IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

EU-Armenia trade liberalization:A poverty and social impact analysis


  • Mushegh Tumasyan
  • Karine Harutyunyan
  • Yelena Manukyan
  • Armen Grigorian


This study set out to analyze the socioeconomic impact of increased trade liberalization between Armenia and the EU within the framework of Eastern Partnership initiative. In addition to a quantitative assessment of the potential impact of trade liberalization on the economic situation and poverty in Armenia, the study involves evaluations of existing foreign trade regimes and regulatory systems. Results of the analysis reveal that a simple free trade agreement or tariff liberalization will not result in significant socioeconomic benefits for Armenia. This is mainly caused by the already liberal trade regimes between Armenia and the EU. Armenia is already included in the Generalized System of Preferences in trade with the EU, yet the potential of this facility is not yet fully utilized. Armenia has relatively small and concentrated foreign exports which are limited by existent production capabilities and the current level of industrial development. Therefore, verification of a deep and comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) which implies harmonization of the partner countries’ trade- and production-related legislation with EU standards is not feasible in the medium term. Enforcement of such standards on the domestic market – i.e. on production and imports – could paralyze the Armenian economy and most likely result in negative social consequences. If initial institutional and legislative harmonization is the matter, no direct economic and social benefits are to be expected for Armenia, as no structural changes will occur in the ability of Armenian producers to enter the EU market and the Armenian private sector will continue to be in non-compliant with EU standards. To this end, regional economic integration of Armenia with the EU is of great importance to long-term development of the country. However, it will only be economically justifiable and generate a positive social impact if the process that leads to such integration is based on development and harmonization of the capacities of domestic producers and enterprises. Therefore, the policy priority should move away from trade liberalization towards industrial development.

Suggested Citation

  • Mushegh Tumasyan & Karine Harutyunyan & Yelena Manukyan & Armen Grigorian, 2013. "EU-Armenia trade liberalization:A poverty and social impact analysis," Working Papers PMMA 2013-15, PEP-PMMA.
  • Handle: RePEc:lvl:pmmacr:2013-15

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Dollar, David & Kraay, Aart, 2002. "Growth Is Good for the Poor," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 195-225, September.
    2. Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini., 1991. "Is Inequality Harmful for Growth? Theory and Evidence," Economics Working Papers 91-155, University of California at Berkeley.
    3. Foster, James & Greer, Joel & Thorbecke, Erik, 1984. "A Class of Decomposable Poverty Measures," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 761-766, May.
    4. Menno Pradhan & Martin Ravallion, 2000. "Measuring Poverty Using Qualitative Perceptions Of Consumption Adequacy," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(3), pages 462-471, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Trade Liberalization; Free Trade Agreement; CGE; EU; Armenia; Poverty Analysis; Social Impact Analysis;

    JEL classification:

    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration
    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • F16 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade and Labor Market Interactions
    • I32 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty
    • C68 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computable General Equilibrium Models

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:lvl:pmmacr:2013-15. 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: (Manuel Paradis). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.