顯著的影響；而是3個非歐元區國家 (丹麥、瑞典、英國)則有不同的結果。例如若丹麥使用歐元，對其經濟有正面的影響，但瑞典和英國若使用歐元，對其經濟狀況並沒有顯著的正面的影響。
    第二篇為「The Impact of the Euro Adoption on inside and outside Eurozone Trade」，最主要探討28個歐盟國中的歐元區國家和非歐元區國家對外出口是否因採用歐元與否而有顯著的差異。觀察期間是1999年至2015年。我們把歐盟劃分為二組，其中一組是歐元區國家，另外一組是非歐元區國家，採用追蹤資料的模型來評估歐元實施以來，這二組國家出口到歐元區和其他非歐元國家貿易是否有顯著的差異。我們所得到的結果是：歐元區國家出口到歐元區相對於非歐元區國家出口到歐元區的貿易量多了17.4%；而歐元區國家出口到非歐元區相對於非歐元區國家出口到非歐元區也是多了11.6%。此外，關於採用歐元與否對出口波動的影響，我們發現: 歐元區國家出口到歐元區(或非歐元區)相對於非歐元區國家出口到歐元區(或非歐元區)，在出口波動都呈現比較穩定的狀況。就此結論，我們探討其原因，主要是歐元問世之後形成世界第二大主要貨幣有關。許多國際企業會把歐元當作貿易報價單位的選項之一，也就是國際企業財務金融結構已把歐元當作僅次於美元的儲存貨幣工具。因此，相較於非歐元區國家，歐元區國家出口到歐元區或非歐元區，都呈現出口量較多且出口波動相對穩定的狀態。

This research mainly investigates the impact of the euro adoption on the aggregate economic activity and trade of the Eurozone countries. This thesis is composed by two papers. The first article is entitled "Assessing the Growth Effect of Common Currency Adoption: Synthetic Control Approach”. This study empirically assesses the growth effect of adopting the euro by applying a recently developed econometric technique, the synthetic control method (SCM), to implement data-driven comparative case studies for the euro zone. For analytical purposes, we classify the 12 euro-adopting countries into two country groups: core and peripheral countries. The results from the SCM algorithm show that the patterns of per capita GDP in the core (peripheral) countries are generally lower (higher) than those of their counterfactual units. However, the outcomes of the placebo tests indicate that these differences are statistically insignificant, thus implying that the introduction of the euro system neither improves nor impairs the economic growth of these two groups of countries that adopted the euro during 1991–2013. As for the three European Union countries that did not adopt the euro, the results of the inverse SCM analysis show that Denmark would be better off if it had adopted the euro. However, in the cases of Sweden and the United Kingdom, not adopting the euro system may have been a better choice, especially following the sovereign debt crisis.
    The second article, entitled "The Impact of the Euro Adoption on Inside and Outside Eurozone Trade," focuses on the differential trade effect between the Euro countries and non-euro countries within the 28 European Union (EU) countries. The study period is from 1999 to 2015. We use the panel data models to assess the differential trade effects of these two groups of countries. Our results show that compared to the non-euro-adopting EU countries, the euro-adopting EU countries will export 17.4 % more to the Eurozone. Besides, the euro-adopting countries export 11.6 % more to the non-Eurozone countries than the non-euro adopting EU countries do. In addition, we find that compared to the non-euro adopting EU countries, the euro-adopting EU countries would have more stable exports, regardless inside or outside Eurozone trade.

Contents

Chapter 1		Introduction …………………………………………………..1

Chapter 2		Assessing the Growth Effect of Common Currency
Adoption: Synthetic Control Approach ……………….4
		2.1		Introduction …………………………………………………...…5
		2.2		Literature Review………………………………………………...7
		2.3 		Methodology…………………………………………………... 12
		2.4		Data……..................................................................................... 16
		2.5		Empirical Result ........................................................................ 17
				2.5.1	The growth effect of adopting the euro 
in the core countries.................................................... 18
				2.5.2	The growth effect of adopting the euro:
						the peripheral countries .............................................. 22
				2.5.3	What would happen if Denmark, Sweden,
						and the UK also adopted the euro? ............................. 23
				2.5.4	Additional discussion ................................................. 25
		2.6		Conclusion .................................................................................. 28

Chapter 3		The Impact of the Euro Adoption on inside and 
outside Eurozone Trade ……………...……………....…. 42
3.1		Introduction ……………………………...………………....…. 43
		3.2		Literature Review …………………………...………………… 44
		3.3 		Methodology ..……………………………………………….... 46
		3.4		Data……………………………………………………….....… 48
		3.5		Empirical Results……………………………………………… 50
				3.5.1	Export to Eurozone ………………………….……… 51
				3.5.2	Export to non-Eurozone………………………..…… 52
				3.5.3	Stability of Exporting to Eurozone ………………… 53
				3.5.4	Stability of Exporting to non-Eurozone ………….… 54
		3.6		Discussion ……………………………………………….....…. 55
		3.7		Conclusion ………………………………………………....…. 56

Chapter 4	Conclusions .......................................………………………....….70
4.1		Conclusion ......................................………………………....….71
References …...........................................................................................................73













List of Tables
Table 2.1: Euro-Launching Episodes of the Treated Countries ................................. 30
Table 2.2: Means of the Covariates of Core European Countries (GDP per capita) .. 31
Table 2.3: Weights in Each Synthetic Country (GDP per capita) for Core Countries..32
Table 2.4: Means of the Covariates of Peripheral Countries (GDP per capita)........... 33
Table 2.5: Weights in Each Synthetic Country (GDP per capita) for Peripheral
Countries................................................................................................... 34
Table2. 6: Means of the Covariates (GDP per capita) ............................................... 35
Table 2.7: Weights in Each Synthetic Country (GDP per capita) .............................. 36
Table 3.1: The dummy variable of the EU countries join in the Eurozone ................ 58
Table 3.2: EU Countries Export to Top 10 Outside Eurozone Countries.................... 59
Table 3.3: Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................. 61
Table 3.4 (A):	 Export to Eurozone (Fixed Effect) ................................................... 62
Table 3.4(B):	 Export to Eurozone (Random Effect) ............................................... 63
Table 3.5 (A):	 Export to non-Eurozone (Fixed Effect) ............................................ 64
Table 3.5 (B):	 Export to non-Eurozone (Random Effect) ....................................... 65
Table 3.6 (A):	 Volatility of Export to Eurozone (Fixed Effect) ............................... 66
Table 3.6 (B):	 Volatility of Export to Eurozone (Random Effect) ........................... 67
Table 3.7 (A):	 Volatility of Export to non-Eurozone (Fixed Effect) ........................ 68
Table 3.7 (B):	 Volatility of Export to non-Eurozone (Random Effect) ................... 69


















List of Figures
Figure 2.1: SCM results for core countries (the log of GDP per capita) .................... 37
Figure 2.2: Placebo experiments for core countries (excludes countries with an
RMSPE ten times higher than that of the target country) ...................... 38
Figure 2.3: SCM results for peripheral countries (the log of GDP per capita) .......... 39
Figure 2.4: Placebo experiments for peripheral countries (excludes countries with 
an RMSPE ten times higher than that of the target country) .................... 40
Figure 2.5: SCM results for non-euro countries (the log of GDP per capita) and 
placebo experiments (excludes countries with an RMSPE value five 
times higher than that of the target country) .......................................... 41

References
Abadie, A. and Gardeazabal, J. (2003), “The Economic Costs of Conflict: A Case Study of the Basque Country.” American Economic Review, 93: 113-132
Abadie, A., Diamond, A. and Hainmueller, J. (2010), “Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105: 493-505
Badinger, H. (2005), “Growth Effects of Economic Integration: Evidence from the EU Member States,” Review of World Economics, 141: 50-78
Baldwin, R., Skudelny, F. and Taglioni, D. (2005), “Trade Effects of The Euro-Evidence from Sectoral Data,” European Central Bank, WP No. 446
Bartram, S.M. and Karolyi, G.A. (2003), “The Impact of the Introduction of the Euro on Foreign Exchange Rate Risk Exposures.” Unpublished Working Paper, Ohio State University	
Billmeier, A. and Nannicini, T. (2013), “Assessing Economic Liberalization Episodes: A Synthetic Control Approach.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 95: 983-1001.
Döhring, B. (2008), “Hedging and invoicing strategies to reduce exchange rate exposure: a euro-area perspective.” European Commission, Economic papers 299
Bris, A., Koskinen, Y. and Nilsson, M. (2003), “The Euro Is Good After All: Evidence from Corporate Valuations.” Centre for Economic Policy Research, DP No. 3910
Bris, A., Koskinen, Y. and Nilsson, M. (2006), “The Real Effects of the Euro: Evidence from Corporate Investment.”	 Review of Finance, 10: 1-37
Bris, A., Koskinen, Y. and Nilsson, M. (2009), “The Euro and Corporate Valuations.” The Review of Financial Studies, 22: 3171-3209
Bun, M. and Klaassen, F. (2007), “The Euro Effect on Trade is not as Large as Commonly Thought.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69: 473-496
Camarero, M., Gomez, E. and Tamarit, C. (2013), “EMU and Trade Revisited: Long-Run Evidence Using Gravity Equations.” The World Economy, 36: 1146-1164
Campos, N.F., Coricelli, F. and Moretti, L. (2014), “Economic Growth and Political Integration: Estimating the Benefits from Membership in the European Union Using the Synthetic Counterfactuals Method.” IZA DP No. 8162
Cappiello, L., Hordahl, P., Kadareja, A. and Manganelli, S. (2006), “The Impact of the Euro on Financial Markets.” European Central Bank WP No. 598
Chintrakarn, P. (2008), “Estimating the Euro Effects on Trade with Propensity Score Matching,: Review of International Economics, 16(1), 186-198
Commission of the European Communities (1990). “European Economy.” http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/pages/publication7454_en.pdf
Conti, M. (2014), “The Introduction of the Euro and Economic Growth: Some Panel Data Evidence.” Journal of Applied Economics, 17: 199-212
Danthine, J.P., Giavazzi, F. and Thadden, E. (2000), “European Financial Markets after EMU: A First Assessment.” National Bureau of Economic Research, WP No. 8044
Dell’Ariccia, G. (1999), “Exchange rate fluctuations and trade flows: evidence from the European Union.” IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 315–334.
De Sousa, J.: The currency union effect on trade is decreasing over time. Econ. Lett. (2012).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.07.009
Dubois, E., Hericourt, J. and Mignon, V. (2009), “What if the Euro Had Never Been Launched? A Counterfactual Analysis of the Macroeconomic Impact of Euro Membership.” Economics Bulletin, 29: 2241-2255
Eichengreen, B. and Boltho, A. (2008), “The Economic Impact of European Integration.” Centre for Economic Policy Research, DP No. 6820
Faruqee, H. (2004), “Measuring the Trade Effects of EMU.” International Monetary Fund, WP No. 04/154
Figueiredo, E., Lima, L.R. and Schaur, G. (2016), “The Effect of the Euro on the Bilateral Trade Distribution.” Empirical Economics, 50:17-29
Flam, H. and Nordström, H. (2003), “Trade Volume Effects of the Euro: Aggregate and Sector Estimates.” Institute for International Economic Studies, Stockholm University	
Galati, G. and Tsatsaronis, K. (2001), “The Impact of the Euro on Europe’s Financial Markets.”	 Bank for International Settlements, WP No. 100
Glick, R. and Rose, A. K. (2016), “Currency unions and trade: A post-EMU reassessment.” European Economic Review, 87: 78-91
Hardouvelis, G., Malliaropulos, D. and Priestley, R. (2004), “The Impact of Globalization of the Equity Cost of Capital.”	Centre for Economic Policy Research, DP No. 4346
Kunroo, M. H., Sofi, I. A., Khurana, M. and Mogha, S. K. (2017), “Re-visiting the Impact of the Euro on Trade Flows: New Evidence Using Gravity Equation with Poisson Count-Data Technique.” Proceedings of Sixth International Conference on Soft Computing for Problem Solving, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-3325-4_23
Mayne, R. (1986), WESTERN EUROPE, Facts on File Publications, pp. 336-458.
Micco, A., Stein, E. and Ordonez, G. (2003), “The Currency Union Effect on Trade: Early Evidence from EMU.” Economic Policy, 37: 315-356
Mundell, R. (1961), “A Theory of Optimal Currency Areas.” American Economic Review, 51: 657-65
Muratoğlu, G. and Muratoğlu, Y. (2016), “Determinants of Export Competitiveness: Evidence from OECD Manufacturing,” Journal of Economics and Political Economy,” Vol. 3(1): 111-118
Nardis, S., Santis, R. and Vicarelli, C. (2008), “ The Euro’s Effects on Trade in a Dnamic Setting,” The European Journal of Comparative Economics, Vol. 5, 1: 73-85
Rose, A.K. (2000), “One money, one market: the effect of common currencies on trade.” Economic. Policy, 15:7-46
Rose, A.K. and Stanley, T.D. (2005), “A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Common Currencies on International Trade.” Journal of Economic Surveys, 19:341-365
Sadeh, T. (2013), “The Euro’s Effect on Trade,” European Union Politics, Vol. 15(2) 215-234
Santos Silva, J.M.C. and Tenreyro, S. (2010), “Currency Unions in Prospect and Retrospect.” The Annual Review of Economics, 2: 51-74
Schmittmann, J. M. (2010), “Currency Hedging for International Portfolios,” International Monetary Fund, WP/10/151
Zipfel, F. (2012), “The Impact of Tax Systems on Economic Growth in Europe.” Deutsche Bank DB Research, Oct. 5, 2012, https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000295266.pdf.