EU accession forces a fundamental re-ordering of the economic logic governing state-owned enterprises. For Montenegro, this shift is not cosmetic and not gradual in its consequences. It represents a hard transition from a system in which public companies operate with implicit guarantees, preferential treatment and political tolerance for inefficiency, toward one in which commercial viability, transparency and competitive neutrality become binding constraints. The impact is fiscal, financial and structural, with second-order effects across banking, infrastructure, labour markets and private investment.
State-owned enterprises occupy an outsized position in Montenegro’s economy. They dominate electricity generation and distribution, ports, airports, rail, water utilities, waste management and parts of transport infrastructure. When upstream and downstream effects are included, SOEs influence an estimated 25–30 percent of economic activity and represent a major source of contingent fiscal risk. EU accession brings this risk onto the balance sheet in an explicit way.
The defining change is the application of EU state-aid rules. These rules do not prohibit public ownership. They prohibit selective economic advantage that distorts competition unless it is transparently notified, justified and approved. This removes the grey zone in which many SOEs currently operate. Preferential tariffs, debt rollovers, unpaid taxes, sovereign guarantees without remuneration, cross-subsidisation and politically directed investment all become subject to scrutiny. What was previously tolerated as “public interest” becomes quantifiable aid with legal consequences.
The fiscal implications are immediate. In accession economies, the recognition and unwinding of implicit support to SOEs has historically exposed hidden liabilities equivalent to 2–4 percent of GDP over several years. For Montenegro, this would translate into hundreds of millions of euros in either direct restructuring costs, recapitalisation needs or foregone transfers. The short-term pressure is real and politically sensitive, but the medium-term benefit is the reduction of systemic fiscal drag that crowds out private investment and inflates sovereign risk premiums.
For SOEs themselves, EU accession introduces a binary outcome. Enterprises that can operate on a commercial basis, with cost-reflective pricing and transparent public-service compensation, become bankable entities capable of attracting long-term financing. Those that cannot are forced into restructuring, downsizing, divestment or closure. There is little middle ground. This is why accession acts as a filter rather than a gradual reform path.
Pricing reform is one of the most visible stress points. In energy, transport and utilities, prices often embed political considerations rather than full cost recovery. EU rules require a clear separation between commercial activity and public-service obligations. If the state wishes to subsidise access, it must do so explicitly, through budgeted compensation rather than hidden losses. This typically results in 10–25 percent price adjustments over several years in underpriced services, with corresponding social-policy mitigation measures. For businesses, this raises operating costs. For the system as a whole, it restores investment logic.
Corporate governance reform is equally disruptive. EU accession requires professional boards, audited accounts, arm’s-length procurement and transparent reporting. Political appointments and informal decision-making become liabilities rather than norms. Compliance costs rise, but so does credibility. In accession peers, governance reform alone improved SOE operating margins by 3–6 percentage points over time, not through growth but through cost discipline and procurement transparency.
The banking system feels this shift immediately. Banks are no longer able to treat SOE exposure as quasi-sovereign risk unless it is formally guaranteed and priced. This raises borrowing costs for weak SOEs and reduces tolerance for refinancing without restructuring. In the short term, this can stress balance sheets and employment. In the medium term, it prevents the accumulation of non-performing loans and reduces systemic risk. For private firms, this is a net positive, as credit allocation becomes less distorted by politically protected borrowers.
Labour implications are unavoidable. Many SOEs function as social stabilisers, employing more staff than commercially justified. EU accession does not mandate layoffs, but it removes the financial opacity that sustains overstaffing. In peer cases, SOE restructuring led to workforce reductions of 10–30 percent over several years, partially offset by redeployment into private contractors, infrastructure projects and regulated services. The transition cost is high, but the long-term productivity gain is structural.
From an investment perspective, EU discipline opens space rather than closing it. Once pricing, governance and subsidy frameworks are clarified, SOEs become suitable counterparts for public-private partnerships, concessions and project finance. Investors price risk more accurately and demand lower returns once political interference is reduced. In infrastructure sectors, this can compress project financing costs by 100–200 basis points, materially improving feasibility. However, this benefit accrues only if reform credibility is sustained.
The state’s role changes from operator of last resort to contracting authority and regulator. This requires a different skill set. Ministries must specify public-service obligations, tender them transparently and monitor performance. This creates demand for legal, financial, engineering and audit services. Advisory markets around restructuring, asset valuation, concession design, procurement and compliance expand rapidly during accession phases. These are not temporary niches; they become permanent components of an EU-grade public-sector ecosystem.
Municipal SOEs present a particular challenge. Local utilities often combine weak governance with political protection and limited scale. EU rules apply equally at the municipal level, but enforcement capacity is often weaker. Accession therefore pressures municipalities to consolidate services, outsource operations or partner with private operators. This can improve service quality and reduce losses, but it also raises tariffs and political resistance. The fiscal trade-off is explicit: higher user prices versus higher municipal debt.
State aid control also affects industrial policy. Selective incentives, tax holidays and preferential energy pricing become constrained. The state can still support development, but only through horizontal measures such as training, R&D, environmental upgrades or regional aid within approved frameworks. This shifts support from individual champions toward broader ecosystems. For businesses, this reduces uncertainty but eliminates bespoke deals. Those reliant on negotiated advantages lose; those competitive on fundamentals gain.
One of the least discussed effects is reputational. EU accession signals to international investors that state interference is bounded by law. This reduces the “political risk premium” embedded in valuation models. In accession economies, this premium compression alone increased enterprise values by 10–20 percent, independent of operational performance. For Montenegro, where SOE dominance has historically deterred private capital, this reputational shift is significant.
New business demand emerges directly from this transformation. High demand develops for restructuring advisors, insolvency practitioners, valuation experts, procurement specialists, compliance auditors and ESG consultants capable of aligning SOEs with EU standards. Engineering firms benefit from competitively tendered infrastructure projects replacing negotiated contracts. Legal and financial services see sustained growth as the state moves from informal coordination to contract-based governance.
The risks are real. Poorly sequenced reform can trigger social backlash, service disruption and fiscal shocks. Delaying reform, however, compounds costs and erodes accession credibility. EU institutions are tolerant of transition pain, but intolerant of opacity and reversal. The decisive factor is not speed, but direction and consistency.
In economic terms, EU accession removes the option value of inefficiency. State-owned enterprises must justify their existence through service quality, financial discipline or transparent public compensation. Capital is no longer allocated through political patience, but through balance-sheet logic. Labour is no longer protected by opacity, but by productivity and re-training. This is why EU accession is not merely a regulatory exercise for SOEs. It is a reallocation mechanismthat shifts resources away from implicit guarantees and toward explicit, accountable economic activity.
Elevated by mercosur.me
