IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hig/wpaper/26-ir-2016.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

It’S Not the Economy Stupid! Is Russia-Us Trade Really Underdeveloped? A Test Using Gravity Models

Author

Listed:
  • Maxim Bratersky

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

  • Gunes Gokmen

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

  • Andrej Krickovic

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

Abstract

Politicians, pundits and experts in both Russia and the US frequently bemoan the “underdevelopment” of US-Russia trade, arguing that political factors have inhibited the development of economic ties. It is also often argued that political relations between the two countries would also be more cooperative and less conflictual if these ties developed up to their full potential. The paper seeks to test the conventional wisdom that the US-Russia trade is underdeveloped by employing a standard gravity model to measure where trade between the two countries “should” be. We find no evidence that the US-Russia trade is underdeveloped. In terms of its ability to live up to the predictions of the model, trade between the two countries is predicted by the standard determinants of trade, suggesting that there is nothing erratic about the US-Russia trade and it behaves like any average country pair. These findings suggest that US-Russia trade relations actually live up to their economic potential and that the commonly held idea that political relations between Russia and the US can be dramatically improved by tapping into the “unfulfilled” promise of improved trade relations is unfounded. Moreover, our analysis demonstrates that the sectorial structure of the two economies, factor endowments and comparative advantages do not seem to indicate that there is significant potential for increased trade, as the conventional wisdom would suggest. The conventional view argues that poor political relations have impeded the development of economic relations between the two states. But, in fact, the opposite may be true: relations between the US and Russia are characterized by rivalry and conflict because there is little solid economic grounds for more pacific relations

Suggested Citation

  • Maxim Bratersky & Gunes Gokmen & Andrej Krickovic, 2016. "It’S Not the Economy Stupid! Is Russia-Us Trade Really Underdeveloped? A Test Using Gravity Models," HSE Working papers WP BRP 26/IR/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:hig:wpaper:26/ir/2016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.hse.ru/data/2016/02/09/1139990257/26IR2016.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. van Bergeijk,Peter A. G. & Brakman,Steven (ed.), 2010. "The Gravity Model in International Trade," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521196154, October.
    3. Baldwin, Richard, 2007. "Trade Effects of the Euro: a Comparison of Estimators," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 22, pages 780-818.
    4. Anders Aslund & Gary Clyde Hufbauer, 2012. "The United States Should Establish Permanent Normal Trade Relations with Russia," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 6208, September.
    5. Fearon, James D., 1994. "Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 577-592, September.
    6. Allan Dafoe, 2011. "Statistical Critiques of the Democratic Peace: Caveat Emptor," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(2), pages 247-262, April.
    7. Oneal, John R. & Russett, Bruce, 2001. "Clear and Clean: The Fixed Effects of the Liberal Peace," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(2), pages 469-485, April.
    8. Roberto Rigobon & Dani Rodrik, 2005. "Rule of law, democracy, openness, and income," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 13(3), pages 533-564, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fiankor, D.-D. & Martinez-Zarzoso, I. & Brummer, B., 2018. "Exports and Governance: the Role of Private Voluntary Certification," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277113, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Magistretti, Giacomo & Tabellini, Marco, 2020. "Economic Integration and Democracy: An Empirical Investigation," CEPR Discussion Papers 14336, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Fiankor, Dela-Dem Doe & Martinez-Zarzoso, Inmaculada & Brümmer, Bernhard, 2018. "Exports and governance: the role of private voluntary standards," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 275059, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    4. El-Sahli, Zouheir, 2021. "The Partial and General Equilibrium Effects of the Greater Arab Free Trade Agreement," MPRA Paper 104354, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Wong, Kin-Ming & Chong, Terence Tai-Leung, 2016. "Does monetary policy matter for trade?," International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 107-125.
    6. Jinghan Cai & Xiaobing Li, 2018. "Logistics and stock market inter-dependence: the case of China," International Journal of Logistics Economics and Globalisation, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(3), pages 292-306.
    7. Head, Keith & Mayer, Thierry, 2014. "Gravity Equations: Workhorse,Toolkit, and Cookbook," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 131-195, Elsevier.
    8. Tomas Havranek & Zuzana Irsova, 2017. "Do Borders Really Slash Trade? A Meta-Analysis," IMF Economic Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Monetary Fund, vol. 65(2), pages 365-396, June.
    9. Mahdi Ghodsi, 2020. "Is Austria’s economy locked-in in the CESEE region? Austria’s competitiveness at the micro-level," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 47(3), pages 669-693, August.
    10. Agostino, Mariarosaria & Trivieri, Francesco, 2014. "Geographical indication and wine exports. An empirical investigation considering the major European producers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 22-36.
    11. Blind, Knut & Mangelsdorf, Axel & Pohlisch, Jakob, 2018. "The effects of cooperation in accreditation on international trade: Empirical evidence on ISO 9000 certifications," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 50-59.
    12. Hanousek, Jan & Kočenda, Evžen, 2014. "Factors of trade in Europe," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 518-535.
    13. Faqin Lin & Wenshou Yan & Xiaosong Wang, 2017. "The impact of Africa-China's diplomatic visits on bilateral trade," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 64(3), pages 310-326, July.
    14. Konstantaras, Konstantinos & Philippas, Dionisis & Siriopoulos, Costas, 2018. "Trade asymmetries in the Mediterranean basin," The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 13-20.
    15. Olayinka Idowu Kareem, 2014. "The European Union Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Africa’s Exports," RSCAS Working Papers 2014/98, European University Institute.
    16. Fracasso, Andrea & Vittucci Marzetti, Giuseppe, 2015. "International trade and R&D spillovers," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 138-149.
    17. Toke S. Aidt & Martin Gassebner, 2010. "Do Autocratic States Trade Less?," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 24(1), pages 38-76, January.
    18. Petrit Gashi & Mehtap Hisarciklilar & Geoffrey Pugh, 2017. "Kosovo – EU trade relations: a dynamic panel poisson approach," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(27), pages 2642-2654, June.
    19. Gnutzmann-Mkrtchyan, Arevik & Henn, Christian, 2018. "Peeling away the layers: Impacts of durable tariff elimination," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 259-276.
    20. Julia Grübler & Oliver Reiter, 2020. "Greater than the sum of its parts? Does Austria profit from a widening network of EU free trade agreements?," FIW Research Reports series VII-004, FIW.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    US-Russia Relations; International Trade; Gravity Models; Economic Interdependence;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Empirical Studies of Trade

    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:hig:wpaper:26/ir/2016. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Shamil Abdulaev or Shamil Abdulaev (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.html .

    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.