Talk:Single market

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)

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)

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)

single market name
Not everything with a "single market" or "common market" in its name is " is a type of trade bloc which is composed of a customs union with common policies on product regulation, and freedom of movement of the factors of production (capital and labour) and of enterprise." Some of the entities in the list envision reaching this stage in the future, but are not there yet. Alinor (talk) 06:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Original research

 * 1) The single market if it refers to anything can only refer to the EU's single market. By trying to apply it as a global concept which can be applied to other markets is original research.
 * 2) The distinction the article tries to draw between the common market and the single market is entirely artificial. Both involved the same four freedoms. This can be clearly see in the original Treaty of Rome. Renaming the common market, the single market was just a re-branding exercise carried out in the late eighties.
 * 3) While the single market was the focus of a considerable push for economic integration within the EC, it is wrong to describe this in terms of economic theory. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 11:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are problems (see also post above):
 * it seems that the proper name of the article should be Common market, where "single market" is just a name used by the EU. Propose move.
 * stating that common/single market has a customs union is simply not true (example: EEA). Common market = four freedoms; nothing to do with external tariffs (I understand the EU, the pioneer in economic integration has gone from CU to CU+Common market, but this does not mean that all trade blocs would do the same). I will try to correct these things. Alinor (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely "common market" is use a name used by the EU as well? What's more the EEC was always about a customs union and a common market. The progressive establishment of both were original aspirations of the Treaty of Rome. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 12:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I sorted most of the organizations to the applicable lists (Economic union, Customs and monetary union, Economic and monetary union, etc.) - eg. listing each only once, at the "highest" level, as the lower levels have a note about what higher levels contain the respective arrangement (eg. on single-market-list is written that EMUs also have single markets). I haven't checked yet the lowest levels (FTA and customs union lists), but will do this soon. Alinor (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Single Markets
The link to the Central American Common Market goes to the Central American Integration System, which mentions nothing about a single market. Likewise the ASEAN article says that 'as of 2015' they plan to become a single market. Are any of the cited examples except the EEA actually common markets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.168.77.194 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

internal market vs Single Market
We might clarify that internal market is the official name, by treaty, while European Single Market or Single Market is the popular name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.155.102 (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

"Internal market" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internal_market&redirect=no Internal market] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. fgnievinski (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)