IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Regional impacts of Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization


  • Rutherford, Thomas
  • Tarr, David


In this paper we develop a computable general equilibrium model of the regions of Russia to assess the impact of accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) on the regions of Russia. We estimate that the average gain in welfare as a percentage of consumption for the whole country is 7.8 percent (or 4.3 percent of consumption); we estimate that three regions will gain considerably more: Northwest (11.2 percent), St. Petersburg (10.6 percent) and Far East (9.7 percent). We estimate that the Urals will gain only 6.2 percent of consumption, considerably less than the national average. The principal explanation in ourcentral analysis for the differences across regions is the ability of the different regions to benefit from a reduction in barriers against foreign direct investment. The three regions with the largest welfare gains are clearly the regions with the estimated largest shares of multinational investment. But the Urals has attracted relatively little FDI in the service sectors. An additional reason for differences across regions is quantified in our sensitivity analysis: regions may gain more from WTO accession if they can succeed in creating a good investment climate.

Suggested Citation

  • Rutherford, Thomas & Tarr, David, 2006. "Regional impacts of Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4015, The World Bank.
  • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:4015

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Philippa Dee & Kevin Hanslow & Tiem Phamduc, 2003. "Measuring the Cost of Barriers to Trade in Services," NBER Chapters,in: Trade in Services in the Asia Pacific Region, NBER East Asia Seminar on Economics (EASE), Volume 11, pages 11-46 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Brown, Drusilla K & Stern, Robert M, 2001. "Measurement and Modeling of the Economic Effects of Trade and Investment Barriers in Services," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(2), pages 262-286, May.
    3. Masahisa Fujita & Paul Krugman & Anthony J. Venables, 2001. "The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561476, January.
    4. Jesper Jensen & Thomas Rutherford & David Tarr, 2014. "The Impact of Liberalizing Barriers to Foreign Direct Investment in Services: The Case of Russian Accession to the World Trade Organization," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: APPLIED TRADE POLICY MODELING IN 16 COUNTRIES Insights and Impacts from World Bank CGE Based Projects, chapter 6, pages 125-149 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. repec:wsi:wschap:9789813108448_0004 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Romer, Paul, 1994. "New goods, old theory, and the welfare costs of trade restrictions," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 5-38, February.
    7. Rutherford, Thomas F. & Tarr, David G., 1998. "Trade liberalization and endogenous growth in a small open economy : a quantitative assessment," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1970, The World Bank.
    8. Rutherford, Thomas F, 1999. "Applied General Equilibrium Modeling with MPSGE as a GAMS Subsystem: An Overview of the Modeling Framework and Syntax," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 14(1-2), pages 1-46, October.
    9. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 297-308, June.
    10. Ciccone, Antonio & Hall, Robert E, 1996. "Productivity and the Density of Economic Activity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(1), pages 54-70, March.
    11. Markusen, James R, 1989. "Trade in Producer Services and in Other Specialized Intermediate Inputs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(1), pages 85-95, March.
    12. Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas F. Rutherford & David G. Tarr, 2017. "Quantifying The Uruguay Round," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Trade Policies for Development and Transition, chapter 16, pages 363-388 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Steven J. Matusz & David G. Tarr, 2017. "Adjusting To Trade Policy Reform," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Trade Policies for Development and Transition, chapter 4, pages 77-114 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. Thomas J. Holmes, 1999. "Localization Of Industry And Vertical Disintegration," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(2), pages 314-325, May.
    15. Ethier, Wilfred J, 1982. "National and International Returns to Scale in the Modern Theory of International Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 389-405, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Zoryana Olekseyuk, 2015. "The EU-Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement and the importance of FDI," EcoMod2015 8391, EcoMod.
    2. Maryla Maliszewska & Irina Orlova & Svitlana Taran, 2009. "Deep Integration with the EU and its Likely Impact on Selected ENP Countries and Russia," CASE Network Reports 0088, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    3. Pyle, William & Solanko, Laura, 2010. "The composition and interests of Russia's business lobbies : A test of Olson's "encompassing organization" hypothesis," BOFIT Discussion Papers 5/2010, Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies in Transition.
    4. Kaitila, Ville, 2007. "Free Trade between the EU and Russia - Sectoral Effects and Impacts on Northwest Russia," Discussion Papers 1087, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    5. Anna A. Blyakhman, 2014. "Features of regional development in the modern economic framework in Russia," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(2), pages 143-152, June.

    More about this item


    Economic Theory&Research; ICT Policy and Strategies; Free Trade; Markets and Market Access; Investment and Investment Climate;

    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:wbk:wbrwps:4015. 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: (Roula I. Yazigi). 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.

    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.