nep-cis New Economics Papers
on Confederation of Independent States
Issue of 2019‒05‒13
five papers chosen by

  1. Russian Business under Economic Sanctions: Is There Regional Heterogeneity? By Yoshisada Shida
  2. Georgia’s Economic Performance: Bright Spots and Remaining Challenges By Tinatin Akhvlediani; Peter Havlik
  3. Land Market Institutions and Agricultural Productivity in Ukraine By Koshovnyk, Roman; Nivievskyi, Oleg
  4. Interdépendance complexe et hybridation des modèles institutionnels nationaux : le cas des relations énergétiques UE-Russie By Catherine Locatelli; Mehdi Abbas
  5. The sword and the shield: the economics of targeted sanctions By Daniel P. Ahn; Rodney D. Ludema

  1. By: Yoshisada Shida (Economic Research Institute for Northeast Asia (ERINA))
    Abstract: The sanctions against Russia, beginning in early 2014, provide us with a unique opportunity to study whether, and how sanctions affect a vast territorial global superpower. This study attempts to empirically examine the economic impact of this event, paying particular attention to the existence or inexistence of its regional heterogeneity. For these purposes, this study used a dataset from a survey that asked the executive managers of Russian regional companies to assess the impact on their management activities in late 2015. The key findings are as follows. First, approximately half of those interviewed perceived the economic sanctions as having a negative impact. Second, no regional variations in the impact of the sanctions could be found. It follows that financial, institutional-framework sanctions, aimed at an entire nation, exert a significant and geographically uniform impact. Moreover, even regional businesses near the Asia-Pacific region, holding strong connections with Asian countries, cannot avoid its impact.
    Keywords: economic sanctions, enterprise survey, Far East, Russian economy
    JEL: M2 F51 P20 R11
    Date: 2019–04
  2. By: Tinatin Akhvlediani; Peter Havlik (The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw)
    Abstract: Georgia has long been one of the most trade-open economies in the world. It joined WTO in 2000 and currently has a free trade agreement with the EU and EFTA, as well as with Turkey, the CIS and China. Georgia has been also one of the most business-friendly countries. The basic objectives of Georgia’s trade policy are integration, liberalisation, diversification and transparency. The Association Agreement (AA) with the EU signed in June 2014 and in force since July 2016 lays the foundations for far-reaching political and economic cooperation with the EU and serves as a backbone for reforms. The Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) agreement that represents a part of AA envisages a gradual implementation of reforms in areas such as trade, environment, agriculture, tourism, energy, transport and education with the aim to bring Georgia in line with EU standards. The DCFTA sets a path for further reforms in trade-related policies, such as hygiene standards for agriculture products, the approximation of regulations for industrial products, enforcement of intellectual property rights at the border, rules on public procurement and approximation to EU rules in the services area. However, there is no prospect for EU membership in the Agreement. Georgia has been suffering from chronic goods trade and current account deficits; the export base has been very narrow. Foreign trade has been regionally focused on its neighbouring partners. Russia is the largest export market, ahead of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey and China. Among the EU countries, the biggest markets for Georgian exports are Bulgaria and Romania. Exports are highly concentrated and there has not been much export diversification yet. The key exports to the EU include copper ores (39% of the total), nuts, nitrogen fertilisers and mineral oils. The DCFTA apparently has not had much positive effect on Georgian exports to the EU so far, despite some spectacular increases by individual products. Rather than in goods exports, Georgia has a competitive advantage in services, especially in tourism and transit transport. Georgia has been also relatively successful in attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) cumulated inward FDI stocks amounted to about EUR 4,000 per capita as of mid-2018. A development strategy combining existing competitive advantages of tourism with domestic agriculture (using the excellent domestic wine and delicious local food), supported by structural reforms in the agricultural sector and targeted FDI policies, could be a viable option to foster inclusive economic growth and mitigate external vulnerabilities.
    Keywords: Georgia, foreign trade, foreign direct investment, economic integration
    JEL: E6 F13 P33 O24 O52
    Date: 2019–04
  3. By: Koshovnyk, Roman; Nivievskyi, Oleg
    Abstract: Ukraine’s agriculture increasingly contributes to global food security. However, there is a significant untapped agricultural production and export potential with the country. Weak land governance and institutions, including the moratorium on farmland sales, are generally recognized as the major source of a significant agricultural productivity gap in Ukraine. In this paper we match a rich farm-level accounting data with a unique set of land governance indicators to measure the role of land institutions in enhancing agriculture productivity. Controlling for farm specific characteristics, land institutions turned out to have quite sizable impact on productivity.
    Keywords: Land Economics/Use
    Date: 2019–03–07
  4. By: Catherine Locatelli (GAEL - Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée de Grenoble - Grenoble INP - Institut polytechnique de Grenoble - Grenoble Institute of Technology - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes); Mehdi Abbas (Pacte, Laboratoire de sciences sociales - UPMF - Université Pierre Mendès France - Grenoble 2 - UJF - Université Joseph Fourier - Grenoble 1 - IEPG - Sciences Po Grenoble - Institut d'études politiques de Grenoble - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes)
    Abstract: Ce cahier de recherche vise à appliquer les problématisations des nouvelles approches de l'interdépendance (New Interdependence Approches – NIA selon l'acronyme anglais) aux enjeux relatifs à la régulation internationale de l'énergie et ce à partir d'un cas d'étude : la relation gazière entre l'UE et la Russie. Les interdépendances entre l'UE et ses fournisseurs extérieurs en matière de gaz naturel, au premier rang desquels figure la Russie, posent la question de la confrontation de préférences contradictoires des acteurs impliqués dans l'échange. L'interdépendance conflictuelle recèle un « effet transformatif » sur les régulations, les systèmes institutionnels et les politiques énergétiques de la Russie et de l'UE. Les deux modèles institutionnels font l'objet de changements incrémentaux porteurs de conséquences importantes. Dans l'interdépendance, la politique énergétique russe et les stratégies des acteurs russes se transforment pour faire place à un certain degré de concurrence. A l'inverse, il semble que de manière croissante celle de l'UE intègre des préoccupations d'ordre stratégique et d'économie politique qui ne se justifient pas par les seules considérations de création d'un marché unique et concurrentiel.
    Date: 2019–03
  5. By: Daniel P. Ahn; Rodney D. Ludema
    Abstract: How effective are “smart” sanctions in imposing costs on an adversary? We consider this question in a model where a targeted regime may choose to “shield” strategically important firms from harm. Using detailed firm and individual data, we estimate the impact on firm performance from smart sanctions deployed by the U.S. and EU against Russia beginning in 2014. We find significant losses in operating revenue, asset values, and employees for sanctioned firms relative to their non-sanctioned peers, which are greater in sectors dependent upon Western service inputs. Strategic firms systemically outperform non-strategic firms under sanctions, implying a cost of shielding to the regime that adds substantially to the total cost of sanctions.
    JEL: F51
    Date: 2019

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.