Globalisation has benefited Europe and could boost annual household income by €5,000 within a few years, according to a comprehensive survey of its effects.

Companies based in the European Union were better placed than their US counterparts to benefit from a "ring of prosperity" around the EU, from Russia to the Middle East and Africa, said the study by the American Chamber of Commerce in the EU.

While there were winners and losers according to sector and region, EU exports, jobs and wages had grown since 1990.

The report was welcomed by José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, who requested the study in a bid to convince Europeans that globalisation was a positive force.

"The right approach to shape and respond to -globalisation is to build an integrated and open Europe, socially and economically dynamic - and highly competitive," he said at the report's launch yesterday.

"The point of this report was to demystify globalisation," said Mark Spelman, chairman of Amcham EU and head of strategy at Accenture, the consultant. "Europeans have reaped substantial and tangible benefits from globalisation but there is scope to gain even more."

Daniel Hamilton and Joseph Quinlan, the study's authors from Johns Hopkins University, found several EU countries had adapted better than the US to globalisation.

Mr Quinlan, who is a Wall Street banker, said: "If you look at the EU15 [richer member countries that joined the EU before 2004] . . . you find a ring of prosperity around them."

Russia and countries in the Middle East and North Africa, boosted by high -commodity prices, were becoming big customers. Former communist countries had also boosted exports, although they are now part of the EU.

Exports from the EU15 to the developing world quadrupled to $1,000bn (€660bn, £500bn) between 1990 and 2006. As a proportion of total exports, they grew from 52 per cent to 64 per cent.

"In essence the EU has its own China right next door. It is about Europeanisation as much as globalisation," Mr Hamilton said. Proximity to a booming market has attracted investment from US companies.

Deregulating the service sector would increase the benefits. "It is the sleeping giant of the European economy," said Mr Hamilton.

He said some EU countries competing head-on with India and China in low-skilled industries had suffered. Portugal had lost a quarter of its jobs because of reliance on industries such as footwear. While Ireland lost a similar proportion, the jobs had been replaced by alternatives created by US and other companies offshoring into Ireland.

The UK was the only country that had outsourced significant numbers of jobs to Asia. For example, 90 per cent of jobs lost in Germany had gone to its neighbours in eastern Europe. But Germany, still the world's biggest exporter, was gaining fresh jobs as its skilled labour attracted research and development.

However, the study warned that skill shortages would soon begin to bite.

Europe needed to attract more skilled workers from abroad. Just 5 per cent of skilled migrants head to the EU, compared with 55 per cent to the US. The impending skills shortage could cost the German economy $27bn a year, or 1 per cent of gross domestic product.

Mike Baunton, the vice-president of European operations for Caterpillar, the US construction equipment maker, said: "There is an exodus of high-skilled jobs because companies cannot find qualified staff. It is -easier to find an engineer in Beijing than Budapest."

Bernard Pellereau, of -Honeywell, said Europe needed to decide in which sectors it wanted to spe-cialise and then educate and equip its people for those industries.