The euro area and monetary policy
The European Union grew out of a need and an economic ambition among Western European countries: to make trade in raw materials easier. Many years later, the Maastricht Treaty (1992) gave that economic ambition a further political dimension, taking the union to another level. Maastricht laid out and structured economic and monetary union; the euro was introduced in 1999, followed by euro banknotes and coins in 2002.
Since then, and especially in the wake of the Greek crisis, arguments for and against the common currency have multiplied. Britain was among the strongest opponents of the idea and openly resisted the common currency during the Maastricht negotiations. As of this article’s publication in May 2013, only 17 of the EU’s 27 countries were also members of the euro area.
These countries’ monetary policies are “determined” by the European Central Bank: some of their principal macroeconomic instruments are administered by a supranational institution. Monetary policy affects GDP growth and unemployment, while the ECB’s primary objective is price stability; without direct control over such a vital economic instrument as a central bank, developing countries are left exposed to economic crises, because the same monetary policy applies to every euro-area member sharing the currency. This is the core of the argument made by many economic analysts who trace the Greek crisis to this political and economic structure.
We are at a very delicate moment. Many analyses, some of them extreme, suggest that the currency could disappear if the euro-area crisis continues.
In many countries hit by the economic crisis, leaving the euro area and restoring the previous national currency has been discussed as a possible option; Greece and the drachma are a case in point. The aim would be to regain control over monetary policy, devalue the currency and improve competitiveness within the EU and internationally. None of the 17 euro-area countries can do this for its “own” purposes while remaining a member: as I said above, monetary policy has been placed at the shared European level, with the ECB setting policy for the euro area as a whole rather than for individual countries.
The debate over the euro in Albania
As far as our own country is concerned, to my knowledge EU membership entails a commitment to eventual euro adoption, but there is no fixed timetable: a country develops its own strategy for meeting the conditions, while admission requires the convergence criteria to be met and a Council decision. Bulgaria and Romania, which joined the EU in 2007, have not yet changed their currencies. It is no coincidence that Hungary and Poland, among others, have still not adopted the euro nine years after joining the EU, precisely because of the transfer of powers over monetary policy.
Adopting the euro has many disadvantages, especially when it comes to controlling inflation, which the European Central Bank keeps at 3%, a level comfortable for developed countries such as Germany and France, but unsuitable for developing countries such as ours. Another disadvantage concerns domestic production and exports: a common currency, and one as strong as the euro, would raise production costs, leaving our goods unable to compete on price as they do now, given the relative quality of imported and Albanian products.
At present, our tourism is “consumed” more for its low prices than for the places and resources it offers. Albania generates more income only through the lek’s depreciation against the euro, a policy our own central bank implements at certain times. Our emigrants’ savings are in euros, and it is only through the exchange rate that their work outside Albania is valued many times more highly than it would be if we used the euro as our currency.
In my opinion, this is the only reason emigrants return to our country, whether for holidays or for good.
The euro is already used and circulates in many activities in Albania: it has entered the country de facto, though not de jure. Why should we join the euro area when, in our “wonderful market” of informality, the euro is already widely used alongside our national currency? I believe Albania should retain its present position even if it joins the EU, because it is the only position that offers the country’s economy more advantages than disadvantages.
* Editorial clarification, 9 October 2026: The inflation and exchange-rate passages above retain the author’s 2013 argument. The ECB’s objective in April 2013 was inflation below, but close to, 2% over the medium term, rather than the 3% stated above (ECB statement). Albania’s floating exchange-rate regime allows central-bank intervention; that classification alone does not establish whether authorities sought to encourage depreciation at particular times (Bank of Albania research, 2007; study of interventions in 2000–2014).
This English edition corrects the historical dates and counts: the euro began in 1999 and its notes and coins in 2002; the euro area comprised 17 of the EU’s 27 members in May 2013; Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU in 2007; and nine years had passed since Hungary and Poland joined in 2004 (euro history; accession chronology). It also clarifies that euro adoption has no fixed timetable but requires the convergence conditions and an EU Council decision (European Commission explanation).