Impact of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia on Regional Trade

Conference paper
Part of the Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics book series (EBES, volume 8/2)

Abstract

In 2010 Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia formed a Customs Union. This union is known as a new generation of regional organizations in the post-Soviet space. The reasons of formation of such kind of Union are either economical or political. In 2015 all the above mentioned core countries formed Eurasian Economic Union with the inclusion of Armenia and Kyrgyz Republic. Statistical analysis shows that Customs Union had a significant impact on regional trade. Internal trade boosted during 2011–2012 and then tended to decline due to slowdown of Russian economy. Russian economic decline negatively impacted on regional growth and trade. Thus, objective of this paper is to determine the impact of Customs Union on regional trade with application of gravity model. By using data for the period of 2000–2015, we show that impact of Customs Union on regional trade was negative, but insignificant. These results can be explained by the structural problems of the regional economy, unfavorable external conditions, low level of economic diversification and a short period of the Customs Union functioning.

Keywords

Kazakhstan Regional integration Eurasian Economic Union International trade Gravity model 

References

  1. Aitken, N. D. (1973). The effects of the EEC and EFTA on European Trade: A temporal cross-section analysis. American Economic Review, 63(4), 881–892.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. (1979). A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. The American Economic Review, 69(1), 106–116.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J., & Wincoop, E. (2003). Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle. The American Economic Review, 93(1), 170–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baier, S., & Bergstrand, J. (2007). Do free trade agreements actually increase members’ international trade? Journal of International Economics, 71, 72–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baier, S. L., Bergstrand, J. H., Egger, P., & McLaughlin, P. A. (2008). Do economic integration agreements actually work? Issues in understanding the causes and consequences of the growth of regionalism. The World Economy, 31(4), 461–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldwin, R. (2014). Multilateralising 21st regionalism. Global forum on trade. Reconciling regionalism and multilateralism in a post-Bali world (pp. 1–46). Paris: OECD Conference Centre.Google Scholar
  7. Baldwin, R., & Taglioni, D. (2006). Gravity for dummies and dummies for gravity equations. [online]. Accessed September 21, 2016, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w12516
  8. Bergstrand, J. (1990). The Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson Model, the linder hypothesis and the determinants of bilateral intra-industry trade. The Economic Journal, 100(403), 1216–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deardoff, A. (1998). Determinants of bilateral trade: Does gravity work in a neoclassical world? [online]. Accessed September 22, 2016, from http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7818.pdf
  10. Egger, P. H., & Pfaffermayr, M. (2013). The pure effects of European integration on Intra-EU core and periphery trade. The World Economy, 36(6), 701–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eurasian Economic Commission. (2016). Mutual trade in goods of the Customs Union and Common Economic Space members for 2015. Statistical bulletin [online]. Accessed October 5, 2016, from http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/act/integr_i_makroec/dep_stat/tradestat/tables/intra/Documents/2015/12_180/I201512_2_2.pdf
  12. Freund, C. (2010). Third-country effects of regional trade agreements. The World Economy, 33(11), 1589–1605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gil, S., Llorca, R., & Martinez-Serrano, J. A. (2008). Assessing the enlargement and deepening of the European Union. The World Economy, 31(9), 1253–1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. International Trade Centre. (2016). [online]. Accessed September 20, 2016, from www.intracen.org
  15. Khitakhunov, A., Mukhamediyev, B., & Pomfret, R. (2016). Eurasian Economic Union: Present and future perspectives. Economic Change and Restructuring, 1–19.Google Scholar
  16. Lee, J. W., Park, I., & Shin, K. (2008). Proliferating regional trade arrangements: Why and whither? The World Economy, 31(12), 1525–1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCallum, J. (1995). National borders matters: Canada-US regional trade patterns. The American Economic Review, 85(3), 615–623.Google Scholar
  18. Montalbano, P., & Nenci, S. (2014). Assessing the trade impact of the European Neighbourhood Policy on the EU-MED Free Trade Area. Applied Economics, 46(7), 730–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mukhamediyev, B., & Khitakhunov, A. (2017). Central Asian integration and its impact on regional trade and economy. In M. H. Bilgin et al. (Eds.), Country experiences in economic development, Management and entrepreneurship. Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46319-3_2
  20. Sapir, A. (2001). Domino effects in Western European Regional Trade, 1960–1992. European Journal of Political Economy, 17(2), 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Viner, J. (1950). The Customs Union issue. New York: The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
  22. World Bank. (2012). Assessment of costs and benefits of the Customs Union for Kazakhstan. Report No. 65977-KZ [pdf]. Accessed April 25, 2015, from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/2722/659770ESW0P1230on0Final0jan0302012.pdf?sequence=1
  23. WTO. (2010). World tariff profiles. [pdf]. Accessed July 10, 2015, from https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/tariff_profiles10_e.pdf
  24. WTO. (2015). World tariff profiles. Accessed April 10, 2015, from https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/tariff_profiles14_e.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsAl-Farabi Kazakh National UniversityAlmatyKazakhstan

Personalised recommendations