World economy and international economic relations

Consequences of the integration to the Eurasian Economic Union: methodology of statistical evaluation and first results

Economic Annals-XXI

Economic Annals-ХХI: Volume 170, Issue 3-4, Pages: 4-9

Citation information:
Tikhonova, A., Melnikova, N., & Lukács, E. (2018). Consequences of the integration to the Eurasian Economic Union: methodology of statistical evaluation and first results. Economic Annals-XXI, 170(3-4), 4-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V170-01

View Full-TextDownload PDF

Anna Tikhonova
PhD (Economics),
Assistant Professor,
Department of Tax Policy and Customs Tariff Regulation,
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation;
Associate Professor of the Department of Statistics and Econometrics,
Russian State Agrarian University – Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy
49 Leningradsky Ave., Moscow, 125993, Russia
AVTihonova@fa.ru
ODCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8295-8113

Nadezhda Melnikova
PhD (Economics),
Professor,
Department of Tax Policy and Customs Tariff Regulation,
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
49 Leningradsky Ave., Moscow, 125993, Russia
NMelnikova@fa.ru
ODCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7497-9176

Eszter Lukács
PhD (Economics),
Associate Professor,
Széchenyi István University
1 Egyetem tér, Győr, H-9026, Hungary
lukacs.eszter@sze.hu
ODCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6066-6881

Consequences of the integration to the Eurasian Economic Union: methodology of statistical evaluation and first results

Abstract. The study represents an assessment of socio-economic integration consequences within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) for the participating countries – Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia. The authors implemented a personally developed approach of integral efficiency evaluation based on the calculation of the coefficients of state social and economic development indicators of growth as a main method for such assessment. These indicators allow us to characterise the following segments: national welfare, inflation, investment activity, labour market and the level of poverty, and the condition of the main economic sectors. The authors determined that Russia is the only export-oriented member of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). The worst consequences of integration in the cross-border trade sphere are observed in Belarus. For the analysed countries (excluding Kyrgyzstan), the first year of the existence of the EEU can be characterised as a period of economic recession (2015). According to the comparison of integral rates for the periods of 2005-2014 and 2015-2017, it was defined that the integration had a positive economic effect in the short term. By now, all the five participating countries have achieved the same level of social and economic development as in the pre-crisis period (2012-2013). In terms of the EEU membership, the calculated economic growth expands from 3% in Kyrgyzstan (by the integral index) up to 30% in the Republic of Belarus. Russia has also significantly strengthened its position (the growth rate of the index in 2015-17 was 25%).

Keywords: EEU; Integral Rate; Socio-economic Development; Economic Indicators; International Integration

JEL Classification: F15; F36; F43; C43

Acknowledgments: The article was prepared with the support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR); project No. 18-010-00527 (2017).

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V170-01

References

  1. Stiglitz, J. E. (2010). Risk and Global Economic Architecture: Why Full Financial Integration May Be Undesirable. American Economic Review, 100(2), 388-392.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.2.388
  2. Riccardo, C., & Croce, M. M. (2010). The Short and Long Run Benefits of Financial Integration. American Economic Review, 100(2), 527-531.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.2.527
  3. Mishina, V., & Khomyakova, L. (2014). Integrated currency market of the Eurasian Economic Space and home currency settlements: Myth or reality? Russian Journal of Economics, 8, 41-57 (in Russ.).
  4. Vinokurov, E. (2017). Eurasian Economic Union: Current state and preliminary results. Russian Journal of Economics, 3(1), 54-70.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ruje.2017.02.004
  5. Tarr, D. G. (2016). The Eurasian Economic Union of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and the Kyrgyz Republic: Can it succeed where its predecessor failed? Eastern European Economics, 54(1), 1-22.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2185517
  6. Pinskaya, M. R., Malis, N. I., & Milogolov, N. S. (2015). Rules of Taxation of Controlled Foreign Companies: A Comparative Study. Asian Social Science, 11(3), 274-281.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n3p274
  7. di Giovanni, J., Levchenko, A. A., & Zhang, J. (2014). The Global Welfare Impact of China: Trade Integration and Technological Change. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 6(3), 153-183.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.6.3.153
  8. Adao, R., Costinot, A., & Donaldson, D. (2017). Nonparametric Counterfactual Predictions in Neoclassical Models of International Trade. American Economic Review, 107(3), 633-689.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20150956
  9. Fabrizio, P., & Quadrini, V. (2018). International Recessions. American Economic Review, 108(4-5), 935-984.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20140412
  10. André, S. (2011). European Integration at the Crossroads: A Review Essay on the 50th Anniversary of Bela Balassa’s Theory of Economic Integration. Journal of Economic Literature, 49(4), 1200-1229.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.49.4.1200
  11. Aldokhina, T. (2017). Systematisation of effectiveness indicators for international economic integration. Economic Annals-XXI, 164(3-4), 28-31.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V164-06
  12. Zos-Kior, M., Kuksa, I., Samoilyk, Iu., & Storoška, M. (2017). Methodology for assessing globalisation development of countries. Economic Annals-XXI, 168(11-12), 4-8.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V168-01
  13. Öcal, E., Oral, E. L., & Erdis, E. (2006). Crisis management in Turkish construction industry. Building and Environment, 41(11), 1498-1503.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.05.042
  14. Kapelko, M., Lansink, A. O., & Stefanou, S. E. (2014). Assessing dynamic inefficiency of the Spanish construction sector pre- and post-financial crisis. European Journal of Operational Research, 237(1), 349-357.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.01.047
  15. Gogolová. M. (2015). The Impact of the Financial Crisis on the Labour Protection of Chosen Employer Brands in the Construction Industry in Slovakia. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 1434-1439.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00458-X
  16. Saidi, S., Shahbaz, M., & Akhtar, P. (2018). The long-run relationships between transport energy consumption, transport infrastructure, and economic growth in MENA countries. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 111, 78-95.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.03.013
  17. Saidi, S., & Hammami, S. (2017). Modeling the causal linkages between transport, economic growth and environmental degradation for 75 countries. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 53, 415-427.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.04.031
  18. Purwanto, A. J., Heyndrickx, Ch., Kiel, J., Betancor, O., Socorro, M. P., Hernandez, A., Eugenio-Martin, J. L., Pawlowska, B., Borkowski P., & Fiedler, R. (2017). Impact of Transport Infrastructure on International Competitiveness of Europe. Transportation Research Procedia, 25, 2877-2888.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.273
  19. Eurasian Economic Commission (2018). Statistical database.
    Retrieved from http://www.eec.eaeunion.org

Received 20.05.2017

View Full-TextDownload PDF
In, , , , ,

More Papers