|Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Inter-industry effects from Russian trade integration into the EAEU
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2017-10-123-139
Abstract
В статье с использованием методологии межотраслевого анализа уточняются представления о значимости отраслей в качестве потребителей и производителей промежуточной продукции и оценивается влияние интеграции в торговле товарами со странами Евразийского экономического союза (ЕАЭС) на выпуск и отдельные экономические показатели для России по видам деятельности. Показано, что структура выгод от торговой интеграции трансформируется при переходе к анализу в терминах добавленной стоимости: в химическом комплексе и машиностроении выгоды сокращаются, несмотря на сохранение лидирующих позиций этих отраслей, а в сфере услуг и промежуточных производствах, и прежде всего в добыче полезных ископаемых, - напротив, растут.
About the Authors
D. Galimov
Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting; Institute of Economic Forecasting, Russian Academy of Sciences; National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. Gnidchenko
Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting; Institute of Economic Forecasting, Russian Academy of Sciences; National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
E. Sabelnikova
Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting; Institute of Economic Forecasting, Russian Academy of Sciences; National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
V. Salnikov
Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting; Institute of Economic Forecasting, Russian Academy of Sciences; National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Apokin A. Yu., Gnidchenko A. A., Sabelnikova E. M. (2017). Import substitution potential and gains from economic integration: Disaggregated estimations. Ekonomicheskaya Politika, No. 2, pp. 44—71. (In Russian).
2. Baranov E. F., Kim I. A., Piontkovski D. I., Staritsyna E. A. (2014). Problems of constructing Russian input-output tables into the international classifications. HSE Economic Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 7—42. (In Russian).
3. Gnidchenko А. А. (2016). Potential gains from integration for the BRICS: Export growth opportunities at the commodity level. In: Economic theory and practice: Global challenges. Proceedings of the International conference “Evolution of international trading system: Prospects and challenges—2016”. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University, 2016, pp. 24—33. (In Russian).
4. Eurasian Development Bank (2012). Comprehensive assessment of the macroeconomic effects of various forms of deep economic integration of Ukraine and the member states of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space. St. Petersburg: EDB Centre for Integration Studies.
5. Zakharchenko N. G. (2014). Structural core of the region’s economic system: Assessment methods. Prostranstvennaya Ekonomika, No. 3, pp. 111—137. (In Russian).
6. Kadochnikov P., Knobel A., Sinelnikov-Murylev S. (2016). Openness of the Russian economy as a source of economic growth. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 12, pp. 26—42. (In Russian).
7. Sabelnikova E. M. (2016). Approaches to evaluation of effects of economic integration on industry level: Review of international practices. Nauchnye Trudy: Institut Narodnokhozyaystvennogo Prognozirovaniya RAN, No. 1, pp. 433—460. (In Russian).
8. Salnikov V. A., Gnidchenko A. A., Galimov D. I. (2016). Industry-level effects from integration between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan through industrial cooperation. Problemy Prognozirovaniya, No. 1, pp. 134—148. (In Russian).
9. Shirov A. A., Sayapova A.R., Yantovskii A.A. (2015). Integrated input-output balance as an element of analysis and forecasting in the post-soviet space. Problemy Prognozirovaniya, No. 1, pp. 11—21. (In Russian).
10. Balassa B. (1965). Trade liberalization and revealed comparative advantage. Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 99-123.
11. Beņkovskis K., Pastušenko J., Wörz J. (2014). Assessing the full extent of trade integration between the EU and Russia - a global value chain perspective. Focus on European Economic Integration, Vol. 3, pp. 31-47.
12. Foster N., Stehrer R., Timmer M. (2013). International fragmentation of production, trade and growth: Impacts and prospects for EU member states (Research Report, No. 387). Vienna: Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies.
13. Ghosh A. (1958). Input-output approach in an allocation system. Economica, Vol. 25, No. 97, pp. 58-64.
14. Gretton P. (2013). On input-output tables: Uses and abuses (Staff Research Note). Canberra: Productivity Commission.
15. Hasebe Y., Shrestha N. (2006). Economic integration in East Asia: An international input-output analysis. World Economy, Vol. 29, No. 12, pp. 1709-1735.
16. Kalra S. (2010). ASEAN: A chronicle of shifting trade exposure and regional integration. IMF Working Paper, No. WP/10/119.
17. Leitner S.M., Stehrer R. (2014). Trade integration, production fragmentation and performance in Europe - blessing or curse? A comparative analysis of the new member states and the EU-15 (Research Report No. 397). Vienna: Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies.
18. Leontief W. (1944). Output, employment, consumption and investment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 290-314.
19. Mori T., Sasaki H. (2007). Interdependence of production and income in Asia-Pacific economies: An international input-output approach. Bank of Japan Working Paper Series, No. 07-E-26.
20. Oosterhaven J. (1988). On the plausibility of the supply-driven input-output model. Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 203-217.
21. Oosterhaven J., Stelder D. (2002). Net multipliers avoid exaggerating impacts: With a bi-regional illustration for the Dutch transportation sector. Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 533-543.
22. Planting M. A., Guo J. (2002). Increasing the timeliness of U.S. annual I-O accounts. BEA Working Papers, No. WP2002-04.
23. Pula G., Peltonen T.A. (2009). Has Emerging Asia Decoupled? An analysis of production and trade linkages using the Asian International Input-Output Table. ECB Working Paper Series, No. 993.
24. Sancho F. (2013). Some conceptual difficulties regarding ‘net’ multipliers. Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 537-552.
25. Timmer M. P., Dietzenbacher E., Los B., Stehrer R., de Vries G. J. (2015). An illustrated user guide to the World Input-Output Database: The case of global automotive production. Review of International Economics, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 575-605.
Review
For citations:
Galimov D., Gnidchenko A., Sabelnikova E., Salnikov V. Inter-industry effects from Russian trade integration into the EAEU. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2017;(10):123-139. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2017-10-123-139
Views:
827
Email this article 
