IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ekd/009007/9326.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The EU-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement and Russia’s Retaliation: a Negative Side of Free Trade Agreements?

Author

Listed:
  • Olexandr Nekhay
  • Manuel Alejandro Cardenete Flores
  • Adolfo Cristobal Campoamor
  • Olexandr Nekhay

Abstract

A Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) was signed in 2014 between Ukraine and the EU, although it was only partially enforced immediately after signature. The full implementation of the DCFTA was delayed as Russia alleged that the agreement posed a threat to its economy. However, during 2015 the two sides (the EU & Ukraine on one side and Russia on other side) could not reach an agreement. Subsequently, the Ukraine-EU DCFTA was fully implemented from January 1st 2016. In response, Russia unilaterally broke out a FTA with Ukraine signed in 2011 as well as banning all imports of agricultural products from the latter country. Simultaneously, Russia additionally restricted the transit of all goods from Ukraine to other CIS countries. We used a static comparative GTAP CGE model based on the GTAP 9 database to assess the impact of several possible scenarios, based on to the current trade relationships. We calibrated the economic model with data from the year 2015, which was especially important for Ukraine due to the sharp changes in its GDP and endowments. Our first scenario consists of the abolishment of the tariff and non-tariff barriers between the EU and Ukraine, as implied by a complete implementation of DCFTA. Our second scenario includes the first scenario, plus a ban on Ukrainian agricultural goods and some tariffs on industrial goods, according to Russia´s WTO commitments. Our third scenario includes our first scenario plus a ban on the importation of Ukrainian agricultural goods by all the Russia-led Euro-Asian Custom Union. And our forth scenario includes the first scenario plus a ban on the importation of Ukrainian agricultural goods by all the CIS members of the Russia-led FTA. The tariffs for industrial goods in our third and fourth scenarios are set at the level of the Russian tariffs in our second scenario. The results of these simulations allow us to asses the impact on GDP, welfare and trade balances of the implementation of the DCFTA, together with the Russian restrictive measures. This work should also add to the discussion regarding the benefits and drawbacks of FTAs in general and bring light to claims that these type of FTAs between two countries can hurt a third country’s interests.

Suggested Citation

  • Olexandr Nekhay & Manuel Alejandro Cardenete Flores & Adolfo Cristobal Campoamor & Olexandr Nekhay, 2016. "The EU-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement and Russia’s Retaliation: a Negative Side of Free Trade Agreements?," EcoMod2016 9326, EcoMod.
  • Handle: RePEc:ekd:009007:9326
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ecomod.net/system/files/Nekhay.Ukraine%20FTA%20Russian%20reaction_final.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. ., 2012. "Exchange Rate Manipulation in International Economic Law," Chapters,in: International Economic Law and Monetary Measures, chapter 7 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Francois, Joseph, 1998. "Scale Economies and Imperfect Competition in the GTAP Model," GTAP Technical Papers 317, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    3. Burniaux, Jean-Marc & Truong Truong, 2002. "GTAP-E: An Energy-Environmental Version of the GTAP Model," GTAP Technical Papers 923, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    4. Philippidis, G. & Hubbard, L. J., 2001. "The economic cost of the CAP revisited," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 375-385, September.
    5. Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685.
    6. Brockmeier, Martina & Bektasoglu, Beyhan, 2014. "Model structure or data aggregation level: Which leads to greater bias of results?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 238-245.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    The European Union; Ukraine and Russia; Trade issues; 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:009007:9326. 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.