SOME ASPECTS OF NON-TARIFF MEASURES WITHIN EURASIAN ECONOMIC UNION
The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is relatively new regional integration block formed in the beginning of 2015 and now consists of five members (Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia). The main document that establishes the basic principles of the functioning of the EAEU is the Agreement on EAEU that also covers the specifics of application of non-tariff measures (NTMs) on a very aggregate level. Overall NTMs adopted within EAEU are equally applied by the members of the Union. But still these measures may find their reflection in the national legislation of the member-states.
In order to analyze EAEU NTMs two sources of information were used: website of the Eurasian Economic Commission and TRAINS/WITS database. They were used as complements and allowed to find the most up to date versions of the legal acts that cover trade- and NTM-related aspects of EAEU functioning.
Some people in the government and business didn't get ready for new reality wich is Russia's membership in the WTO. Ignorance of the rules and principals of the WTO remains a serious problem. Membership in the WTO dont mean getting advantages automaticly. It's necessary to work hard to be efficient.
Taking price changes from the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model of world trade, the authors use a small open economy computable general equilibrium comparative static model of the Russian economy to assess the impact of global free trade and a successful completion of the Doha Agenda on the Russian economy, and especially on the poor. They compare those results with the impact of Russian accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) on income distribution and the poor. The model incorporates all 55,000 households from the Russian Household Budget Survey as real households. Crucially, given the importance of foreign direct investment (FDI) liberalization as part of Russian WTO accession, the authors also include FDI and Dixit-Stiglitz endogenous productivity effects from liberalization of import barriers against goods and FDI in services. The authors estimate that Russian WTO accession in the medium run will result in gains averaged over all Russian households equal to 7.3 percent of Russian consumption (with a standard deviation of 2.2 percent of consumption), with virtually all households gaining. They find that global free trade would result in a weighted average gain to households in Russia of 0.2 percent of consumption, with a standard deviation of 0.2 percent of consumption, while a successful completion of the Doha Development Agenda would result in a weighted average gain to households of -0.3 percent of consumption (with a standard deviation of 0.2 percent of consumption). Russia, as a net food importer, loses from subsidy elimination, and the gains to Russia from tariff cuts in other countries are too small to offset these losses. The results strongly support the view that Russia's own liberalization is more important than improvements in market access as a result of reforms in tariffs or subsidies in the rest of the world. Foremost among the own reforms is liberalization of barriers against FDI in business services.
This article assesses the level of openness of Russian economy. It is shown that the open-ness indicators used in the Concept of Long-term Social and Economic Development of the Russian Federation differ from those employed by international organisations. The present research analyses both the intensity of Russian trade in terms of its gross domestic product and the relative strength of import penetration in Russia. Methodological differences determine the differences in the analysis results.
This study analyzes the effects of reducing trade barriers in the context of the objectives of competition policy. Separate chapters are devoted to the assessment of the height of Russian trade barriers, the analysis of the impact of international trade on domestic prices and concentration of production.
The paper examines the structure, governance, and balance sheets of state-controlled banks in Russia, which accounted for over 55 percent of the total assets in the country's banking system in early 2012. The author offers a credible estimate of the size of the country's state banking sector by including banks that are indirectly owned by public organizations. Contrary to some predictions based on the theoretical literature on economic transition, he explains the relatively high profitability and efficiency of Russian state-controlled banks by pointing to their competitive position in such functions as acquisition and disposal of assets on behalf of the government. Also suggested in the paper is a different way of looking at market concentration in Russia (by consolidating the market shares of core state-controlled banks), which produces a picture of a more concentrated market than officially reported. Lastly, one of the author's interesting conclusions is that China provides a better benchmark than the formerly centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe by which to assess the viability of state ownership of banks in Russia and to evaluate the country's banking sector.
The paper examines the principles for the supervision of financial conglomerates proposed by BCBS in the consultative document published in December 2011. Moreover, the article proposes a number of suggestions worked out by the authors within the HSE research team.