Skip to main content

Russia-EU gas game analysis: evidence from a new proposed trade model

Abstract

This paper represents a new proposed trade model of “Intercountries Trade Force (ITF)” which is inspired by Intermolecular Interaction Forces in chemical sciences, and has potential to compensate for the deficiencies of the gravity trade model proposed by Jan Tinbergen in 1962. The main differences between our new model and the earlier gravity trade theory are (i) there is a time-variant variable called the gravity index (GI) which means that the earlier gravity theory was treated as only a variable in our new proposed model and (ii) our new proposed trade model has a higher chance of adoption in the real trade world rather than the earlier gravity trade model which always needs to be expanded by scholars. In order to empirically test our new proposed trade model, we applied it in an empirical econometric model to analyze the Russian gas export to the EU member states, not explored earlier. Results revealed that our new trade proposed model adjusts with the empirical energy trade pattern.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Anderson JE, Wincoop V (2003) Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. Am Econ Rev 93(1):170–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker Schaffer M (2008) The great gas pipleline game: monopolistic expansion of Russia’s Gazprom into European markets. Foresight 10(5):11–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bialynicka-Birula J (2015) Modelling international trade in art-modified gravity approach. Procedia Economics and Finance 30:91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caporale GM, Sova A, Sova R (2015) Trade flows and trade specialization: the case of China. China Econ Rev 34:261–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Mello-Sampayo F (2017) Testing competing destinations gravity models – evidence from BRIC International. J Int Trade Econ Dev 26(3):277–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dignum M, Correlje A, Groenleer M, Scholten D (2018) Governing through visions: evaluating the performativity of the European gas target models. Energy Res Soc Sci 35:193–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabir M, Salim R, Al-Mawali N (2017) The gravity model and trade flows: recent developments in econometric modeling and empirical evidence. Econ Anal Policy 56:60–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khrushcheva O, Maltby T (2016) The future of EU-Russia energy relations in the context of decarbonization. Geopolitics 21(4):799–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konoplyanik AA (2012) Russian gas at European energy market: why adaptation is inevitable. Energ Strat Rev 1(1):42–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koo WW, Karemera D, Taylor R (1994) A gravity model analysis of meat trade policies. Agric Econ 10(1):81–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Coq C, Paltseva E (2012) Assessing gas transit risks: Russia vs. the EU. Energy Policy 42:642–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locatelli C (2015) EU-Russia trading relations: the challenges of a new gas architecture. Eur J Law Econ 39(2):313–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lund Sagen E, Tsygankova M (2008) Russian natural gas exports – will Russian gas price reforms improve the European security of supply? Energy Policy 36(2):867–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masudur Rahman M, Arjuman Ara L (2010) Bangladesh trade potential: a dynamic gravity approach. J Int Trade Law Policy 9(2):130–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazhikeyev A, Edwards T-H, Rizov M (2015) Openness and isolation: the trade performance of the former Soviet Central Asian countries. Int Bus Rev 24(6):935–947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medlock KB, Myers Jaffe A, O’Sullivan M (2014) The global gas market, LNG exports and the shifting US geopolitical presence. Energy Strat Rev 5:14–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitrova T, Boersma T, Galkina A (2016) Some future scenarios of Russian natural gas in Europe. Energy Strat Rev 11-12:19–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molini V, Filippini C (2003) The determinants of East Asian trade flows: a gravity equation approach. J Asian Econ 14(5):695–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayan S, Nguyen TT (2016) Does the trade gravity model depend on trading partners? Some evidence from Vietnam and her 54 trading partners. Int Rev Econ Financ 41:220–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okubo T (2007) Trade bloc formation in inter-war Japan: a gravity model analysis. J Japan Int Econ 21(2):214–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Projan A (2001) Trade flows and spatial effects: the gravity model revisited. Open Econ Rev 12(3):265–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quast O, Locatelli C (1997) Russian natural gas policy and its possible effects on European gas markets. Energy Policy 25(2):125–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasoulinezhad E, Saboori B (2018) Panel estimation for renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, CO2 emissions, the composite trade intensity, and financial openness of the commonwealth of independent states. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(18):17354–17370

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saboori B, Rasoulinezhad E, Sung J (2017) The nexus of oil consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in China, Japan and South Korea. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(8):7436–7455

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santana-Gallego M, Ledesma-Rodriguez FJ, Perez-Rodriguez JV (2016) International trade and tourism flows: an extension of the gravity model. Econ Model 52 (Part B:1026–1033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharples J (2016) The shifting geopolitics of Russia’s natural gas exports and their impact on EU-Russia gas relations. Geopolitics 21(4):880–912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soderbergh B, Jakobsson K, Aleklett K (2010) European energy security: an analysis of future Russian natural gas production and exports. Energy Policy 38(12):7827–7843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solarin SA, Shahbaz M (2015) Natural gas consumption and economic growth: the role of foreign direct investment, capital formation and trade openness in Malaysia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 42:835–845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spanjer A (2007) Russian gas price reform and the EU-Russia gas relationship: incentives, consequences and European security of supply. 35 (5):2889–2898

  • Stulberg AN (2017) Natural gas and the Russia-Ukraine crisis: strategic restraint and the emerging Europe-Eurasia gas network. 24:71–85.

  • Sudhir Kulkami S, Kristle Nathan HS (2016) The elephant and the tiger: energy security, geopolitics, and national strategy in China and India’s cross border gas pipelines. Energy Res Soc Sci 11:183–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taguchi H (2013) Trade integration of Thailand with Mekong region: an assessment using gravity trade model. Int J Dev Issues 12(2):175–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tichy L, Odintsov N (2016) Can Iran reduce EU dependence on Russian gas? Middle East Policy 17(1):110–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen J (1962) Shaping the world economy; suggestions for an international economic policy. Books (Jan Tinbergen). Twentieth Century Fund, New York. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16826

  • Ulengin F, Cekray B, Palut P-T, Ulengin B, Kabak O, Ozaydin O, Ekici S-O (2015) Effects of quotas on Turkish foreign trade: a gravity model. Transp Policy 38:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yegorov Y, Wirl F (2011) Gas transportation, geopolitics and future market structure. Futures. 43(10):1056–1068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu M (2010) Trade, democracy and the gravity equation. J Dev Econ 91(2):289–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang G, Dou L, Xi Y (2019) Opportunities and challenges of natural gas development and utilization in China. Clean Techn Environ Policy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-019-01690-4

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ehsan Rasoulinezhad.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues

Appendix

Appendix

In chemical science, Kessom interaction can be shown by the following formula:

$$ V=\frac{-{m}_1^2{m}_2^2}{24{\pi}^2{\varepsilon}_0^2{\varepsilon}_{\mathrm{r}}^2{k}_{\mathrm{b}}T{r}^6} $$
(4)

Here, m indicates the dipole moment, є0 and єr represent free space, and dielectric constant of surrounding material, respectively. T is temperature, k denotes Boltzmann constant, and r shows distance between molecules.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rasoulinezhad, E., Jabalameli, F. Russia-EU gas game analysis: evidence from a new proposed trade model. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26, 24482–24488 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05681-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05681-2

Keywords

  • Trade pattern
  • Gas export
  • Trade theory

JEL Classification

  • F10
  • Q43
  • C23