Deep Integration with the EU and its Likely Impact on Selected ENP Countries and Russia

Maliszewska, Maryla; Orlova, Iryna; Taran, Svitlana

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1518342

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Preferential arrangements of the European Union with its Mediterranean and Eastern neighbors led to several assessments of deep aspects of these agreements in Armington models, including Harrison, Rutherford and Tarr (1997a) for Turkey and Rutherford, Rutstrom and Tarr (1997;2000) for Morocco and Tunisia. Maliszewska et al (2009) employed a multi-region model with imperfect competition to examine bilateral deep integration between the EU and five countries in the former Soviet Union: the Russian Federation, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine. They estimated substantial welfare gains to the partner countries of the EU from deep integration, but acknowledge their estimates are upward biased since they are based on a comparative steady-state model.…”

Section: Estimates Of Goods Market Preferential Liberalization: Beyonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of deep integration in the Melitz, Krugman and Armington models: The case of The Philippines in RCEP

Balistreri

Tarr²

2020

Economic Modelling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.

show abstract

Section: Estimates Of Goods Market Preferential Liberalization: Beyonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of deep integration in the Melitz, Krugman and Armington models: The case of The Philippines in RCEP

Balistreri

Tarr²

2020

Economic Modelling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, given the evidence from Hummels and Schauer (2013) that time-in-trade (transport) costs vary considerably by product and country, we use publicly available estimates of the product and country time-in-trade costs to estimate bilateral time-in-trade costs by product and country, not just by country. although their models were limited relative to the model of this paper, two earlier papers have considered deep integration in the region with the EU: Jensen and Tarr (2012) for Armenia, and Maliszewska et al (2009) for the Russian Federation, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine. 7…”

Section: Estimates Of Trade Policy Options In Armenia Belarus Kazakmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10 There has been some progress in trade facilitation with the formal elimination of customs posts between the member countries; but problems at the border between Belarus and the Russian Federation as well as at the border between Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz Republic 11 show that 7 In work led by Jesper Jensen, David Tarr and Oleksandr Shepotylo, The World Bank (2012) published an evaluation of the impact of the Eurasian Customs Union on Kazakhstan that included an effort at estimating potential trade facilitation and non-tariff barrier reduction. As mentioned above, Maliszewska et al (2009) evaluated the impact of a deep free trade agreement between the EU and five CIS countries, bilaterally. In an unpublished paper focusing on tariff changes, Alekseev, Turdyeva, Sokolov and Yudaeva (2004) assessed the trade and welfare impacts of preferential trade policy options and WTO accession of the Russian Federation.…”

Section: Eaeu Achievements and Setbacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deep Integration in the Eurasian Economic Union: What are the Benefits of Successful Implementation or Wider Liberalization?

Knobel

Lipin

Malokostov³

et al. 2018

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We assess deep integration in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) through the reduction of time in trade costs, the reduction of non-tariff barriers in goods and the liberalization of barriers against foreign suppliers of services. We develop an innovative multi-region model of trade and FDI for preferential trade analysis where we incorporate Dixit-Stiglitz endogenous productivity effects from trade and FDI liberalization. This model produces important differences compared with a perfect competition model. We build on numerous surveys and econometric estimates of the trade and FDI barriers in our focus countries that we helped develop.We show that if the EAEU effectively implements its objectives for trade cost reduction, it would lead to significant welfare gains of between 0.8 to 4.8 percent of consumption, depending on the country. If these deep integration measures are extended to third countries, either by a wider liberalization effort or by spillovers, then the estimated welfare gains increase between 2.5 and 4.5 times for Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation. Using the neoclassical model of labor migration, we estimate that the right to legally work in the Russian Federation is approximately of equal value to Armenia as the combined aspects of the reduction of trade costs, including FDI liberalization. Our estimates show that all the spillovers are beneficial to all the EAEU countries. Among the various reforms under consideration, we identify which reform is most important for each EAEU member country; and we identify whether the European Union, China or the United States is the most important external region for each member country if the reforms are extended to third countries.assumption. We are the first to provide estimates of these trade costs impacts for the EAEU countries with and without spillovers to third countries. We also contribute to the literature by providing an estimate of the free movement of labor, where we employ the well-known neoclassical model of labor migration. Key ResultsOur results for our central (basic) scenario of EAEU integration shows significant gains ranging from 0.8 percent of consumption for the Russian Federation to 4.8 percent of consumption for Armenia. If the measures to reduce trade costs and liberalize barriers against FDI in services are extended to third countries, either by a wider liberalization effort or by unavoidable extension of benefits (called "spillovers"), then the estimated gains increase to between 3.6 and 7.2 percent of consumption, depending on the country. The importance of spillovers is especially true for FDI liberalization. The significantly larger gains from wider liberalization or spillovers reflects the fact that the five EAEU countries collectively have only 2.2 percent of world GDP in 2017. The estimated gains are significantly smaller with our perfect competition model, which shows the importance of incorporating the endogenous productivity gains from trade and FDI liberalization in services.Since remittance income is very impor...

show abstract

“…In the other part, the benefits for the Russian economy will certainly be higher than for the European Union [9]. In the third part, it has been proved that the benefits of the Russian economy from the liberalization of trade with the European Union are not definitely positive or negative, as they depend on the trade integration formats and effects appeared at the level of the sectors [10,11]. Using the general equilibrium model that depends on different variants of the liberalization of trade between BRICS countries, estimates were obtained that indicate the overall appearance of the positive effects for the Russian economy with certain risks of the import increase and a reduction in the production in some branches [12,13], as well as negative effects related to the integration of other countries and associations [14].…”

Section: Two Approaches To Obtaining Estimates Of Consequences Of the System Of Trade Liberalization For National Economiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Liberalization of Russia’s trade with the European Union, BRICS, and Trans-Pacific Partnership countries

Izotov

2017

Stud. Russ. Econ. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

⎯The general trade effects and changes in the commodity and geographical trade structures for Russia under the condition of integrating trade with countries of the European Union, BRICS and Trans-Pacific Partnership have been estimated in the article. It has been stated that it is preferable for the Russian economy to approach European Union countries in order to obtain the maximum values of the welfare effect and trade-creation effect, and to proportionally increase the export and import volumes with the BRICS countries. Based on the prolongation of the shortterm tendencies, the long-term challenges to the Russian economy and possibilities of liberalizing trade with the mentioned trade unions have been specified.

show abstract

Deep Integration with the EU and its Likely Impact on Selected ENP Countries and Russia

Cited by 11 publications

References 15 publications

Comparison of deep integration in the Melitz, Krugman and Armington models: The case of The Philippines in RCEP

Comparison of deep integration in the Melitz, Krugman and Armington models: The case of The Philippines in RCEP

Deep Integration in the Eurasian Economic Union: What are the Benefits of Successful Implementation or Wider Liberalization?

Liberalization of Russia’s trade with the European Union, BRICS, and Trans-Pacific Partnership countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About