|
on Confederation of Independent States |
| By: | Catherine Locatelli (LEPII - Laboratoire d'Économie de la Production et de l'Intégration Internationale - CNRS : UMR5252 - Université Pierre Mendès-France - Grenoble II) |
| Abstract: | The issue of EU gas supply security has become more and more important in the 2000s in the context of the gas market liberalisation and the question of reliability of Russian supplier. One answer to these problems is the EU gas diversification, specifically the opening up of a fourth gas corridor to supply the EU via the “Caucasus” or “southern” route with gas from Central Asia. The feasibility of this strategy might now be called into question. The aim of this article is to examine the new strategies that could emerge in the producing countries as well as those of international oil companies, and then look at what the consequences might be as far as the EU's diversification strategy is concerned. The aim of this article is to identify some of the problems and limits for this corridor. |
| Keywords: | SECURITY OF SUPPLY ; NATURAL GAS SUPPLY ; EUROPE ; RUSSIA ; CAUCASUS |
| Date: | 2010–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00459202_v1&r=cis |
| By: | Peresetsky, Anatoly (BOFIT) |
| Abstract: | The Kazakhstan banking system is increasingly viewed as more advanced than the Russian system. Kazakhstan adopted the International Accounting System (IAS) in 2003 and the Basel II norms in 2005, while Russia has yet to fully adopt either IAS or Basel II. In this paper, bank data for 2002-2006 are used to estimate models of bank cost efficiency. In contrast to most previous papers, no significance difference is found for the average cost efficiency scores of banks for the two countries during 2002-2006. How banks are ranked for efficiency depends upon the chosen model (input and output sets). An interesting insight is the finding that most banks in both countries are below optimal size. |
| Keywords: | cost efficiency; banks; stochastic frontier approach |
| JEL: | D21 F30 G21 |
| Date: | 2010–02–26 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:bofitp:2010_001&r=cis |
| By: | Vinokurov, Evgeny; Dzhadraliyev, Murat; Shcherbanin, Yuriy |
| Abstract: | The geographic and geo-economic location of EurAsEC countries gives them significant strategic potential for freight transit. EurAsEC has motorway and railway corridors running east-west and north-south, and a number of new corridors are being constructed. However, to handle such huge volumes of cargo, the region’s existing transport infrastructure must be modernised. Sea vs land: 2:1. Transportation of transit cargo by sea (transoceanic service) has some strong advantages, such as low delivery cost, established relationships with customers and high standards of service. This leads us to conclude that sea transit will prevail in the near future. Land transit routes offer only one competitive advantage – speed of delivery, which is two to three times faster compared with the sea routes linking East Asia with Eastern Europe. This advantage must be exploited. A considerable proportion of “time-sensitive” transit (some 16 million tonnes annually, according to the most conservative estimate) can be redirected to ITCs operated by EurAsEC. There are a number of physical and non-physical barriers to the realisation of the EurAsEC’s transit potential. Physical barriers include the poor state of motorways and railways and their related infrastructure, i.e. obsolete rolling-stock, which prevents any increase in transportation speeds and volumes; existing roads do not meet international standards; border crossing points and logistics centres have a low throughput capacity. Non-physical barriers include cumbersome permit systems, unreasonable delays in crossing borders, various charges and additional taxes imposed by regulatory and local authorities, scheduled and spot-check inspections of cargo weight, etc. The non-physical barriers are the most significant obstacles to the development of cargo transit in the region and cause serious delays in cargo delivery. Time lost does not only result in loss of money and customer trust, but also the loss of the main (in fact the only) competitive advantage land transit has over sea transit. Given their geographic position and national economic interests, Russia, Kazakhstan and their neighbours have a direct interest in the Eurasian integration process that extends beyond the boundaries of the post-Soviet space and involves the region’s most important countries. Projects implemented in certain economic sectors provide a reliable basis for regional economic integration. What begins in those key sectors eventually spreads to the institutional level. In this context, therefore, transportation must be among these priority sectors. |
| Keywords: | Eurasian Economic Community; transport infrastructure; transport corridors; economic integration; post-Soviet space |
| JEL: | F15 L91 |
| Date: | 2009–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:20908&r=cis |
| By: | Vinokurov, Evgeny |
| Abstract: | The EDB Eurasian Integration Yearbook publishes papers, reports, and information materials addressing wide spectrum of pertinent issues of regional integration, in particular its economic and institutional aspects, the theories of regional integration, and relevant integrational experience. |
| Keywords: | economic integration, regional integration, post-Soviet space, CIS, Central Asia |
| JEL: | F5 F14 |
| Date: | 2009–07 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:20917&r=cis |