IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

The Evolution of Ukrainian Economy: New Trade Theory Evidence

  • Konchyn, Vadym

As the experience of European transition countries shows, the opening-up of their economic systems for international competition and FDIs, deepening economic liberalization and integration, and on this basis, the realization of real convergence within the integration block lead to the increased role of New Trade Theory in explaining their international economic relations. The processes of Ukraine's economic liberalization and approximation of its level of economic development to that of the EU-members should stipulate for transition of Ukrainian economy onto the dimension which explains industrial and trade relations through the prism of the New Trade Theory postulates coupled with Traditional Trade Theory principles. This article explores the position of Ukraine in the intra-industry trade with its main trade partners and problems of measuring the homogeneity degree of Ukraine’s trade structure and the trade structures of its trade partners as well as its potential reciprocal demand within the regional EU and SEA integration blocks. The empirical analysis reveals that inasmuch as consumer preferences in Ukraine differ from those of its two SEA-partners (Russia and Kazakhstan), their disposition to intensify intra-regional trade relations with Ukraine in the future would be reduced. The SEA countries would rather prefer to expand their integrated export potential (for example, by forming big oligopolistic financial and industrial groups in the mining, metallurgy, heavy engineering, aircraft and space industries on the basis of intra-regional mergers and acquisitions, thus enjoying external economies of scale) and satisfy their individual importing wishes on the markets of third countries in compliance with the postulates of the Traditional Trade Theory. Nevertheless, it is believed that intra-industry trade of Ukraine would develop optimally under deepening of its industrial and trade relations with advanced industrial countries, which have objectively reached the highest level of international specialization and product differentiation. In view of the optimization of their reciprocal demand, advanced industrial countries would try to pull the Ukrainian economy towards European economic area in order to realize their trade and investment interests. FDIs turned Ukraine into an increasingly export-oriented economy due to homogenous products. At the same time, the influence of FDIs on Ukrainian imports of differentiated goods tends to decrease significantly. This means that there still is no effect of increasing complementarity between imports and FDIs, which – under condition of transition – is responsible for structural market changes, saturation of domestic market with differentiated products and as a result for development of intra-industry trade.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/588/1/MPRA_paper_588.pdf
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

File URL: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/34328/1/MPRA_paper_34328.pdf
File Function: revised version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 588.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 26 Oct 2006
Date of revision: 07 Sep 2006
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:588
Contact details of provider: Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Midelfart-Knarvik, K.H. & Overman, H.G. & Venables, A.J., 2000. "Comparative Advantage and Economic Geography: Estimating the Location of Production in the EU," Papers 18/00, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration-.
  2. Markusen, James R., 1984. "Multinationals, multi-plant economies, and the gains from trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3-4), pages 205-226, May.
  3. Brainard, S. Lael & Martimort, David, 1997. "Strategic trade policy with incompletely informed policymakers," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 33-65, February.
  4. Bhattacharjea, Aditya, 1995. "Strategic tariffs and endogenous market structures: Trade and industrial policies under imperfect competition," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 287-312, August.
  5. Eaton, Jonathan & Grossman, Gene M, 1986. "Optimal Trade and Industrial Policy under Oligopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 101(2), pages 383-406, May.
  6. Karolina Ekholm,, . "Factor Endowments and the Pattern of Affiliate Production by Multinational Enterprises," Discussion Papers 97/19, University of Nottingham, CREDIT.
  7. Kandogan, Yener, 2003. "Intra-industry trade of transition countries: trends and determinants," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 273-286, September.
  8. Paul R. Krugman, 1985. "Increasing Returns and the Theory of International Trade," NBER Working Papers 1752, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  9. Anderson, James E. & Neary, J. Peter, 1992. "A new approach to evaluating trade policy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1022, The World Bank.
  10. James E. Rauch, 1996. "Networks versus Markets in International Trade," NBER Working Papers 5617, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  11. Leahy, Dermot & Neary, J Peter, 1997. "Public Policy towards R&D in Oligopolistic Industries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(4), pages 642-62, September.
  12. Carrillo-Tudela, Carlos & A Li, Carmen, 2004. "Trade Blocks and the Gravity Model: Evidence from Latin American Countries," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 19, pages 667-689.
  13. repec:att:wimass:9713 is not listed on IDEAS
  14. Redding, Stephen J. & Venables, Anthony J, 2000. "Economic Geography and International Inequality," CEPR Discussion Papers 2568, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  15. James A. Brander, 1995. "Strategic Trade Policy," NBER Working Papers 5020, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  16. Antonio Aquino, 1978. "Intra-industry trade and inter-industry specialization as concurrent sources of International Trade in manufactures," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 275-296, June.
  17. Brander, James A. & Spencer, Barbara J., 1985. "Export subsidies and international market share rivalry," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1-2), pages 83-100, February.
  18. Falvey, Rodney E., 1981. "Commercial policy and intra-industry trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 495-511, November.
  19. Simon J. Evenett & Wolfgang Keller, 2002. "On Theories Explaining the Success of the Gravity Equation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(2), pages 281-316, April.
  20. Paul Krugman, 1990. "Increasing Returns and Economic Geography," NBER Working Papers 3275, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  21. Pissarides, Christopher A, 1997. "Learning by Trading and the Returns to Human Capital in Developing Countries," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 11(1), pages 17-32, January.
  22. Bergstrand, Jeffrey H, 1989. "The Generalized Gravity Equation, Monopolistic Competition, and the Factor-Proportions Theory in International Trade," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 143-53, February.
  23. Delia Ionascu & Kresimir Zigic, 2001. "Strategic Trade Policy and Mode of Competition: Symmetric versus Asymmetric Information," International Trade 0106001, EconWPA.
  24. Balassa, Bela, 1986. "Intra-Industry specialization : A cross-country analysis," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 27-42, February.
  25. Paul Brenton & Francesca Di Mauro & Matthias Lücke, 1999. "Economic Integration and FDI: An Empirical Analysis of Foreign Investment in the EU and in Central and Eastern Europe," Empirica, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 95-121, June.
  26. Vernon Ruttan, 1998. "The new growth theory and development economics: A survey," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 1-26.
  27. Lionel Fontagné & Michaël Freudenberg, 1997. "Intra-Industry Trade: Methodological Issues Reconsidered," Working Papers 1997-01, CEPII research center.
  28. Pranab Bardhan., 1994. "The Contributions of Endogenous Growth Theory to the Analysis of Development Problems: An Assessment," Center for International and Development Economics Research (CIDER) Working Papers C94-038, University of California at Berkeley.
  29. James R. Markusen, 1998. "Multinational Firms, Location and Trade," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(6), pages 733-756, 08.
  30. Antonio Ricci, Luca, 1997. "A Ricardian Model of New Trade and Location Theory," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 12, pages 47-61.
  31. S. Lael Brainard, 1993. "A Simple Theory of Multinational Corporations and Trade with a Trade-Off Between Proximity and Concentration," NBER Working Papers 4269, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  32. Krugman, Paul & Venables, Anthony J, 1993. "Integration, Specialization and Adjustment," CEPR Discussion Papers 886, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  33. Robert C. Feenstra & James R. Markusen & Andrew K. Rose, 2001. "Using the gravity equation to differentiate among alternative theories of trade," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 34(2), pages 430-447, May.
  34. James R. Markusen & Keith E. Maskus, 1999. "Multinational Firms: Reconciling Theory and Evidence," NBER Working Papers 7163, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  35. James R. Markusen & Anthony J. Venables, 1995. "Multinational Firms and The New Trade Theory," NBER Working Papers 5036, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  36. Jonathan Eaton & Samuel Kortum, 2002. "Technology, Geography, and Trade," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(5), pages 1741-1779, September.
  37. Lucas, Robert Jr., 1988. "On the mechanics of economic development," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 3-42, July.
  38. Yener Kandogan, 2003. "Intra-industry Trade of Transition Countries: Trends and Determinants," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 2003-566, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:588. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.