The building of an increasingly integrated system from an economic point of view in the “Eurasian” space is a phenomenon superficially evaluated by that broad part of the Western literature which simply includes it in the general claim of Russia to win lost territories of the former Trsarist and Soviet Empires. It is therefore considered an almost pretentious project when analyzed from a purely geopolitical perspective rather than economic. Such kind of approach may, however, be short-sighted, in the absence of a detailed study of the complex roots or the historical, cultural and economic conditions justifying the integration on the former Soviet Union space, and in particular on the Eurasian one.
The present volume contains the contributions of experts from different disciplines with different sensitivity and national memberships. The hot confrontation between speakers from Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania on the one hand and Russia on the other seems to be constructive, a positive model of interaction between historically and geographically close worlds even if in a period of tough opposition.
In this article the author performs the comparative analysis of the provisions of international treaties forming the Eurasian Economic Union and its predecessors and of the documents containing national tax policies of EAEU Member States. While author’s previous research suggested a number of similar features of EAEU Member States’ tax systems and partial harmonization, this time it is supplemented with conclusion of open tax competition waged by certain EAEU Member States.
This article considers the opportunities for Russia presented by the launch of China’s Silk Road Economic Belt initiative. This initiative is a comprehensive project for the rapid development of Central Asian countries, and not limited only to trans- port and logistics to guarantee the supply of Chinese goods to Europe. It is also China’s response to economic and political processes both within the country and in the Asia-Pacific region: the economic slowdown and transformation of its social and economic model, diverging income levels, the growing presence of the United States in Asia, and the new divisions of labour within the region. The Silk Road initiative is based on China’s intention to create strong regional value chains, to outsource labour-intensive and environmentally harmful production, to foster the development of northwest China including securing political stability in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, and to guarantee the use of Chinese construction firms’ capac- ity. Goods transit is a secondary priority and justified not by commercial benefits from using land routes, but by the need to diversify export risks, arising due to the deteriorating military and political situation in the South China Sea. The 2015 Joint Statement on Cooperation on the Construction of Joint Eurasian Economic Union and the Silk Road Economic Belt projects resolves the issue of allegedly competitive goals of these complementary projects. The Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) provides an institutional base for cooperation while the Silk Road initiative provide investments for their development. Russia may benefit from participating in the Silk Road initiative. First, it would help integrate its transportation system into the region’s logistics network and provide additional opportunities for transit and associated logistical services as well as access to growing regional markets. Second, the Silk Road initiative offers opportunities to strengthen industrial co- operation among neighbouring countries to develop new economic clusters. Third, the EEU and the Silk Road may become the basis for more ambitious cooperation in greater Eurasia, which may transform into a new centre of economic develop- ment at the global level.
The paper gives a brief description of Agriculture of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Armenia, shows the role of the mutual trade, revealed the goods, the intervention of which could potentially adversely affect the Russian agricultural producers, assessed the possibility of expanding their expansion. On the basis of the functioning of the EU highlights the main elements of the formation of a common market for agricultural products. Systematized materials on the system of state support of agriculture in each of the countries studied and compared, evaluated the levels of state support of the countries, analyzed the possibility of limiting production within the common economic space for the protection of Russian agricultural producers, revealed defects agreement on common rules for state support of agriculture and forms notification.
The article aims to conceptualize the economic model of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), to fi nd similarities with the European Union single market model, to identify critical remarks on the part of the EU, to estimate the perspectives of integration in a wide space from Lisbon to Vladivostok, Astana and Bishkek. The author comes to the following conclusions. 1) The EAEU complies with canons formed by the EU and is being built with due regard to the European integration experience. The common external tariff, the “four freedoms” of the internal market and principles of its organization – the prohibition of discrimination, harmonization, mutual recognition of standards, conformity mark, common sectoral policies, logic of neofunctionalism – all these regulation elements are present in both models. 2) Russia considers cooperation with the EU as positive, because it has gained regulation methods for the traditionally controlled market and strengthened its global position due to this cooperation. 3) The EU makes a signifi cant indirect impact on the Eurasian integration through criticism and expansion of peculiar approaches. Part of the criticism is of temporary or politicized character. 4) The EAEU has a strong starting idea – common history, common genetics and the need to preserve achievements in exploration and development of the vast Eurasian space. 5) An opportunity for interaction between the EU and the EAEU derives from the convergence of regulatory systems. However, high degree of state participation in economies of the EAEU countries, which distinguishes the Eurasian model from the European one and has become an irritant in the EU–EAEU relations, will continue to hinder “the integration of integrations”.