IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ekd/008007/8365.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consequences Of Asymmetric Deeper Eurasian Economic Integration

Author

Listed:
  • ARMAN MAZHIKEYEV
  • Huw Edwards

Abstract

A period of new Eurasian Regional Integration has already begun in parts of the For- mer Soviet Union. Following the experience of European Union, the `troika' (namely, Kaza- khstan, Russia and Belarus) are working toward establishment of a Eurasian Union. The troika have taken serious steps, in a speedy manner, toward the formation of an Eurasian region (the Eurasian Customs Union, the CIS Free Trade Agreement, and the Single Eco- nomic Space, and the Eurasian Economic Union). However, whether all the members and the entire region will achieve the gains from fast EU like integration and the union will be marked as successful one is yet being questioned. Studies believe that the union has more of a political rather than an economic motivation, that could result in negative economic externalities rather then gains.This study attempt to assess the impact of asymmetry and symmetry in bargaining in deeper Eurasian regional integration. The analysis carried out using the modern multi- country multi-sector CGE approach with suitable specications with a number of trade costs measures using the gravity concept. The novelty in this study is the use of implicit trade costs obtained using Overall Trade Cost Index (Novy [69]) which then has been decomposed into policy (tari and non-tari), non-policy (markups and value added costs) and transport costs econometrically. We rstly performed shallow integration scenario simulation with actual changes in tari rates from 2009 to (expected rates for) 2015 of the troika, rest of CIS and aggregate ROW multilaterally. Further we used Overall Trade Cost Indices for EU and CIS countries from the WB-ESCAP trade costs database to make assumptions regarding multilateral changes in NTBs, border, transport and other costs in two deeper integration scenarios of equal and unequal (bias toward Russia) treatment of members.Based on the results of simulation work, we can conclude that if there will be equal treatment of members of the new integration, the members will likely benet from the gains and positive externalities of deeper integration in the future. However, if we take account of the Russian bargaining power and future asymmetric treatment of members, smaller members Kazakhstan, Belarus, plus other joiners are less likely receive expected gains. This work does not take account of other changes in policies (Russia's WTO assessment, sanctions against Russia by the Western Bloc, impact of situations in Ukraine-Russian borders etc.) but changes in trade costs (NTBs, taris, transport and border costs and value added costs).

Suggested Citation

  • ARMAN MAZHIKEYEV & Huw Edwards, 2015. "Consequences Of Asymmetric Deeper Eurasian Economic Integration," EcoMod2015 8365, EcoMod.
  • Handle: RePEc:ekd:008007:8365
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ecomod.net/system/files/paper_3_Mazhikeyev.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hiau LooiKee & Alessandro Nicita & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2009. "Estimating Trade Restrictiveness Indices," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 172-199, January.
    2. James E. Anderson & J. Peter Neary, 1996. "A New Approach to Evaluating Trade Policy," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 63(1), pages 107-125.
    3. A. Knobel’, 2017. "The Eurasian Economic Union," Problems of Economic Transition, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(5), pages 335-360, May.
    4. Anderson, James E & Neary, J Peter, 1994. "Measuring the Restrictiveness of Trade Policy," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 8(2), pages 151-169, May.
    5. Dennis Novy, 2010. "Trade Costs and the Open Macroeconomy," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 112(3), pages 514-545, September.
    6. Thomas Chaney, 2008. "Distorted Gravity: The Intensive and Extensive Margins of International Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1707-1721, September.
    7. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2004. "Trade Costs," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(3), pages 691-751, September.
    8. Disdier, Anne-Celia & Fontagne, Lionel & Mimouni, Mondher, 2008. "AJAE Appendix: The Impact of Regulations on Agricultural Trade: Evidence from the SPS and TBT Agreements," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 1-7.
    9. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2003. "Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 170-192, March.
    10. Hartwell, Christopher A., 2013. "A Eurasian (or a Soviet) Union? Consequences of further economic integration in the Commonwealth of Independent States," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 411-420.
    11. Robert C. Feenstra, 1998. "Integration of Trade and Disintegration of Production in the Global Economy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 31-50, Fall.
    12. Dennis Novy, 2011. "Gravity Redux: Measuring International Trade Costs with Panel Data," CESifo Working Paper Series 3616, CESifo Group Munich.
    13. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 2005. "A Protectionist Bias in Majoritarian Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 120(4), pages 1239-1282.
    14. Alexander Plekhanov & Asel Isakova, 2012. "Customs Union and Kazakhstan's Imports," CASE Network Studies and Analyses 442, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    15. Lev Freinkman & Evgeny Polyakov & Carolina Revenco, 2004. "Trade Performance and Regional Integration of the CIS Countries," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 14933.
    16. T. Huw Edwards, 2007. "Measuring Global and Regional Trade Integration in Terms of Concentration of Access," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 143(2), pages 256-276, July.
    17. Head, Keith & Mayer, Thierry & Ries, John, 2010. "The erosion of colonial trade linkages after independence," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 1-14, May.
    18. Christopher GRIGORIOU & Céline CARRERE, 2008. "Landlockedness, Infrastructure and Trade:New Estimates for Central Asian Countries," Working Papers 200801, CERDI.
    19. John Romalis, 2007. "NAFTA's and CUSFTA's Impact on International Trade," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(3), pages 416-435, August.
    20. Redding, Stephen & Venables, Anthony J., 2004. "Economic geography and international inequality," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 53-82, January.
    21. Chen, Natalie & Novy, Dennis, 2012. "On the measurement of trade costs: direct vs. indirect approaches to quantifying standards and technical regulations," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 401-414, July.
    22. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 297-308, June.
    23. Dennis Novy, 2013. "Gravity Redux: Measuring International Trade Costs With Panel Data," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 101-121, January.
    24. Maryla Maliszewska & Irina Orlova & Svitlana Taran, 2009. "Deep Integration with the EU and its Likely Impact on Selected ENP Countries and Russia," CASE Network Reports 0088, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    25. Edwards, T. Huw, 2010. "Globalisation as a 'good times' phenomenon: A search-based explanation," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW), vol. 4, pages 1-48.
    26. James E. Anderson & J. Peter Neary, 2003. "The Mercantilist Index of Trade Policy," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 44(2), pages 627-649, May.
    27. Ackerman, Karen & MacDonald, Stephen & Milmoe, Steve, 1990. "International Trade," Food Review/ National Food Review, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, vol. 13(3), September.
    28. J. M. C. Santos Silva & Silvana Tenreyro, 2006. "The Log of Gravity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 641-658, November.
    29. Gonzalo Pastor & Tatiana Damjanovic, 2003. "The Russian Financial Crisis and Its Consequences for Central Asia," Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 79-104, May.
    30. Gaël Raballand & Agnès Andrésy, 2007. "Why should trade between Central Asia and China continue to expand?," Asia Europe Journal, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 235-252, June.
    31. Summary, Rebecca M, 1989. "A Political-Economic Model of U.S. Bilateral Trade," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 179-182, February.
    32. Elhanan Helpman & Marc Melitz & Yona Rubinstein, 2008. "Estimating Trade Flows: Trading Partners and Trading Volumes," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 123(2), pages 441-487.
    33. Grigoriou, Christopher, 2007. "Landlockedness, infrastructure and trade : new estimates for central Asian countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4335, The World Bank.
    34. Krugman, Paul R., 1979. "Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 469-479, November.
    35. Shepotylo, Oleksandr & Tarr, David G., 2012. "Impact of WTO accession and the customs union on the bound and applied tariff rates of the Russian federation," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6161, The World Bank.
    36. Peter J. Lloyd & Donald Maclaren, 2004. "Gains and Losses from Regional Trading Agreements: A Survey," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 80(251), pages 445-467, December.
    37. Nicolas Coeurdacier & Robert Kollmann & Philippe Martin, 2009. "International Portfolios with Supply, Demand and Redistributive Shocks," NBER Chapters, in: NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics 2007, pages 231-263, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    38. T. Huw Edwards, 2008. "Implicit trade Costs and European single market enlargement," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(20), pages 2601-2613.
    39. Rutherford, Thomas F., 1995. "Extension of GAMS for complementarity problems arising in applied economic analysis," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 19(8), pages 1299-1324, November.
    40. Francois, Joseph & Bradley McDonald, 1996. "Liberalization and Capital Accumulation in the GTAP Model," GTAP Technical Papers 310, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    UK; Modeling: new developments; General equilibrium modeling;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ekd:008007:8365. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Theresa Leary). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ecomoea.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.