Evolving Trade Patterns in the CIS: The Role of Manufacturing

Abstract

in September 2006. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of their respective institutions. We very much appreciate the comments of Jose Palacin on an earlier draft and the assistance of Dani Rodrik and Oeindrila Dube in providing some of the data used in section VI of this analysis. 1 The regional grouping CIS is used to refer to the 12 former members of the Soviet Union minus the three Baltic states and does not explicitly refer to the institutional arrangement of that name which is discussed in more detail in section X. 2 GDP growth and especially per capita GDP growth essentially ceased during the 1980s (Dobrinsky, Hesse, and Traeger, 2006). 3 In addition, the break up of the Soviet Union was not always peaceful, as armed conflicts occurred in several of the republics including Armenia (1991-94), Azerbaijan (1991-94), Georgia (1989-99), Moldova (1991-92), and Tajikistan (1990; and the war in Chechnya has continued to drain resources in Russia. Berengaut and Elborgh-Woytek (2005) shown that these conflicts are a significant explanation of the size of the output declines during the transitional recession. 4 The tasks of adjusting to these real changes were magnified by the accompanying major problems of macroeconomic stabilization such as annual inflation rates of over several hundred per cent during the early 1990s.

Kazakhstan in China’s Belt and Road Initiative: An Empirical Analysis of Extensive and Intensive Margins of Trade

“…In the sphere of Kazakhstan trade, research of this issue is reflected in the analysis of intra-industry trade of CIS countries. In a comparison of the CIS countries, it was revealed that the manufactures countries have much higher intra-industry levels than others (Shelburne & Pidufina, 2006).…”

Analysis of Competitiveness of Turkey and Commonwealth of Independent States in their Automotive Market

“…Turkish Automotive Sector achieved comparative advantage in group 781 after 2002, in group 782 after 2000 and in group 783 after 1994. Freinkman et al 2004, Ahrend (2006), Cooper (2006), Shelburne and Pidufala (2006), Garanina (2008), and Khatibi (2008) were among the researches measuring the international competitiveness of different countries and different sectors for the Commonwealth of Independent Countries. Freinkman et al 2004calculated the competitiveness of the CIS countries within the CIS market and global market using WITS and COMTRADE data for the year 2000 via Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) index.…”

“…The index values for sectors with group 782 and 783 increased compared to their 2000 level (0.142 and 0.140 respectively) and the index value for the sector with group 781 decreased compared to the 2000 value (0.070). Shelburne and Pidufala (2006), calculated the comparative advantage of the CIS countries within the CIS market and in global markets using 2004 UN-COMTRADE data and Balassa Index in manufacturing industry. In the group 783 Belarus had comparative advantage with 10.9 index value against CIS countries and 5.3 in the global markets.…”

Holding Together or Falling Apart: Results of the Gravity Equation of CIS Trade

“…De Sousa and Lamotte (2007) found a reduction of home bias within the former Soviet Union, former Yugoslavia and former Czechoslovakia from 1993 to 2001, which happened due to the transition process that had a different impact on the countries. By looking at disaggregated data, Shelburne and Pidufala (2006) concluded that over the past decade the CIS countries have significantly diversified their geographical destinations for exports of natural resources and raw materials but have been less successful in terms of promoting their manufactured goods. Most of the CIS countries under-rely on other CIS countries for their imports of manufactured goods but over-rely on them as a destination for their manufactured exports.…”