CC BY
19
12 СОЦИАЛЬНО-ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ И ГУМАНИТАРНЫЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ
- узаконение перехода прав собственности на реструктуризированные госпредприятия к заграничным юридическим либо физическим лицам.
Привлечение зарубежных инвестиций в китайские госпредприятия и согласие перехода прав собственности на госпредприятия к иностранным инвесторам (в том числе посредством слияний и поглощений) послужит стимулом для новой волны вложений в китайскую экономику.
Список литературы:
1. Акопова Е.С., Воронкова О.Н., Гаврилко Н.Н. Мировая экономика и международные экономические отношения. - М., Феникс, 2000.
2. Киреев А. Международная экономика. - М.: Международные отношения, 2005. - Ч. 1.
3. Пебро М. Международные экономические, валютные, финансовые отношения: пер. с франц. - М.: Прогресс-Универс, 2004.
4. Райзберг Б.А., Лозовский Л.Ш., Стародубцева Е.Б.Современный экономический словарь. - 5-е изд., перераб. и доп. - М.: ИНФРА-М, 2007. - 495 с.
5. Сайт «Министерство экономического развития Российской Федерации» [Электронный ресурс]. - Режим доступа: http://www.ved.gov.ru/export-countries/cn/about cn/eco cn/.
MANAGED TRADE OF CUSTOMS UNION BETWEEN BELARUS, KAZAKHSTAN AND RUSSIA
© Ratushnyak E.S.*
MGIMO University, Moscow
This paper explores the trade effect of developing intra-block cooperation of three countries, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, during the formation of customs unions. The Customs Union (further - CU) and Common Economic Space between these countries are the base for the creation of a Eurasian Economic Union (further - EEU). Reactions of policy-makers and analysts have ranged from describing the plan as a pipedream to the next real thing. In this context, in the lead-up to the creation of EEU, foreseen for 2015, it is very important to estimate the efficiency of creating single market especially in terms of reducing trade barriers as the base of the CU functioning. But in spite of the irrepressible desire of the leaders of these countries to deepen its cooperation the current rates of transaction between the members of the future EEU shows an imbalanced pattern of regional trade integration. Further integration within the framework of the Common Economic Space
* Postgraduate student of International economic activity management department.
Мировая экономика и международные экономические отношения
13
is foreseen, with the ultimate goal of achieving free movement of goods, capital and labor and involving new members, for instance the Kyrgyz Republic, but the real present economic situation is far from goals states want to achieve.
Keywords: Customs Union, exports, imports, region integration, mutual trade.
Under the current world economic and political specific conditions the role of different multilateral cooperation for Customs Union participants become more and more important and crucial to survive. It is important to remember that during the negotiation period before the CU came into force the countries sustained a relatively low level of overall protection. Once the custom unions are fully formed, countries need to engage in heavy utilization of «special-protection» tools so that multilateral cooperation does not break down. But now when Russian has to answer to European sanctions the CU members' support is crucial for it. Although Belarus is ready to help it replacing European import to Russia the result remains bleary. In this connection it is very important to ascertain the current rate of transaction between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan and to assess the progress in developing integration within the frameworks of the custom unions.
In general still there is a lack of data to draw a definite conclusion about the effective strength of CU's countries trade-economic cooperation. It is conditional upon the functioning period of CU (full three years) but the first previous gains can be assessed.
The volume of mutual trade of three countries-participants in 2010-2013 contained 242953, 8 million dollars, including 47134,6 million dollars in 2010, 64136,1 million dollars - 2013 [1]. This pointer has been assessed as the amount of costs distributions. Therewith the accretion accounted for 36.1 % in comparison with the year of 2010. It is remarkable that the critical point of growth rate was reached in 2011 and accounted for 133,9 %, although it dropped to 93,5 % by the end of 2013 in comparison with 2012 [1]. It probably could be explained because of a large number of dispute, misunderstanding and lack of most recent customs knowledge arising between foreign trade operators in their processes of the earlier stage of CU functioning.
The core the core economy of the Customs Union is Russia, it furnished 40574,4 million dollars during the mutual CU participants trade by the end of 2013 or 63,3 % of total intra-union trade, Belarus accounted for 27,6 % (17698,1 million dollars), Kazakhstan like Russia reduced the volume of its export and accounted for 9,1 % (5863,6 million dollars) [1].
It is necessary to take account of trade structures to understand the economic rationale behind the establishment of the CU.
The trade structure of CU shows that three countries have low interdependence: the development of trade relations of three countries, Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan, is erratical. For instance, the share of Kazakhstan softly decreases,
14 СОЦИАЛЬНО-ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ И ГУМАНИТАРНЫЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ
on the contrary, Belarus expand. Along with this, it is indubitable that there is little trilateral intra-bloc connection.
The trends and figures above illustrate that the mutual trade in the CU was mainly aggregated by Russia, which had rather intense trade links with the two other members of the economic union, whereas Belarus and Kazakhstan had very limited trade flows in goods between them.
In order to elicit the above stated trend it was calculated the following readings in the table 1. The data represents variation of CU intra-union trade relations in 2008 and 2013.
Given the data above it is necessary to conclude that intra-block trade connection is developing erratically. Trade volume within the block increased in 2013 in comparison the number of 2008. Nevertheless, the shares of exports to the CIS in the total exports of goods from Russia and Belarus enlarged whereas the comparable number of Kazakhstan decreased. The current stage of CU development can be marked by little trade divergence effect [2].
Further, it is necessary to take account of trade structures of three countries.
CU's trade structure is heavily reliant on the export of crude oil and oil products, natural gas, machinery and equipment, metals accounted for about a little more than 80 % of total exports in 2013, with such a number of manufactured products accounted for less than a quarter of total exports in mentioned year [4, 5].
Table 1
The variation of CU intra-union trade relations in 2008 and 2013, absolute comparative figures
| 2008 | 2013
CU trade turnover, million dollars
Russia - all countries 734 681,3 847 488,5
Kazakhstan - all countries 109 072,5 131 384,3
Belarus - all countries 71 952,1 80 233,8
of which to CU in total 108 894,4 (100 %) 128 109,9 (100 %)
which includes
Russia - CU 53 737,4 (49,3 %) 63 209,7 (49,3 %)
Kazakhstan - CU 20 560,7 (18,9 %) 24 230,9 (18,9 %)
Belarus - Ш 34 596,3 (31,8 %) 40 669,3 (31,7 %)
CU Trade structure in the total state turnover, %
Russia 7,3 7,5
Kazakhstan 18,9 18,4
Belarus 48,1 50,7
Sources: [4, 5].
CU's trade structure is predicated upon Russia’s trade structure had the share of 63 % of total exports in 2013. One of the greatest item of Russia's exports was mineral raw materials (about 50 % of total country exports), then followed machinery and equipment (16 %) and metals (almost 12 %) in 2013. Thus the need to in-
Мировая экономика и международные экономические отношения
15
crease the share of manufactured products in exports to diversify Russia’s economy is still one of the main aims it is trying to achieve taking part in the CU [4, 5].
The direction product arrangement is follow: to Belarus - mineral raw materials and metals, to Kazakhstan - above all mentioned goods are machinery and equipment.
In 2013 Kazakhstan’s trade structure is very similar to Russia's one: almost 40 % of exports is accounted for by mineral raw materials (in a greater degree fuel and energy), then followed metals (almost 31 %), and machinery and equipment (10,4 %) [1].
It is necessary to say that Belarus' s trade structure is more differentiate in comparison with the other two intra-block countries and in spite of the fact that the challenge of the existing raw material exports this problem for this country is less crucial. Alongside this in 2013 the Belarus's mutual trade share in CU accounted for 25 %, concurrently the main Belarusian item of export was machinery and equipment (38 %), foodstuffs (24 %), chemicals (10 %) [1].
It is remarkable that the mutual trade in the CU both before and after its establishment was mainly aggregated by Russia, which had rather intense trade links with the two other members of the economic union, whereas Belarus and Kazakhstan had very limited trade flows in goods between them. Thuswise the policies of the future EEU will have to account for this discrepancy.
Consequently it can be made a conclusion that because of Russia and Belarus trade structure consistency these countries become rivals for similar goods markets in mutual trade whereas establishment of CU by these countries means extension economic cooperation.
It is also necessary to say that CU countries export little high-technology products [3] supplying the external markets mostly mineral raw materials (i. e. oil and gas). It is evidently necessary for CU to develop the process of manufacturing high-technology products to have an opportunity to differentiate and improve trade structure along with promoting technology, creating highly skilled worker jobs and growing export goods cost.
Before making a conclusion it is necessary to add a few words about CU foreign trade which is major obstacle to further economic integration within the Eurasian grouping - the openness of its members’ economies to foreign trade. For instance, out of 125 countries listed, Russia was ranked as the 114th economy in the World Economic Forum’s 2010 Enabling Trade Index, 15 while Kazakhstan’s higher ranking of 88 is still a far cry from the level of openness exhibited by the West European economies participating in regional integration schemes [6].
Beside at this stage the CU states are going through the stage of CES developing came into force at the beginning of 2012.
All the data above is only the previous trade creation and developing effects.
Both further development integration, the national trade control frameworks convergence and finding the solutions to the common problems on the base of
16 СОЦИАЛЬНО-ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ И ГУМАНИТАРНЫЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ
Eurasian Economic Commission will give an opportunity to get in the future the expecting economic effects.
Perhaps, the customs clearance abolition of the transferring goods across the CU states' common borders will conduce to cross-border trade volume and give an opportunity to expand the cooperation links between CU states' economic entities.
It is supposed the CU countries trade structure diversification, deepen concentration within the particular economic sector, manufacturing the high-technology products and stimulation business struggle will promote the solution to the challenge of the developing the trade economic cooperation.
In conclusion it is necessary to add that it is viable to develop the common stimulating business struggle theme based on the double-quick up to date and cutting edge global knowledge and technology, developing innovation manufacturing, creating the common innovation framework, including the main strategy items of economic modernization programs because of the CU states' common economic structure, heavily relation on the export of crude oil and oil products trade structure.
References:
1. Data of Eurasian Economic Commission Statistic Department. - URL: http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/act/integr_i_makroec/dep_stat/trade/vzaim_ stat/Pages/default.aspx (access day: 06.07.2014).
2. David G Tarr., 2012. The Eurasian Oustoms Union among Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan: Gan it succeed where its predecessor failed? / Gentre for Economic and Financial Research at New Economic School. - URL: http://freepolicy-briefs.org/2012/11/05/the-eurasian-customs-union-among-mssia-belams-and-kazakhstan-can-it-succeed-where-its-predecessor-failed/ (access day: 14.07.2014).
3. Eurostat indicators of High-tech industry and knowledge - intensive services, January 2014. - URL: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/ Annexes/htec_esms_an5.pdf (access day: 28.07.2014).
4. Records and in-line data of Eurasian Economic Commission Statistic Department. - URL: http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/act/integr_i_makroec/ dep_stat/trade/vneshtorg/Documents/Arhiv/ioCU1Y2009Vpdf (access day: 05.07.2014)
5. Records and in-line data of Eurasian Economic Commission Statistic Department. - URL: http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/act/integr_i_makroec/ dep_stat/trade/vzaim_stat/iCU201312/Pages/default.aspx (access day: 05.07.2014).
6. The Global Enabling Trade Report 2010. World Economic Forum (2010). -URL: http://www3 .weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalEnablingTrade_Report_2010. pdf (access day: 01.08.2014).
