Interdependence of Macroeconomic Indicators and Inequality in Kazakhstan and its Main Trading Partners

  • Bulat MukhamediyevEmail author
  • Tatyana Kudasheva
  • Azimzhan Khitakhunov
Conference paper
Part of the Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics book series (EBES, volume 8/2)


For the current stage of development of the world economy, a high degree of interdependence of macroeconomic indicators across countries is characterized. Business cycles pulse transmission can occur through many channels. They can occur as a result of observed shocks of global factors, such as the world price of oil, food products, and unobservable factors, such as the spread of new technologies. In the report the aim is to reveal the relationship of macroeconomic indicators of Kazakhstan and its main trading partners on the basis of a global vector autoregression model. The model includes 12 countries: Kazakhstan, China, Russia, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the United States. For its construction quarterly data for 1995–2013 years were used. Shocks of variables such as real GDP, inflation, short-term and long-term nominal interest rates, real exchange rate, Gini index, and responses to them in all countries are considered. Also, world oil price shocks has a strong influence. The constructed model makes it possible to assess the impact of the various shocks that arise in partner countries on macroeconomic performance in a small economy, including socio-economic indicators, such as income inequality. In particular, it became clear that a positive shock in real GDP in each country reduces inequality in the country and in other countries. Positive shocks to Russia Gini Index has also increased income inequality in Kazakhstan.


Interdependence Autoregression model Inequality Impulse-response analysis 



This study is a part of the project no. 1077/GF financed by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan.


  1. Auguste, D. (2012). European integration and income inequality convergence (Working Paper) [online]. Accessed September 13, 2016, from
  2. Beckfield, J. (2006). European integration and income inequality. American Sociological Review, 71, 964–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birdsall, N. (2001). Why inequality matters: Some economics issues. Ethics and International Affairs, 15(2), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brixiova, Z., & Treigiene, D. (2003). Globalization and growth in recent research [online]. Accessed March 02, 2017, from
  5. Cornia, G. A., & Kiiski, S. (2001). Trends in income distribution in the post WWII period: Evidence and interpretation (WIDER Discussion Paper. No. 2003/28).Google Scholar
  6. Czerewacz-Filipowicz, K. (2016). Economic and geoeconomic effects of the Eurasian Economic Union: Trade aspects. In M. H. Bilgin, H. Danis, E. Demir, & U. Can (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Eurasia Business and Economics Society conference – Country experiences in economic development, management and entrepreneurship (pp. 331–339). Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of American Statistical Association, 74, 427–431.Google Scholar
  8. Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (2015). Spreading the wealth [online]. Accessed February 02, 2016, from
  9. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  10. Goklani, I. M. (2015). Globalization of human wellbeing [online]. Accessed July 09, 2016, from
  11. Heshmati, А. (2003). Measurement of a multidimensional index of globalization and its impact on income inequality (WIDER Discussion Paper. No. 2003/69).Google Scholar
  12. Heshmati, A. (2005). The relationship between income inequality, poverty, and globalization (Research Paper No. 2005/37) [online]. Accessed March 02, 2017, from
  13. Johansen, S. (1992). Determination of cointegration rank in the presence of a linear trend. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 54(3), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jomo, J. S. (2015). Growth with equity in East Asia? (DESA Working Paper No. 33).Google Scholar
  15. Killick, T. (2001). Globalisation and the rural poor. Development Policy Review, 19(2), 155–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mauro, F., & Smith, V. (2013). The basic DdPS model. In F. Mauro & H. Pesaran (Eds.), The GVAR handbook: Structure and applications of a macro model in the global economy for policy analysis (pp. 12–32). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pearson, P. (1998). Social policy and European integration in centralization or fragmentation. In A. Moravcsik (Ed.), Europe facing the challenges of deepening, diversity, and democracy (pp. 124–158). New York, NY: Council on Foreign Relations Press.Google Scholar
  18. Pesaran, M. H., Schuermann, T., & Weiner, S. M. (2004). Modeling regional interdependencies using a global errorcorrecting macroeconometric model. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 22, 129–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith, L. V., & Galesi, A. (2014). GVAR Toolbox 2.0 [online]. Accessed October 15, 2016, from
  20. United Nations Development Programme. (2005). Human development report [online]. New York. Accessed June 22, 2016, from
  21. United Nations Development Programme. (2014). Human development report [online]. New York. Accessed June 12, 2016, from
  22. Wood, A. (1994). North-South trade, employment and inequality: Changing fortunes in a skill-driven economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bulat Mukhamediyev
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tatyana Kudasheva
    • 1
  • Azimzhan Khitakhunov
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsAl-Farabi Kazakh National UniversityAlmatyKazakhstan

Personalised recommendations