World economy and international economic relations

Post-communist financial and economic development: cluster analysis of selected countries

Economic Annals-XXI

Economic Annals-ХХI: Volume 161, Issue 9-10, Pages: 12-17

Citation information:
Reiff, M., & Tokar, V. (2016). Post-communist financial and economic development: cluster analysis of selected countries. Economic Annals-XXI, 161(9-10), 12-17. doi: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V161-03

View Full-TextDownload PDF

Marian Reiff
PhD (Economics),
Assistant Professor,
University of Economics in Bratislava
1 Dolnozemska cesta Str., Bratislava, 85235, Slovak Republic
marian.reiff@euba.sk

Volodymyr Tokar
D.Sc. (Economics),
Professor,
Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman
54/1 Peremohy Ave., Kyiv, 03680, Ukraine
tokarww@ukr.net

Post-communist financial and economic development: cluster analysis of selected countries

Abstract. Purpose. The purpose of this paper is to disclose and explain disparities of social and economic development of twenty-eight post-communist countries based on the World Bank’s macroeconomic indicators of the selected countries in 2000-2014. The paper questions whether post-communist countries are homogeneous within certain groupings and essentially different across different groupings. The differences are defined in accordance with World Development Indicators.

Methods. We have applied cluster analysis to classify post-communist countries based on the long-term average of macroeconomic indicators including: GDP per capita, GDP per capita growth, Foreign direct investment net inflows (percentage of GDP), Agriculture value added (percentage of GDP), Industry value added (percentage of GDP), Total natural resources rents (percentage of GDP), and Value added (percentage of GDP), etc. The Kruskal-Wallis rank test procedure has been used to verify differences between clusters of evidence.

Results. Taking into consideration the results obtained via Ward’s method we divided post-communist countries into three relatively homogeneous clusters. Cluster 1 consisted of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan although Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan were assigned to Cluster 2 in the period of 2010-2014. Cluster 2 included Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, FYR of Macedonia, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The third cluster comprised Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovak Republic. The Kruskal-Wallis rank test indicates statistically significant cluster differences (0.05 level of significance) for GDP per capita, GDP per capita growth, Inflation GDP deflator, Agriculture value added, Total natural resources rents, Services etc. value added. The only exception is GDP per capita growth, which has not been significantly different in 2000-2004. The conclusions are based on p-values, which have been compared with values appropriate to the level of significance (a = 0.05).

Conclusions Although all countries in our research were post-communist countries, their economic trajectory after communism was far from being identical. We have found fairly consistent evidence that post-communist countries differ with respect to their social and economic dynamics and can be grouped into three relatively homogeneous clusters.

Keywords: Cluster Analysis; Post-communist Countries; Macroeconomic Indicators; Economic Development; Social and Economic Discrepancies

JEL Classification: C53; E63; F15; F43; F47

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V161-03

References

  1. Abbott, P., & Wallace, C. (2014). Rising Economic Prosperity and Social Quality the Case of New Member States of the European Union. Social Indicators Research, 115(1),419-439.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-9992-0
  2. Bah, E., & Brada, J. C. (2014). Labor Markets in the Transition Economies: An Overview. The European Journal of Comparative Economics,11(1), 3-53.
    Retrieved from http://eaces.liuc.it/18242979201401/182429792014110101.pdf
  3. Czarnecki, K. (2014). The higher education policy of «post-communist» countries in the context of welfare regimes. Poznan University of Economics Review, 14(2), 43-62.
    Retrieved from http://www.ebr.edu.pl/pub/2014_2_43.pdf
  4. Domonkos, T., & Ostrihon, F. (2015). Inclusive Growth in Selected Central European Countries. Ekonomicky casopis (Economic Journal), 63(9), 881-905.
    Retrieved from https://www.sav.sk/journals/uploads/0620131109%2015%20Domonkos-Ostrihon%20+%20RS.pdf
  5. Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster Analysis. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., UK.
  6. Grancay, M., Sumilo, E., Vveinhardt, J. (2015). Trade in Central and Eastern European Countries Ten Years after Their EU Accession – Is There Convergence? Society and Economy, 37(4), 443-446.
    Retrieved from http://www.akademiai.com/doi/abs/10.1556/204.2015.37.4.2
  7. Hiekel, N., Liefbroer A. C., Poortman, A. (2014). Understanding Diversity in the Meaning of Cohabitation Across Europe. European Journal of Population, 30, 391-410.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-014-9321-1
  8. Holmes, L. (2013). Postcommunist Transitions and Corruption: Mapping Patterns. Social Research, 80(4), 1163-1186.
    Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/541991/pdf
  9. Roosma, F., Gelissen, J., & Oorschot, W. (2013). The Multidimensionality of Welfare State Attitudes: A European Cross-National Study. Social Indicators Research, 113, 235-255.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0099-4
  10. StataCorp (2015). Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
  11. Tamilina, L., & Tamilina, N. (2014). Heterogeneity in Institutional Effects on Economic Growth: Theory and Empirical Evidence. The European Journal of Comparative Economics, 11(2), 205-249.
    Retrieved from http://eaces.liuc.it/18242979201402/182429792014110202.pdf
  12. Wagner, H. (2014). Can We Expect Convergence through Monetary Integration? (New) OCA Theory versus Empirical Evidence from European Integration. Comparative Economic Studies, 56(2), 176-199.
    Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2444703
  13. Williams, C. C., Horodnic, I. A. (2015). Explaining and Tackling the Shadow Economy in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania: a Tax Morale Approach. Baltic Journal of Economics, 15(2), 81-98.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1406099X.2015.1114714
  14. World Bank (2016). World Development Indicators.
    Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/all
  15. Yarashevich, V. (2014). Post-communist Economic Integration: Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Journal of Economic Integration, 29(4), 582-623.
    Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43150571
  16. Zeaiter, H. F., Khalil, R. E., & Fakih, K. (2015). Economic Development and Sub-Regional Identities. The Journal of Developing Areas, 49(1),157-176.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2015.0032

Received 30.09.2016

View Full-TextDownload PDF
In, , , , ,

More Papers