|
on Confederation of Independent States |
|
Issue of 2018‒05‒14
six papers chosen by |
| By: | Davies, R.W. (University of Birmingham); Harrison, Mark (University of Warwick); Khlevniuk, Oleg (Russian Federation); Wheatcroft, Stephen G. (Deakin Univesity) |
| Abstract: | This paper is draft of the concluding chapter of The industrialisation of Soviet Russia,vol.7:The Soviet economyand the approach of war,1937– 1939, in preparation for publication by Palgrave Macmillan. We consider the development of the Soviet economy over the period of the series, that is, from the launching of the first five-year plan and the collectivisation of agriculture to the outbreak of the Second World War. We review, in turn, the pattern of forced industrialisation, the measurement and mismeasurement of economic progress, the extraordinary militarisation of a mobilised society and economy, the emergence of the Soviet Union as a global military power, and the scope for reforms within the economic system that Stalin created and ruled over. Keywords: communism, economic development, economic growth,incentives, industrialisation, military power, mis measurement, mobilisation, policy reform, power, Soviet Union, violence, war economy JEL Classification: H56, N44, P21 |
| Date: | 2018 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cge:wacage:363&r=cis |
| By: | Amat Adarov (The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw); Vasily Astrov (The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw); Julian Hinz; Evgenii Monastyrenko; Sandor Richter (The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw) |
| Abstract: | Graph of the month Total Forbes billionaire wealth in selected countries, in % of national income (p. 1) Opinion corner What may be the future of EU cohesion policy in the light of currently discussed reforms? (by Sándor Richter, pp. 2-3) Self-imposed food embargo and consumer prices in Russia (by Evgenii Monastyrenko and Julian Hinz; pp. 4-10) Can economics explain the current bad EU-Russia relations? (by Vasily Astrov; pp. 11-16) Non-tariff barriers in the EU inhibiting DCFTA trade (by Amat Adarov; pp. 12-22) Recommended reading (p. 23) Statistical Annex Monthly and quarterly statistics for Central, East and Southeast Europe (pp. 24-45) |
| Keywords: | wealth, billionaires, Russia, USA, Germany, France, China, cohesion policy, EU reforms, trade policy, embargo, consumer prices, trade integration, FDI, Russia-EU relations, international trade, non-tariff barriers, DCFTA |
| Date: | 2017–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:wii:mpaper:mr:2017-11&r=cis |
| By: | Kainazarova, Cholpon |
| Abstract: | Kyrgyzstan’s foreign policy is characterized to be multi-dimensional or multi vector concentrated on the consolidation of flexible and many-sided external relations with its neighboring states and regional players. In the historical perspective, international relations experts and scholars argue that “Kyrgyzstan’s first president Askar Akaev is considered to be the founder of the multi-vector foreign policy in the Kyrgyz Republic”(Dimensions, p.62). As a result, the new-born country started to participate in international foreign policy agendas through signing bilateral agreements with its allies and attracting intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations from various corners of the world. It is argued that there are several factors which cause multi-vector policy. If some political experts highlight that it is connected due to size and dependency of Kyrgyzstan from other countries, others also refer to poor economic situation and security concerns. In this regard Yasar Sari stated “Geopolitical and geo-economic situation of Kyrgyzstan complicated the development of an independent foreign policy. Therefore, Kyrgyzstan introduced a multi-vector foreign policy”(2017, p.137) One could agree with the fact that Kyrgyzstan, like Tadjikistan, is economically poor and has relatively less natural resources than other Central Asian countries. Indisputably, it was one of the main factors to strengthen cooperation and partnership in regional scope and beyond the region. The paper aims to investigate the new tendencies from the major three dimensions of external foreign policy which are regional, continental and global areas. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kyrgyz Republic, “The regional approach is implemented to strengthen good and friendly relations with neighboring states, continental approach is aimed at developing diplomatic relations with major powers like Russia, the USA the European Union, China, Turkey and the global approach prioritizes active engagement in UN system”(Dimensions, 2008, p.64). Therefore, this paper will strongly attempt to introduce with the main transformations under the governance of the president Soorobai Jeenbekov and will tackle recent political events in the formation of foreign policy objectives of the state nowadays. The paper focuses on question: What foreign policy actions and resolutions have been produced since the presidency of Sooronbai Jeenbekov in Kyrgyzstan? |
| Keywords: | Kyrgyzstan, Foreign Policy, New Trends, Central Asia |
| JEL: | F00 K0 K00 Q1 Q10 |
| Date: | 2018–05–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:86491&r=cis |
| By: | Mihnea Constantinescu (Bank of Lithuania); Kristina Griskeviciene (Bank of Lithuania and ISM University of Management and Economics) |
| Abstract: | Do inter-sectoral linkages of intermediate products affect the spread of sectoral shocks at the aggregate level in Lithuania, a small and open economy? We answer this question by: i) constructing the domestic sector-by-sector direct requirements table using the Lithuanian interindustry transactions tables, and ii) applying Acemoglu et al. (2012)'s network-based methodology and Gabaix and Ibragimov (2011)'s modified log rank-log size regression to analyse the nature of inter-sectoral linkages. Our results indicate that the direct and indirect inter-sectoral linkages cause aggregate volatility to decay at a rate lower than square root of n - the rate predicted by the standard diversification argument. Furthermore, indirect linkages play an important role in the above-mentioned process, supporting the findings of Acemoglu et al. (2012). These results suggest that the inter-sectoral network of linkages represent a potential propagation mechanism for idiosyncratic shocks throughout the Lithuanian economy. |
| Keywords: | Input-Output Linkages, Inter-sectoral Network, Aggregate Volatility, SmallOpen Economy, Complexity Economics |
| JEL: | C13 C46 C67 E00 |
| Date: | 2018–05–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:lie:dpaper:6&r=cis |
| By: | Vinokurov, Evgeny; Lobyrev, Vitaly; Tikhomirov, Andrey; Tsukarev, Taras |
| Abstract: | This report, prepared with the participation of experts from the Institute of the Economy and Transport Development, presents the results of quantitative assessment of freight traffic growth prospects along the China–EAEU–EU axis. The report provides a description of general trends affecting development of freight transport subject to commodity structure and mode of transport. Special attention is paid to factors driving changes in freight traffic. The authors present their view of the impact that freight rates have on the metrics of freight traffic being rechannelled to EAEU transport infrastructure and the operation of certain factors, such as regularity (rhythmicity) and timeframes of cargo deliveries. The final part of the report offers an assessment of additional freight traffic which may be attracted to transport routes along the China–EAEU–EU axis, in the short and long term. |
| Keywords: | Transport corridors, Belt and Road Initiative, transport infrastructure, Silk Road, EAEU, China, EU |
| JEL: | F15 R41 R42 |
| Date: | 2018–04–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:86184&r=cis |
| By: | Céline Antonin (Observatoire français des conjonctures économiques) |
| Abstract: | Le 30 novembre 2017, les pays membres de l’OPEP ont décidé de prolonger de neuf mois, jusqu’à décembre 2018, leur accord de 2016 prévoyant un plafonnement de production avec des quotas par pays. D’autres pays producteurs associés à l’accord, Russie en tête, ont décidé de continuer à coopérer en prolongeant également leur accord de baisse de production. Etant très attendu et anticipé par le marché, cet accord n’est pas une surprise. D’autant que derrière l’unité affichée, il a mis en exergue des divergences entre pays : d’un côté, la position très modérée de la Russie, qui a traîné des pieds pour signer l’accord ; de l’autre, la position volontariste de l’Arabie saoudite de reprendre un management plus actif des cours, après plusieurs années de relâchement. Les pays pétroliers sont toujours partagés entre d’un côté, la volonté de soutenir les cours et d’équilibrer leurs finances publiques, et de l’autre, la crainte constante de se voir voler des parts de marché par l’inexorable montée en puissance du pétrole de schiste étatsunien. Etant donnée cette double contrainte, et la situation de progressif rééquilibrage entre offre et demande dans les deux prochaines années, nous considérons que le pétrole devrait évoluer autour de 59-60 dollars le baril pour 2018 et 2019. [Premiers paragraphes] |
| Keywords: | OPEP; Plafonnement de production; Pays producteurs |
| Date: | 2017–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/515i0losmh8bfqfrmt59iiplv3&r=cis |