IDEAS home Printed from
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:
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

File URL:
File Function: revised version
Download Restriction: no

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

in new window

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:

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. Carlos Carrillo & Carmen A. Li, 2002. "Trade Blocks and the Gravity Model: Evidence from Latin American Countries," Economics Discussion Papers 542, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
  2. James A. Brander & Barbara J. Spencer, 1984. "Export Subsidies and International Market Share Rivalry," NBER Working Papers 1464, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  3. Delia Ionascu & Kresimir Zigic, 2001. "Strategic Trade Policy and Mode of Competition: Symmetric versus Asymmetric Information," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp174, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
  4. James R. Markusen & Keith E. Maskus, 2001. "Multinational Firms: Reconciling Theory and Evidence," NBER Chapters, in: Topics in Empirical International Economics: A Festschrift in Honor of Robert E. Lipsey, pages 71-98 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  5. S. Lael Brainard & David Martimort, 1992. "Strategic Trade Policy With Incompletely Informed Policymakers," NBER Working Papers 4069, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  6. Paul R. Krugman, 1985. "Increasing Returns and the Theory of International Trade," NBER Working Papers 1752, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  7. repec:att:wimass:9713 is not listed on IDEAS
  8. Bardhan, Pranab, 1995. "The contributions of endogenous growth theory to the analysis of development problems: An assessment," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Hollis Chenery & T.N. Srinivasan (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 46, pages 2983-2998 Elsevier.
  9. Lionel Fontagné & Michaël Freudenberg, 1997. "Intra-Industry Trade: Methodological Issues Reconsidered," Working Papers 1997-01, CEPII research center.
  10. Balassa, Bela, 1986. "Intra-Industry specialization : A cross-country analysis," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 27-42, February.
  11. Krugman, Paul & Venables, Anthony J, 1993. "Integration, Specialization and Adjustment," CEPR Discussion Papers 886, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  12. James E. Rauch, 1996. "Networks versus Markets in International Trade," NBER Working Papers 5617, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  13. 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.
  14. Markusen, James R. & Venables, Anthony J., 1998. "Multinational firms and the new trade theory," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 183-203, December.
  15. Simon J. Evenett & Wolfgang Keller, 1996. "On Theories Explaining the Success of the Gravity Equation," International Trade 9608001, EconWPA, revised 13 Jun 1997.
  16. Overman, Henry G & Ulltveit-Moe, Karen-Helene & Venables, Anthony J, 2000. "Comparative Advantage and Economic Geography: Estimating the Location of Production in the EU," CEPR Discussion Papers 2618, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  17. J Anderson & J.P. Neary, 1993. "A New Approach to Evaluating Trade Policy," CEP Discussion Papers dp0173, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  18. Stephen Redding & Anthony J. Venables, 2001. "Economic Geography and International Inequality," CEP Discussion Papers dp0495, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. Karolina Ekholm,, . "Factor Endowments and the Pattern of Affiliate Production by Multinational Enterprises," Discussion Papers 97/19, University of Nottingham, CREDIT.
  22. 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.
  23. Lucas, Robert Jr., 1988. "On the mechanics of economic development," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 3-42, July.
  24. 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.
  25. Leahy, Dermot & Neary, J Peter, 1995. "Public Policy Towards R&D in Oligopolistic Industries," CEPR Discussion Papers 1243, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  26. James A. Brander, 1995. "Strategic Trade Policy," NBER Working Papers 5020, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. Falvey, Rodney E., 1981. "Commercial policy and intra-industry trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 495-511, November.
  32. Kandogan, Yener, 2003. "Intra-industry trade of transition countries: trends and determinants," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 273-286, September.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. Krugman, Paul, 1991. "Increasing Returns and Economic Geography," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(3), pages 483-99, June.
  36. 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.
  37. Jonathan Eaton & Samuel Kortum, 2002. "Technology, Geography, and Trade," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(5), pages 1741-1779, September.
  38. James R. Markusen, 1998. "Multinational Firms, Location and Trade," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(6), pages 733-756, 08.
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.