IT always surprises me that serious commentators do not draw the parallels more often between the two great initiatives aimed at closer European integration: the EU and the Eurovision Song Contest.

Both have similar histories. While the original six members of the EU were putting the finishing touches to the Treaty of Rome nearly half a century ago, the original seven members of Eurovision (including Switzerland, which abandons its traditional neutrality for such purposes) were having their first song contest.

For the first few years the original members — and Britain, which joined quickly — had it their own way, sharing the prize between them. Then it underwent the first of its great enlargements, a process that has continued: nearly 40 countries took part in last month’s event.

Now the “old” members of Eurovision, and I include Britain, don’t get a look in, despite putting up most of the cash. It is won by discordant tunes from places such as Latvia, Estonia, Israel, Ukraine and Greece. I used to be quite pro Eurovision but now I think we should consider withdrawing. It has become a racket in more ways than one.

Compare that with the EU. The original six (France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) made hay for many years, benefiting from their own free(ish) trade area during a time when global tariffs and quotas were high. The European Economic Community was not the only reason for the impressive recovery of the Continent’s war-devastated economies but it had quite a lot to do with it.

It may seem hard for younger readers to comprehend but until fairly recently Europe was much more successful economically than America. Between 1960 and 1973 the original six grew by an average of 3.3% a year, compared with 2.5% for America. Italy, now regarded as rather an economic basket case, turned in sparkling growth of 4.4%.

In the 1970s Germany was probably the world’s most rounded example of a successful economy, with low unemployment and good growth — even during global turbulence — and social cohesion.

That was when, as many Germans concede, fundamental errors were made. Regulations were introduced to enhance social protection, on the assumption that nothing could derail the German economic locomotive. Those regulations, the “Rhineland” model, became the basis of the European social model.

At the same time the six were joined by others — Britain, Ireland and Denmark in 1973 — followed by Greece in 1981, Spain and Portugal in 1986, Austria, Finland and Sweden in 1994 and the biggest enlargement, at least in terms of members, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia, last year.

Gradually, the sands have shifted within the EU. Smaller, newer members have done better than older, larger members. As with Eurovision, there is a bias in favour of the newer underdog. Often in the EU that is backed up with hard cash. Ireland is successful enough to stand on its own feet now, but there is no doubt that largesse from the EU’s structural funds and the common agricultural policy gave it a big leg-up.

New members also benefit from a honeymoon period that is almost built into EU entry. In the early years new entrants get the maximum gains from the removal of trade barriers, together with an influx of foreign investment. That, together with the fact that they tend to begin from a position of much lower per capita incomes than existing members, means there is scope for a period of “catch-up”, often prolonged.

Those advantages wear off, not just because some of them are essentially one-off in nature but also because the longer that countries are part of the EU, the more they acquire the growth-destroying aspects of the European social model. The benefits of being in the EU diminish over time, to the point where they become questionable.

Britain, interestingly, did things differently. The honeymoon period after entry more than three decades ago was pretty disastrous. But by not integrating as fast as other member states, both in terms of the single currency and the social model, it secured advantages even as a mature member state. One bit of good news last week was that Britain retained its opt-out on the 48-hour week.

Explore Economics

• Pre-Budget Report 2009

• Budget 2009

• World Economic Forum

• The Times MPC

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive