Why Balkan enlargement is an investment, not a charity project

The pattern of expansion suggests that the EU naturally attracts nations with the most to gain from integration. Just as Spain, Portugal, and the 2004 entrants joined with incomes far below the community average, these newcomers are not aiming for a handout, but for the institutional and economic uplift that helped Poland grow from 52% to 79% of the EU average in two decades. This growth model creates a circular benefit: as new members modernize, they transform into active consumer markets that absorb capital goods and services from older, wealthier states.

The fiscal and political calculus

Integrating Montenegro, Albania, Serbia, North Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo carries real costs, with estimates placing net transfers at roughly €34.5 billion over seven years. However, this figure pales in comparison to the projected €110 to €136 billion for Ukraine. The true challenge lies not in the balance sheet, but in the political architecture of the Union. Each new member gains a seat at the Council and a veto over long-term budgets, necessitating a shift in how the EU handles internal reform and rule-of-law conditionality.

Ultimately, the case for enlargement is as much about security as it is about economics. With the region surrounded by EU territory, prolonged uncertainty invites external influence and energy dependence. Anchoring these nations in the single market reduces a critical vulnerability on the Union’s doorstep. While enlargement may mathematically lower the EU’s average GDP per capita in the short term, it serves to expand the bloc's aggregate prosperity and geopolitical leverage in an increasingly volatile global landscape.