nep-cis New Economics Papers
on Confederation of Independent States
Issue of 2005‒04‒16
three papers chosen by
Anna Y. Borodina
Perm State University

  1. Trade Policies in Central Asia after EU Enlargement and before Russian WTO accession: Regionalism and Integration into the world economy. By Richard Pomfret
  2. Crise Financeira Russa By Bruno José Marques Pinto; Thais Machado de Matos Vilela; Ursula Silveira Monteiro de Lima

  1. By: Richard Pomfret (University of Adelaide, School of Economics)
    Abstract: This paper analyses the choices between regionalism and multilateralism, and the impact of WTO membership on the five Central Asian countries. The two main sections analyse (1) why the large number of regional trade agreements which the Central Asian countries have signed have had little economic impact, and (2) the consequences for the Central Asian countries of Chinese and Russian WTO membership and the consequences of the current Central Asian applicants’ (Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) own WTO accession. During the1990s, many regional trade agreements were signed - arrangements both among the Central Asian countries, and between Central Asian countries and their neighbours (Russia to the north, China to the east, and Iran and Turkey to the south) – but not implemented and, although the Kyrgyz Republic became a WTO member in 1998, the Central Asian countries vacillated between pursuing regional and multilateral trade policy avenues. The Central Asian countries’ relationship to the WTO became a more pressing issue after China’s long-running WTO accession negotiations were successfully concluded in December 200 and as Russian negotiations are move forward. At the same time the push towards regionalism is also affected by external events such as the European Union’s deeper integration, symbolized by the appearance of euro banknotes in 2002, and the eastward expansion of the EU in 2004.
    Keywords: regionalism; WTO; Central Asia
    JEL: P33 F13 F14
    Date: 2005–02–03
  2. By: Bruno José Marques Pinto (Undergraduate School of Economics, Getulio Vargas Foundation Brazil); Thais Machado de Matos Vilela (Undergraduate School of Economics, Getulio Vargas Foundation Brazil); Ursula Silveira Monteiro de Lima (Undergraduate School of Economics, Getulio Vargas Foundation Brazil)
    Abstract: Fundamental sources of the Russian financial crisis in 1998 are discussed. Focus is made on the time horizon of judgements concerning sustainability of the economic policy. It is argued that the macroeconomic policy pursued by the monetary authorities was not robust in a medium run, but, in the absence of external shocks was far from the crisis area, and required moderate, feasible modifications to be viable in a medium run. After the sharp deterioration in the terms of trade the previously pursued policy was no more sustainable even in a short run. The implications of the crisis were aggravated by the overly optimistic expectations by the monetary authorities of the near-term recovery in the terms of trade.
    Keywords: Russia, Financial Crisis, Crise Cambial
    JEL: F3 F4
    Date: 2005–04–05
  3. By: Edgar L. Feige (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
    Abstract: In earlier papers on “Socialist privatization” Feige proposed a sequential set of stabilization, privatization and liberalization policies designed to provide the necessary, albeit not sufficient conditions, for a transition from a planned to a market economy. An important component of the proposed policy package was an equalitarian distribution of a portion of “state” wealth to private citizens by means of a voucher program whose aim was to establish a social safety net of private wealth composed of “citizen shares” to cushion the disruptions and lessen the hardships of the transition process. This paper estimates the value of the proposed “citizen shares” and finds that they would have provided a significant social safety net as well as a powerful incentive for Soviet citizens to support the reform program. The problem with the proposed voucher program was not that it provided too little incentive. The problem was that the government failed to provide the relevant information to the public and that government information was not likely to be viewed as credible by its citizens. Reference: Comparative Economic Studies. Vol. XXXII No. 3, Fall, 1990
    Keywords: Transition, privatization, property rights, social safty net, Russia, voucher scheme.
    JEL: P2 P3 H82 H54 D63
    Date: 2005–01–22

This nep-cis issue is ©2005 by Anna Y. Borodina. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.