Location: Russia

Russian Exporters in the Face of the COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis

Posted on November 8, 2021 | Policy Brief

20211108 Russian Exporters in the Face of the COVID-19 Image 01

This brief summarizes the results of recent work on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on Russian exporting companies (Volchkova, 2021).  We use data from the CEFIR NES survey of exporters conducted in 2020. 72% of respondents reported that they were affected by the crisis. We scrutinize this impact. Contrary to popular wisdom, we observe little difference in delays of inputs by domestic and foreign suppliers. On the other hand, exporters experienced more disruptions in their sales in foreign destinations than in the domestic market. Possible reasons for this may be due to restrictions on international travel.

Introduction

According to experts at the Gaidar Institute (Knobel, Firanchuk, 2021), in 2020, Russia’s non-resource non-energy exports, decreased by 4.3%, while export prices fell by 4.1 % on average. The export of high-tech goods decreased by 14% due to a reduction in the physical volume of export. These changes in export intensity are mainly associated with the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. But are exporting firms more affected by the crisis than firms only active in the domestic market? What are the main channels through which the crisis influenced exporters?  And how do exporters adjust to the COVID-19 related shocks?

The analysis in this brief is based on forthcoming publication in the Journal of New Economic Association (Volchkova, 2021). We use data from a survey of Russian non-resource exporters conducted in 2020. We show that involvement in international trade did not affect the company’s vulnerability to the crisis on the production side: supply delays were equally likely to occur from domestic and foreign suppliers. These findings are consistent with Bonadio et al. (2021) who consider a numerical multi-sectoral model for 64 countries around the world linked by supply chains. They show that, in the face of the employment shocks associated with quarantine measures and switching to a remote work format, the contribution of global chains to the decline of real GDP is about one quarter. Importantly, the authors show that the “re-nationalization” of supply chains does not make countries more resilient to shocks associated with quarantine measures on the labor market because these shocks are also bad for domestic industries.

At the same time, our results indicate that exporting companies are exposed to additional risks associated with the need to adjust to shocks in the sales markets. According to the data, exporters find it more difficult to adjust their sales in foreign markets than in the domestic one. This is consistent with the fact that, during the pandemic, all countries introduced a strict ban on international travel, reducing the possibility of establishing new business ties through personal contacts. Similarly, Benzi et al. (2020) show a significant negative effect of international travel restrictions on the export of services.

Survey of Non-resource Exporters

The survey of exporters was carried out in June – November 2020 by CEFIR NES. The primary purpose of the survey was to identify and estimate barriers to the export of non-primary non-energy products. In the context of the developing economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, we have added several questions to identify how the crisis influenced companies’ operations and how the respondent firms adjusted to the new conditions.

The survey was conducted using a representative sample of Russian exporting firms. As a control group, we interviewed non-exporting firms with (observable) characteristics (region, industry, labor productivity) similar to those of the surveyed exporters. Altogether, 928 exporting companies and 344 non-exporting companies were interviewed during the field stage of the study.

Most exporting companies that took part in the survey produce food products, chemicals, machinery and equipment, electrical equipment, metal products, and timber. On average, a surveyed exporter had 827 full-time employees; 25% of the firms had fewer than 26 employees. More than half of the surveyed exporting firms (53%) are also importers: 81% import raw materials and other inputs, 66% import equipment, and 22% import technology. Most interviewed exporters sell their products both abroad and on the domestic market. On average, an enterprise supplies 67% of its output to the domestic market and 32% abroad.

Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis on Firms’ Performance

Among exporters that participated in the survey, 25% reported that their business was not affected by the COVID-19 crisis, while 72% of respondents stated that the crisis did have an impact. Like any crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic created problems for some enterprises and provided new beneficial opportunities for others. According to the data, exporting businesses were significantly more likely to be negatively affected by the crisis than their non-exporting counterparts, and the impact of the crisis was not correlated with the size of the enterprise. Figure 1 presents the exporters’ answers to the question of how their sales in the domestic and foreign markets have changed with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The distribution of changes in sales volume in domestic and foreign markets significantly differ from each other. Estimates of the mean values of changes in sales volumes also differ significantly: the average drop in sales in the domestic market was 5%, while for the external market, it reached 17%. Hence, in times of the COVID-19 crisis, opportunities for growth were less prominent in foreign markets than in the domestic one, while significant market losses were more frequent.

Figure 1. Change in sales of export companies associated with the COVID-19 pandemic

Source: Survey of non-resource exporters, CEFIR NES, 2020.

Adjustment to the Crisis

The most frequently used crisis adjustment measure was employees transition to remote work – it was reported by 70% of the surveyed companies. 25% of exporters were forced to suspend their work during the crisis, while 72% were not. 14% of respondents stated they had to cut their payroll expenditures and other non-monetary benefits for employees (food, insurance, etc.), 12% of companies sent workers on unpaid leave. Only 6.5% of export firms had to lay off workers, while 91% handled the crisis without layoffs.

Comparing exporters’ answers with those of non-exporters while controlling for enterprise size, we conclude that exporting firms were more rigid in their adjustment  to the crisis. They were significantly more likely to suspend enterprise activities, dismiss of employees, send workers on unpaid leave, and reduce of wages. Also, these events were more likely to occur for smaller companies than for larger ones.

At the same time, flexible adjustment measures such as remote work were equally likely to be used by exporters and non-exporters, as well as by firms of different sizes. In general, Russian exporters of non-primary goods maintained their efficiency mainly by adjusting the labor relations to the new epidemiological conditions rather than by reducing employee-related expenses.

Dealing with Counterparties

Delays in the supply of components and raw materials were reported by 36% of the surveyed companies, and such delays were equally likely for shipments from abroad and domestic shipments. There is a perception that international supply chains in the context of the pandemic crisis are an additional risk factor. Our results indicate that domestic and international supply chains were equally challenged in 2020. Nevertheless, non-exporting companies faced the problem of delayed deliveries significantly less often than exporters did, and about 60% of companies experienced no problems at all on the input supply side.

27% of surveyed exporters stated that they delayed payments to counterparties. Non-exporting companies reported these reactions much less frequently regardless of firm size.

On the sales side, half of the surveyed exporters experienced delays in payments from their customers during the pandemic crisis. Non-exporting enterprises encountered the problems with the same frequency, and companies of all sizes were affected by this obstacle equally.

The cases of planned purchases cancellation on behalf of buyers were reported by 34% of exporting companies. Exporters experienced these problems significantly more often than non-exporters, and smaller companies experienced them much more often than larger ones.

Crossing international borders presented a certain problem for Russian exporters when it concerns product delivery. Just over half of the respondents indicated that they had to delay deliveries due to difficulties with border crossing. However, about the same share of companies (48%) reported that they delayed products delivery due to the introduction of lockdowns. Thus, during the COVID-19 pandemic, exporters’ operations were complicated to the same extent by problems related to border crossings as by those associated with lockdown regimes.

Conclusion

It is widely believed that international exposure of companies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis creates additional risks. Our study shows that, regarding existing inputs supply, international relations pose problems for Russian companies just as often as relations with domestic partners. As far as sales are concerned, adjustment to the crisis was better on the domestic market than on foreign markets. A possible explanation of this phenomenon is that, in addition to the shocks associated with quarantine measures in the labor market, access to foreign markets was hampered by restrictions on international travel, which is essential for readjusting contractual relations to explore new opportunities brought by crises (Cristea, 2011). Without personal interaction, new contracts were more difficult to launch. Thus firms’ opportunities to adjust foreign sales were more restricted than the ones in the domestic market.

References

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Media mentions: Key takeaways from this policy brief have been published by one of the most influential media outlets in Russia Kommersant – Коммерсант: «Ковид сильнее ударил по экспортерам». Исследование ЦЭФИР РЭШ. 

Vaccination Progress and the Opening Up of Economies

Posted on July 5, 2021 | Policy Brief

20210622 Reopening Soon Webinar Image 01

In this brief, we report on the FREE network webinar on the state of vaccinations and the challenges ahead for opening up economies while containing the pandemic, held on June 22, 2021. The current state of the pandemic in each respective country was presented, suggesting that infection rates have gone down quite substantially recently in all countries of the network, except in Russia which is currently facing a surge in infections driven by the delta-version of the virus. Vaccination progress is very uneven, limited by lacking access to vaccines (primarily Ukraine and Georgia) and vaccine scepticism among the population (primarily in Russia and Belarus but for certain groups also in Latvia, Poland and to some extent Sweden). This also creates challenges for governments eager to open their societies to benefit their economies and ease the social consequences of the restrictions on mobility and social gatherings. Finally, the medium to long term consequences for labour markets reveal challenges but also potential opportunities through wider availability of work–from-home policies. 

Background

In many countries in Europe, citizens and governments are starting to see an end to the most intense impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on their societies. Infection and death rates are coming down and governments are starting to put in place policies for a gradual opening up of societies, as reflected in the Covid-19 stringency index developed by Oxford University. These developments are partially seasonal, but also largely a function of the progress of vaccination programs reaching an increasing share of the adult population. These developments, though, are taking place to different degrees and at different pace across countries.  This is very evident at a global level, but also within Europe and among the countries represented in the FREE network. This has implications for the development within Europe as a whole, but also for the persistent inequalities we see across countries.   

Short overview of the current situation

The current epidemiological situation in Latvia, Sweden, Ukraine, and Georgia looks pretty similar in terms of Covid-19 cases and deaths but when it comes to the vaccination status there is substantial variation.

Latvia experienced a somewhat weaker third wave in the spring of 2021 after being hit badly in the second wave during the fall and winter of 2020 (see Figure 1). The Latvian government started vaccinating at the beginning of 2021, and by early June, 26% of the Latvian population had been fully vaccinated.

Sweden, that chose a somewhat controversial strategy to the pandemic built on individual responsibility, had reached almost 15 thousand Covid-19 deaths by the end of June of 2021, the second highest among the FREE network member countries relative to population size. The spread of the pandemic has slowed down substantially, though, during the early summer, and the percentage of fully vaccinated is about to reach 30% of the population.

Figure 1. Cumulative Covid-19 deaths 

Source: Aggregated data sources from the COVID-19 Data Repository by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University, compiled by Our World in Data.

Following a severe second wave, the number of infected in Ukraine started to go down in the winter of 2020, with the total deaths settling at about 27 thousand in the month of February. Then the third wave hit in the spring, but the number of new daily cases has decreased again and is currently three times lower than at the beginning of the lastwave. However, a large part of the reduction is likely not thanks to successful epidemiological policies but rather due to low detection rates and seasonal variation. 

In June 2021, Georgia faces a similar situation as Ukraine and Latvia, with the number of cumulative Covid-19 deaths per million inhabitants reaching around 1300 (in total 2500 people) following a rather detrimental spring 2021 wave. At the moment, both Georgia and Ukraine have very low vaccination coverage relative to other countries in the region(see Figure 5).

In contrast to the above countries, Russia started vaccinating early. Unfortunately, the country is now experiencing an increase in the number of cases (as can be seen in Figure 2), contrary to most other countries in the region. This negative development is likely due to the fact that the new Covid-19 delta variant is spreading in the country, particularly in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Despite the early start to vaccinations, though, the total number of vaccinated people remains low, only reaching 10.5% of the population.

Figure 2. New Covid-19 cases

Source: Aggregated data sources from the COVID-19 Data Repository by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University, compiled by Our World in Data.

In some ways similar to Sweden, the government of Belarus did not impose any formal restrictions on individuals’ mobility. According to the official statistics, in the month of June, the rise in the cumulative number of covid-19 deaths and new daily infections has declined rapidly and reached about 400 deceased and 800 infections per one million inhabitants, respectively. Vaccination goes slowly, and by now, around 8% of the population has gotten the first dose and 5% have received the second.

There were two major waves in Poland during the autumn 2020 and spring 2021. In the latter period, the country experienced a vast number of deaths.  As can be seen in Figure 3, the excess mortality P-score – the percentage difference between the weekly number of deaths in 2020-2021 and the average number of deaths over the years 2015-2019 – peaked in November 2020, reaching approximately 115%. The excess deaths numbers in Poland were also the highest among the FREE Network countries in the Spring of 2021, culminating at about 70% higher compared to the baseline. By mid-June, the number of deaths and cases have steeply declined and 36% of the country’s population is fully vaccinated.

Figure 3. Excess deaths

Turning to the economy, after a devastating year, almost all countries are expected to bounce back by the end of 2021 according to the IMF (see Figure 4). Much of these predictions build on the expectations that governments across the region will lift Covid-19 restrictions. These forecasts may not be unrealistic for the countries where vaccinations have come relatively far and restrictions have started to ease. However, for countries where vaccination rates remain low and new variations of the virus is spreading, the downside risk is still very present, and forecasts contain much uncertainty.

 Figure 4. GDP-growth

Vaccination challenges

Since immunization plays such a central role in re-opening the economy and society going back to normal, issues related to vaccinations were an important and recurring topic at the event. The variation in progress and speed is substantial across the countries, though.

Ukraine and Georgia are still facing big challenges with vaccine availability and have fully vaccinated only 1.3% and 2.3% of the population by the end of June, respectively. Vaccination rates have in the recent month started to pick up, but both countries face an uphill battle before reaching levels close to the more successful countries.

Figure 5. Percent fully vaccinated

Other countries a bit further ahead in the vaccine race are still facing difficulties in increasing the vaccination coverage, though not so much due to lack of availability but instead because of vaccine skepticism. In Belarus, a country that initially had bottleneck issues similar to Ukraine and Georgia, all citizens have the opportunity to get vaccinated. However, Lev Lvovskiy, Senior Research Fellow at BEROC in Belarus, argued that vaccination rates are still low largely because many Belarusians feel reluctant towards the vaccine at offer (Sputnik V).

This vaccination scepticism turns out to be a common theme in many countries. According to different survey results presented by the participants at the webinar, the percentage of people willing or planning to get vaccinated is 30% in Belarus and 44% in Russia. In Latvia, this number also varies significantly across different groups as vaccination rates are significantly lower among older age cohorts and in regions with a higher share of Russian-speaking residents, according to Sergejs Gubins, Research Fellow at BICEPS in Latvia.

Webinar participants discussed potential solutions to these issues. First, there seemed to be consensus that offering people the opportunity to choose which vaccine they get will likely be effective in increasing the uptake rate. Second, governments need to improve their communication regarding the benefits of vaccinations to the public. Several countries in the region, such as Poland and Belarus, have had statements made by officials that deviate from one another, potentially harming the government’s credibility with regards to vaccine recommendations. In Belarus, there have even been government sponsored disinformation campaigns against particular vaccines. In Latvia, the main problem is rather the need to reach and convince groups who are generally more reluctant to get vaccinated. Iurii Ganychenko, Senior Researcher at KSE in Ukraine, exemplified how Ukraine has attempted to overcome this problem by launching campaigns specifically designed to persuade certain age cohorts to get vaccinated. Natalya Volchkova, Director of CEFIR at NES in Russia, argued that new, more modern channels of information, such as professional influencers, need to be explored and that the current model of information delivery is not working.

Giorgi Papava, Lead Economist at ISET PI in Georgia, suggested that researchers can contribute to solving vaccine uptake issues by studying incentive mechanisms such as monetary rewards for those taking the vaccine, for instance in the form of lottery tickets. 

Labour markets looking forward

Participants at the webinar also discussed how the pandemic has affected labour markets and whether its consequences will bring about any long-term changes.

Regarding unemployment statistics, Michal Myck, the Director of CenEA in Poland, made the important point that some of the relatively low unemployment numbers that we have seen in the region during this pandemic are misleading. This is because the traditional definition of being unemployed implies that an individual is actively searching for work, and lockdowns and other mobility restrictions have limited this possibility. Official data on unemployment thus underestimates the drop in employment that has happened, as those losing their jobs in many cases have left the labour market altogether. We thus need to see how labor markets will develop in the next couple of months as economies open up to give a more precise verdict.

Jesper Roine, Professor at SITE in Sweden, stressed that unemployment will be the biggest challenge for Sweden since its economy depends on high labor force participation and high employment rates. He explained that the pandemic and economic crisis has disproportionately affected the labor market status of certain groups. Foreign-born and young people, two groups with relatively high unemployment rates already prior to the pandemic, have become unemployed to an even greater extent. Many are worried that these groups will face issues with re-entering the labour market as in particular long-term unemployment has increased. At the same time, there have been more positive discussions about structural changes to the labour market following the pandemic. Particularly how more employers will allow for distance work, a step already confirmed by several large Swedish firms for instance.

In Russia, a country with a labour market that allowed for very little distance work before the pandemic, similar discussions are now taking place. Natalya Volchkova reported that, in Russia, the number of vacancies which assumed distance-work increased by 10% each month starting from last year, according to one of Russia’s leading job-search platforms HeadHunter. These developments could be particularly beneficial for the regional development in Russia, as firms in more remote regions can hire workers living in other parts of the country.

Concluding Remarks

It has been over a year since the Covid-19 virus was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. This webinar highlighted that, though vaccination campaigns in principle have been rolled out across the region, their reach varies greatly, and countries are facing different challenges of re-opening and recovering from the pandemic recession. Ukraine and Georgia have gotten a very slow start to their vaccination effort due to a combination of lack of access to vaccines and vaccine skepticism. Countries like Belarus and Latvia have had better access to vaccines but are suffering from widespread vaccine skepticism, in particular in some segments of the population and to certain vaccines. Russia, which is also dealing with a broad reluctance towards vaccines, is on top of that dealing with a surge in infections caused by the delta-version of the virus.

IMF Economic Outlook suggests that most economies in the region are expected to bounce back in their GDP growth in 2021. While this positive prognosis is encouraging, the webinar reminded us that there is a great deal of uncertainty remaining not only from an epidemiological perspective but also in terms of the medium to long-term economic consequences of the pandemic.

Participants

  • Iurii Ganychenko, Senior Researcher at Kyiv School of Economics (KSE/Ukraine)
  • Sergejs Gubins, Research Fellow at the Baltic International Centre for Economic Policy Studies (BICEPS/ Latvia)
  • Natalya Volchkova, Director of the Centre for Economic and Financial Research at New Economic School (CEFIR at NES/ Russia)
  • Giorgi Papava, Lead Economist at the ISET Policy Institute (ISET PI/ Georgia)
  • Lev Lvovskiy, Senior Research Fellow at the Belarusian Economic Research and Outreach Center (BEROC/ Belarus)
  • Jesper Roine, Professor at the Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics (SITE / Sweden)
  • Michal Myck, Director of the Centre for Economic Analysis (CenEA / Poland)
  • Anders Olofsgård, Deputy Director of SITE and Associate Professor at the Stockholm School of Economics (SITE / Sweden)

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Enemies of the People

Posted on May 24, 2021 | Policy Brief

20210524 Enemies of the People FREE Network Image 04

From the early days of the Soviet Union, the regime designated the educated elite as Enemies of the People. They were political opponents and considered a threat to the regime. Between the late 1920s and early 1950s, millions of enemies of the people were rounded up and forcedly resettled to remote locations within the GULAG, a system of labor camps spread across the Soviet Union. In recent research (Toews and Vezina, 2021), we show that these forced relocations have long-term consequences on local economies. Places close to camps that hosted more enemies of the people among prisoners are more prosperous today. We suggest that this result can be explained by the intergenerational transmission of education and a resulting positive effect on local development, which can still be observed to this day.

Historical Background

Targeting the educated elite, collectively referring to them as Enemies of the People and advocating their imprisonment, can be traced back to the beginning of the Russian Revolution in 1917. After consolidating power a decade later, Stalin launched the expansion of the GULAG system, which at its peak consisted of more than a hundred camps with over 1.5 million prisoners (see Figure 1). A large number of historians extensively described this dark episode in Russian history (Applebaum (2012), Khlevniuk (2004), and Solzhenitsyn (1974)). During the darkest hours of this episode, the Great Terror, 1.5 million enemies were arrested in just about two years. While half were executed immediately, the other half were forcedly allocated to GULAG camps spread across the Soviet Union and mixed with non-political prisoners (see Figure 2). Enemies accounted for about a third of GULAG prisoners after the Great Terror. As a result, education levels were higher in the GULAG than in society. In 1939, the share of GULAG prisoners with tertiary education was 1.8%, while, according to the Soviet Census of the same year, only 0.6% of the population had tertiary education.

After Stalin’s death, labor camps started closing rapidly, but many ex-prisoners settled close to the campsites. New cities were created and existing cities in the proximity of camps started growing fast (Mikhailova, 2012). Enemies remained once freed for a combination of political, economic, and psychological reasons. Politically, they were constrained in their choice of location by Stalin-era restrictions on mobility. Economically, they had few outside options and could keep on working for the camps’ industrial projects. On the psychological level, prisoners had become attached to the location of the camp, as Solzhenitsyn (1974) clearly puts it: “Exile relieved us of the need to choose a place of residence for ourselves, and so from troublesome uncertainties and errors. No place would have been right, except that to which they had sent us.”.

Figure 1. Location and size of camps in the Soviet Gulag system

Notes: The circles are proportional to the prisoner population of camps. The data is from the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF) and Memorial

Enemies of the People and Local Prosperity

At the heart of our analysis is a dataset on GULAG camps which we collected at the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). It allows us to differentiate between prisoners who were imprisoned for political reasons (Enemies of the People) and those arrested for non-political crimes. The share of enemies varied greatly across camps, and we argue that this variation was quasi-random. We back this up by the historical narrative, according to which the resettlement process was driven by political rather than economic forces, suggesting that strategic placements played little role in the allocation of enemies (Khlevniuk (1995) and Ertz (2008)). Moreover, while the forced nature of allocation to camps allows us to rule out endogenous location decisions, we also show that neither economic activities nor geographic attributes, such as climatic conditions, soil quality, or the availability of resources, predict the share of enemies across camps.

To estimate the long-run effects of enemies on local prosperity, we link the location of camps in 1952, the year before Stalin’s death and at the peak of the GULAG system, to post-Soviet data covering the period 2000-2018.

Figure 2. The rise and fall of the Gulag

Notes: The solid line shows the number of Gulag camps while the dashed line shows the total number of prisoners in the Gulag. The two vertical dash lines indicate the years that can define the start and end of the Gulag, starting with Stalin’s 5-year plan in 1928 and ending with Stalin’s death in 1953. The shaded areas show specific periods of marked change for the Gulag, starting with dekulakization in 1929, when when Stalin announced the liquidation of the kulaks as a class and 1.8 million well-off peasants were relocated or executed. The Great Terror of 1936-1938, also referred to as the Great Purge, is the most brutal episode under Stalin’s rule, when 1.5 million enemies were arrested, and half of them executed. The Gulag’s prisoner population went down during WW2, as non-political prisoners were enlisted in the Red Army, and as the conditions in camps deteriorated and mortality increased. Source: Memorial.

In particular, the camp level information is linked to the location of firms from the Russian firm census (2018), data on night-lights (2000-2015), as well as data from household and firm-level surveys (2016 and 2011-2014, respectively). Our results suggest that one standard deviation (28 percentage point) increase in the share of enemies of the people increases night-lights intensity per capita by 58%, profits per employee by 65%, and average wages by 22%. A large number of specifications confirm the relationship depicted in Figure 3, which illustrates the positive association between the share of enemies across camps and night-lights intensity per capita.

Figure 3. Share of enemies vs. night lights per capita across Gulags

Notes: The scatters show the relationship between the share of enemies in camps in 1952 and night lights per capita within 30 km of camps in 2000 and 2015. Each circle is a 30km-radius area around a camp, and the size of the circles is proportional to the camps’ prisoner populations. The biggest circle is Khabarovsk. The solid lines show the linear fit, and the shaded areas show the 95% confidence interval. Areas near camps with a higher share of enemies have brighter night lights per capita both in 2000 and 2015. The data on Gulags is from the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF) and the data on night lights is from the DMSP-OLS satellite program and made available by the Earth Observation Group and the NOAA National Geophysical Data Center. The data on population is from the gridded population of the world from SEDAC.

Intergenerational Transmission

We suggest that the relationship between enemies and modern prosperity is due to the long-run persistence of high education levels, notably via intergenerational transmission, and their role in increasing firm productivity. For the identification of the intergenerational link, we rely on a household survey collected by the EBRD in which interviewees are explicitly asked whether their grandparents have been imprisoned for political reasons during Soviet times. Exploiting this information, we show that the grandchildren of enemies of the people are today relatively more educated. We also find that grandchildren of enemies are more likely to be residing near camps that had a higher share of enemies of the people among prisoners in 1952. An alternative explanation for our results could be that the leadership of the Soviet Union may have strategically chosen to invest more during the post-GULAG period in locations that had received more enemies to exploit complementarities between human and physical capital. We find no evidence for this mechanism. We document that Soviet investment in railroads, factories of the defence industry, or universities was, if anything, lower in places with a large share of enemies.

Conclusion

We show that the massive and forced re-allocation of human capital that took place under Stalin had long-run effects on local development. Sixty years after the death of Stalin and the demise of the GULAG, areas around camps that had a higher share of enemies are richer today, as captured by firms’ wages and profits, as well as by night-lights per capita. We argue that the education transferred from forcedly displaced enemies of the people to their children and grandchildren partly explains variation in prosperity across localities of Russia. This can be seen as a historical natural experiment that identifies the long-run persistence of higher education and its effect on long-run prosperity. Sadly, it also highlights how atrocious acts by powerful individuals can shape the development path of localities over many generations.

Bibliography

  • Applebaum, A., Gulag: A History of the Soviet Camps, Penguin Books Limited, 2012.
  • Ertz, Simon. Making Sense of the Gulag: Analyzing and Interpreting the Function of the Stalinist Camp System. No. 50. PERSA Working Paper, 2008.
  • Khlevnyuk, Oleg, “The objectives of the Great Terror, 1937–1938.” In Soviet History, 1917–53, pp. 158-176. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1995.
  • Khlevnyuk, Oleg, The History of the Gulag: From Collectivization to the Great Terror Annals of Communism, Yale University Press, 2004.
  • Mikhailova, Tatiana, “Gulag, WWII and the long-run patterns of Soviet city growth,” 2012.
  • Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr, The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-56: An Experiment in Literary Investigation, New York: Harper Row, 1973.
  • Toews, Gerhard, and Pierre-Louis Vézina. “Enemies of the people.” (2021).

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Energy Storage: Opportunities and Challenges

Posted on April 26, 2021 | Policy Brief

Wind turbines in a sunny desert representing energy storage

As the dramatic consequences of climate change are starting to unfold, addressing the intermittency of low-carbon energy sources, such as solar and wind, is crucial. The obvious solution to intermittency is energy storage. However, its constraints and implications are far from trivial. Developing and facilitating energy storage is associated with technological difficulties as well as economic and regulatory problems that need to be addressed to spur investments and foster competition. With these issues in mind, the annual Energy Talk, organized by the Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics, invited three experts to discuss the challenges and opportunities of energy storage.

Introduction

The intermittency of renewable energy sources poses one of the main challenges in the race against climate change. As the balance between electricity supply and demand must be maintained at all times, a critical step in decarbonizing the global energy sector is to enhance energy storage capacity to compensate for intermittent renewables.

Storage systems create opportunities for new entrants as well as established players in the wind and solar industry. But they also present challenges, particularly in terms of investment and economic impact.

Transitioning towards renewables, adopting green technologies, and developing energy storage can be particularly difficult for emerging economies. Some countries may be forced to clean a carbon-intensive power sector at the expense of economic progress.

The 2021 edition of Energy Talk – an annual seminar organized by the Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics – invited three international experts to discuss the challenges and opportunities of energy storage from a variety of academic and regulatory perspectives. This brief summarizes the main points of the discussion.

A TSO’s Perspective

Niclas Damsgaard, the Chief strategist at Svenska kraftnät, gave a brief overview of the situation from a transmission system operator’s (TSO’s) viewpoint. He highlighted several reasons for a faster, larger-scale, and more variable development of energy storage. For starters, the green transition implies that we are moving towards a power system that requires the supply of electricity to follow the demand to a much larger extent. The fact that the availability of renewable energy is not constant over time makes it crucial to save power when the need for electricity is low and discharge it when demand is high. However, the development and facilitation of energy storage will not happen overnight, and substantial measures on the demand side are also needed to ensure a more dynamic energy system. Indeed, Damsgaard emphasized that demand flexibility constitutes a necessary element in the current decarbonization process. However, with the long-run electrification of the economy (particularly driven by the transition of the transport industry), extensive energy storage will be a necessary complement to demand flexibility.

It is worth mentioning that such electrification is likely to create not only adaptation challenges but also opportunities for the energy systems. For example, the current dramatic decrease in battery costs (around 90% between 2010 and 2020) is, to a significant extent, associated with an increased adoption of electric vehicles.

However, even such a drastic decline in prices may still fall short of fully facilitating the new realities of the fast-changing energy sector. One of the new challenges is the possibility to store energy for extended periods of time, for example, to benefit from the differences in energy demand across months or seasons. Lithium-ion batteries, the dominant battery technology today, work well to store for a few hours or days, but not for longer storage, as such batteries self-discharge over time. Hence, to ensure sufficient long-term storage, more batteries would be needed and the associated cost would be too high, despite the above-mentioned price decrease. Alternative technological solutions may be necessary to resolve this problem.

Energy Storage and Market Structure

As emphasized above, energy storage facilitates the integration of renewables into the power market, reduces the overall cost of generating electricity, and limits carbon-based backup capacities required for the security of supply, creating massive gains for society. However, because the technological costs are still high, it is unclear whether the current economic environment will induce efficient storage. In particular, does the market provide optimal incentives for investment, or is there a need for regulations to ensure this?

Natalia Fabra, Professor of Economics and Head of EnergyEcoLab at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, shared insights from her (and co-author’s) recent paper that addresses these questions. The paper studies how firms’ incentives to operate and invest in energy storage change when firms in storage and/or production have market power.

Fabra argued that storage pricing depends on how decisions about the storage investment and generation are allocated between the regulator and the firms operating in the storage and generation markets. Comparing different market structures, she showed as market power increases, the aggregate welfare and the consumer surplus decline. Still, even at the highest level of market concentration, an integrated storage-generation monopolist firm, society and consumers are better off than without energy storage.

Fabra’s model also predicts that market power is likely to result in inefficient storage investment.

If the storage market is competitive, firms maximize profits by storing energy when the prices are low and releasing when the prices are high. The free entry condition implies that there are investments in storage capacity as long as the marginal benefit of storage investment is higher than the marginal cost of adding an additional unit of storage. But this precisely reflects the societal gains from storage; so, the competitive market will replicate the regulator solution, and there are no investment distortions.

If there is market power in either generation or storage markets, or both, the investment is no longer efficient. Under market power in generation and perfectly competitive storage, power generating firms will have the incentive to supply less electricity when demand is high and thereby increase the price. As a result, the induced price volatility will inflate arbitrage profits for competitive storage firms, potentially leading to overinvestment.

If the model features a monopolist storage firm interacting with a perfectly competitive power generation market, the effect is reversed. The firm internalizes the price it either buys or sells energy, so profit maximization makes it buy and sell less energy than it would in a competitive market, in the exact same manner as the classical monopolist/monopsonist does. This underutilization of storage leads to underinvestment.

If the model considers a vertically integrated (VI) generation-storage firm with market power in both sectors, the incentives to invest are further weakened: the above-mentioned storage monopolist distortion is exacerbated as storage undermines profits from generation.

Using data on the Spanish electricity market, the study also demonstrated that investments in renewables and storage have a complementary relationship. While storage increases renewables’ profitability by reducing the energy wasted when the availability is excess, renewables increase arbitrage profits due to increased volatility in the price.

In summary, Fabra’s presentation highlighted that the benefits of storage depend significantly on the market power and the ownership structure of storage. Typically, market power in production leads to higher volatility in prices across demand levels; in turn, storage monopolist creates productive inefficiencies, two situations that ultimately translate into higher prices for consumers and a sub-optimal level of investment.

Governments aiming to facilitate the incentives to invest in the energy storage sector should therefore carefully consider the economic and regulatory context of their respective countries, while keeping in mind that an imperfect storage market is better than none at all.

The Russian Context

The last part of the event was devoted to the green transition and the energy storage issue in Eastern Europe, with a specific focus on Russia.

Alexey Khokhlov, Head of the Electric Power Sector at the Energy Center of Moscow School of Management, SKOLKOVO, gave context to Russia’s energy storage issues and prospects. While making up for 3% of global GDP, Russia stands for 10% of the worldwide energy production, which arguably makes it one of the major actors in the global power sector (Global and Russian Energy Outlook, 2016). The country has a unified power system (UPS) interconnected by seven regional facilities constituting 880 powerplants. The system is highly centralized and covers nearly the whole country except for more remote regions in the northeast of Russia, which rely on independent energy systems. The energy production of the UPS is strongly dominated by thermal (59.27%) followed by nuclear (20.60%), hydro (19.81%), wind (0.19%), and solar energy (0.13%). The corresponding ranking in capacity is similar to that of production, except the share of hydro-storage is almost twice as high as nuclear. The percentage of solar and wind of the total energy balance is insignificant

Despite the deterring factors mentioned above, Khokhlov described how the Russian energy sector is transitioning, though at a slow pace, from the traditional centralized carbon-based system towards renewables and distributed energy resources (DER). Specifically, the production of renewables has increased 12-fold over the last five years. The government is exploring the possibilities of expanding as well as integrating already existing (originally industrial) microgrids that generate, store, and load energy, independent from the main grid. These types of small-scaled facilities typically employ a mix of energy sources, although the ones currently installed in Russia are dominated by natural gas. A primary reason for utilizing such localized systems would be for Russia to improve the energy system efficiency. Conventional power systems require extra energy to transmit power across distances. Microgrids, along with other DER’s, do not only offer better opportunities to expand the production of renewables, but their ability to operate autonomously can also help mitigate the pressure on the main grid, reducing the risk for black-outs and raising the feasibility to meet large-scale electrification in the future.

Although decarbonization does not currently seem to be on the top of Russia’s priority list, their plans to decentralize the energy sector on top of the changes in global demand for fossil fuels opens up possibilities to establish a low-carbon energy sector with storage technologies. Russia is currently exploring different technological solutions to the latter. In particular, in 2021, Russia plans to unveil a state-of-the-art solid-mass gravity storage system in Novosibirisk. Other recently commissioned solutions include photovoltaic and hybrid powerplants with integrated energy storage.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that decarbonization of the global energy system, and the role of energy storage, are key in mitigating climate change. However, the webinar highlighted that the challenges of implementing and investing in storage are both vast and heterogenous. Adequate regulation and, potentially, further government involvement is needed to correctly shape incentives for the market participants and get the industry going.

On behalf of the Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics, we would like to thank Niclas Damsgaard, Natalia Fabra, and Alexey Khokhlov for participating in this year’s Energy Talk. The material presented at the webinar can be found here.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Does the Russian Stock Market Care About Navalny?

Posted on March 29, 2021 | Policy Brief

Moscow citi in the sunset representing Russian stock market and Navalny

Alexei Navalny is the most prominent opposition leader in Russia today. During 2020, he entered not only the domestic Russian news flows, but was a major news story around the world following his horrific Novichok poisoning in August. This brief investigates the response in the Russian stock market to news about Navalny. For many significant Navalny news stories, the stock market experienced large negative returns that are not explained by the regular factors that move the market. Although the causality and permanency of these negative excess returns in the stock market are difficult to pin down completely, a first look at the numbers suggests that the short-run drops in the stock market on the days with most significant news regarding Navalny translates into several billion dollars in lost market value on the Russian stock market. In other words, for people that care about their stock market investments and the health of the Russian economy more generally, it makes a lot of sense to care about the health of Navalny.

Introduction

Alexei Navalny has become the leading political opponent to the current regime in Russia. His visibility (and possibly support) has been growing as he has endured poisoning, recovery in hospital, and court rulings that have imposed a harsh prison term. At the same time, Navalny and his team have posted new material online to make his case that both the president and other Russian leaders are seriously corrupt.

The question addressed in this brief is whether the news regarding Navalny affected the Russian stock market. The reasons for such a response may vary between different investors but could include a fear of international sanctions against Russia; an aversion to keeping investments in a country that put a nerve agent in the underwear of a leading opposition leader; or that news of a national security service poisoning one of its own citizens could trigger domestic protests that create instability.

This brief only investigates if Navalny-related news or events are taken into account at the macro level in the stock market and if so, how important the news seem to be relative to other news as drivers of the stock market index. However, there is a long list of related questions that are subjects for upcoming briefs that include differential effects across sectors and companies as well as identifying what dimensions of the news stories investors responded to.

Navalny in the News

Since August 2020, news regarding Alexei Navalny’s health and his role as the most important opposition leader in Russia have featured prominently in media around the world. There are different ways to analyze the significance of Navalny in the news and here the readily available measure provided by Google trends will be used. Figure 1 shows a global search on the keyword “Navalny” over the period July 1, 2020 to March 13, 2021 relative to total searches, where the maximum level in the period is normalized to 100 and other values are scaled to this. While the numbers on the graph are just relative measures, not telling much about the actual popularity, or market relevance of searches, the spikes in Figure 1 have very clear connections to major news stories as will be detailed below.

Figure 1. Google trends on Navalny

Source: Google trends, global search on Navalny on 2021-03-18

Four episodes stand out in Figure 1 and are marked by red numbers:

1 (August 20-25, 2020) is associated with Navalny falling ill on the flight from Tomsk to Moscow which led to an emergency landing in Omsk and then going to Germany for specialist treatment where it was stated that he had been poisoned.

2 (September 2-3, 2020) is when the German government said that the poison Navalny was exposed to was Novichok, which was also confirmed by laboratories in Sweden and France.

3 (January 17-25, 2021) is an extended period covering the arrest of Navalny as he returned to Russia on January 17; the publication of the YouTube video on “Putin’s palace”; and the street protests that followed.

4 (January 31-February 5) is a period covering a new weekend of public protests and then on February 2, Navalny being sentenced to prison for not complying with parole rules when he was in a coma in Germany. At the tail end of this period, Navalny’s chief of staff announced that street protests will be suspended due to thousands of arrests and police beatings.

Russian Stock Market Reactions

Using stock markets to investigate the value of political news is not new; for example, Fisman (2001) looks at how news regarding Suharto’s health differentially impacted firms that were connected to Suharto versus those that were not. On a topic more closely related to this brief, Enikolopov, Petrova, and Sonin (2018), show that Navalny’s blog posts on corruption negatively affect share prices for the exposed state-controlled companies. Looking at the overall stock market index rather than individual shares in Russia, Becker (2019) analyzes stock market reactions to Russia invading Crimea.

To get a stock market valuation effect of Navalny news that is as clean as possible, we need to filter out other factors that are known to be important drivers of the stock market. In the case of Russia’s dollar denominated stock market index RTS (short for Russia Trading System), we know from Becker (2019) that it is sensitive to movements in global stock markets and international oil prices. The former factor is in line with other stock markets around the world and the oil dependence of the Russian economy makes oil prices a natural second factor (see Becker, 2016).

Figure 2 shows how the RTS index moves with the global markets (proxied by S&P 500 index) and (Brent) oil prices in this period. The correlations of returns are around 0.4 between the RTS and both S&P500 and oil prices respectively. This figure is also the answer to the obvious argument that the stock market was doing very well in the time period of Navalny in the news, so he could not be a major concern to investors. As we will show below, this argument goes away when the effects of the exogenous factors are removed.

To filter out these exogenous factors, we follow the approach in Becker (2019) and regress daily returns on the RTS on daily returns of the exogenous variables. We then compute the residuals from the estimation to arrive at the excess returns that are utilized in the subsequent analysis. For more details on this, see Becker (2020). Since the estimated model provides the foundation for the subsequent analysis, it is important to note that all of the coefficients are statistically significant, and that results are robust to changes in the estimation period and exclusion of lagged values of the exogenous variables.

Figure 2. RTS and exogenous factors

Source: Data on RTS from the Moscow Exchange (MOEX), S&P500 from Nasdaq, and Brent oil prices from the US energy information administration.

With a time-series of excess returns for the Russian stock market, we can look at the stock market reactions to the four Navalny episodes identified in Figure 1. These periods cover some days for which we cannot compute excess returns since there are days when there is no trading, but all dates in the period are shown in Figure 3 to provide a full account of what stock market data we have for the events. In addition to excess returns during the events that are shown in blue, the day before and the day after the events are shown in light grey. In the first three episodes, the cumulative returns during the events windows were minus 6.2, minus 2.4, minus 6.0 percent, while in the fourth event window it was plus 0.8 (although in this period, the day after Navalny was sentenced to jail, the excess return was minus 1.7).

The correlations between news and excess returns in this brief are based on daily data. Since many things can happen during a day, the analysis is not as precise as in the paper by Enikolopov, Petrova, and Sonin (2018), where the authors claim that causality is proven by the minute by minute data. Although we have to be more modest in claiming that we have identified a causal relationship going from Navalny news to negative stock market returns, the daily data used here provides enough evidence to claim that there is a strong association pointing in this direction. If we take all four events and translate the cumulative excess returns in percent (which is 14) into dollars by using the market capitalization on the RTS at the time of the events (on average around 200 billion dollars), this amounts to a combined loss in market value of over 27 billion dollars.

Figure 3. Excess returns and Navalny news

Source: Excess returns from author’s calculations based on data from the Moscow Exchange (MOEX), Nasdaq, and the US energy information administration. The chart indicates days for which we cannot compute excess returns since not all days are trading days.

We may think that excess returns of this magnitude are common and that what we pick up for the four Navalny episodes are regular events in the market. To investigate this and other potential factors that have been important to explain excess returns in this time period, Table 1 provides a list of all the days when the excess return in the market was minus 2 percent or worse. Between August 2020 and mid-March 2021, there were eight such days. The table also shows what could be an associated Navalny event on or close to those dates as well as other competing factors or news that could explain the large negative returns on these days.

Out of 8 days with strong negative returns, the first three days are very clearly associated with major news regarding the poisoning of Navalny. The fourth day is close to Navalny’s release from the hospital but also when there are discussions about U.S. views on Iran and Ukraine. Two of the days are in the time period of the protests following Navalny’s video on “Putin’s palace” and two more days are related to important international institutions speaking out regarding first the poisoning with Novichok and then about the prison term of Navalny.

Although we would need a more fine-grained look at market data to make a final judgment on the most important drivers of the excess returns of a specific day, the fact that every single day with large negative excess returns is on or close to a Navalny news story is again pointing in the direction of a stock market that reacts to news about Navalny. Furthermore, the most significant drops with less competing news are associated with events that have a direct connection to Navalny’s health and how his life was put in danger. In the list of competing news are Nord Stream, Biden affecting the oil and gas industry, and a law regarding the taxation of digital currencies. They are likely to be of at least some relevance for stock market valuations and could account for certain days or shares of poor performance of the RTS, but it is hard to ignore the general impression of Navalny being important for the stock market in this period.

Table 1. Days with RTS excess returns of minus 2% or worse (August 1, 2020 to March 12, 2021)

Source: Excess returns from author’s calculations based on data from the Moscow Exchange (MOEX), Nasdaq, and the US energy information administration. News comes from internet searches on Navalny and relevant dates.

Conclusions

Although it is difficult to prove causality and rule out all competing explanations, this investigation has shown a strong association between major news regarding Navalny and very poor performance of the Russian stock market. Every day since August 2020 that had excess returns of minus 2 percent or worse is more or less closely associated with significant news on Navalny. More than that, almost all days with significant Navalny news during this period, – as captured by high search intensity of Navalny on Google, – are associated with a poorly performing stock market. In particular, this holds for the day of his poisoning and the following days with comments by international doctors, politicians, and institutions regarding the use of Novichok to this end.

It could be noted that a 1 percent decline in the RTS equates to a loss in monetary terms of around 2 billion USD in this time period since the market capitalization of the RTS index was on average around 200 billion USD. The combined decline in the events shown in Figure 3 is 14 percent and for the days listed in Table 1, it is 21 percent, i.e., corresponding to market losses of somewhere between 28 and 42 billion USD. Even if only a fraction of this would be directly associated with news on Navalny, it adds up to very significant sums that some investors have lost. One may argue that the losses are only temporary and recovered within a short time period (which would still need to be proven), but for the investors that sold assets on those particular days, this is of little comfort. At a minimum, events like these contribute to increased volatility in the market that in turn has a negative effect on capital flows, investments, and ultimately economic growth (Becker, 2019 and 2020). For anyone caring about the health of their own investments or the Russian economy, it makes sense to care about the health of Navalny.

References

  • Becker, Torbjörn, 2016. “Russia and Oil — Out of Control”, FREE policy brief.
  • Becker, Torbjörn, 2019. “Russia’s Real Cost of Crimean Uncertainty”, FREE policy brief, June 10.
  • Becker, Torbjörn, 2020. “Russia’s macroeconomy—a closer look at growth, investment, and uncertainty”, Ch 2 in Putin’s Russia: Economy, Defence And Foreign Policy, ed. Steven Rosefielde, Scientific Press: Singapore.
  • Enikolopov, Ruben, Maria Petrova, and Konstantin Sonin, 2018, “Social Media and Corruption”, American Economic Journals: Applied Economics, 10(1): 150-174.
  • Fisman, Raymond, 2001, “Estimating the Value of Political Connections.” American Economic Review, 91 (4): 1095-1102.
  • Google trends data.
  • Moscow Exchange (MOEX), RTS index data.
  • Nasdaq, S&P 500 data.
  • U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2021, data on Brent oil prices.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Understanding Russia’s GDP Numbers in the COVID-19 Crisis

Posted on March 9, 2021 | Policy Brief

20210308 Understanding Russia GDP Numbers FREE Network Policy Brief Image 02

Russia’s real GDP fell by a modest 3 percent in 2020. The question addressed here is how a major oil-exporting country can go through the COVID-19 pandemic with a decline of this magnitude when oil prices fell by 35 percent at the same time as the domestic economy suffered from lock-downs. The short answer is that it is mainly a statistical mirage. The aggregate real GDP decline would have been almost three times greater than in the official statistics if changes in exports were computed in a way that better reflects their value. In particular, the real GDP calculation uses changes in volumes rather than values to omit inflation, but for exports, it thus ignores large changes in international oil prices. In the end, what the government, companies, and people in Russia can spend is much more closely related to how much money is earned on its exports than how many barrels of oil the country has sold to the rest of the world. More generally, this means that real GDP growth in Russia is not a very useful statistic in years with large changes in oil prices, as was the case in 2020, since it does not properly reflect changes in real income or spending power. When policymakers, journalists, and scholars now start to compare economic developments across countries in the covid-19 pandemic, this is something to bear in mind.

Introduction

The world is closing the books on 2020 and it is time to take stock of the damage done by the COVID-19 pandemic thus far. A year into the pandemic, over 100 million cases have been confirmed and almost 2.5 million people have died worldwide according to ECDC (2021) statistics. Russia has not been spared and Rosstat reported 4 million infected and over 160 000 dead in 2020.

Human suffering in terms of lost health and lives is certainly the main concern in the pandemic, but on top of that comes the damage done to economies around the world. Falling incomes, lost jobs, closed businesses, and sub-par schooling will create significant health and other problems even in a fully vaccinated world for years to come.

Understanding how real GDP has fared in the crisis does not capture all of these aspects, but some. With the IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook update on economic performance out in January 2021, it is easy to start comparing GDP growth across countries (IMF, 2021). GDP growth is a standard measure of past performances in general, but the numbers for 2020 may also enter various domestic and international policy discussions of what does and does not work in protecting economies in the pandemic. For countries that seem to have fared better than their peers, the growth numbers are likely going to be used by incumbent politicians to boost their ratings or by consumers and business leaders making plans for the future.

In short, real GDP numbers are important to most economic and political actors, domestically and globally, with or without a crisis unfolding. It is therefore important to understand how Russia, a major oil exporter with significant losses of lives and incomes in the pandemic, could report a real GDP decline of only 3 percent in 2020 (Rosstat, 2021). Although this is not far from the global average reported by the IMF (2021), it is far better than the 7.2 percent drop in the Euro area, 10 percent fall in the UK, or 7.5 to 8 percent declines of its BRICS peers, South Africa and India. This brief provides the details to understand that Russia’s performance is more of a statistical artifact than a fundamental reflection of the health of the Russian economy.

Oil prices, GDP growth, and the ruble

Russia’s dependence on exporting oil and other natural resources is well documented (see for example Becker, 2016a and 2016b) and often discussed by Russian policymakers and pundits. In particular, changing international oil prices is a key determinant of growth in the Russian economy. Even if the level of real GDP disconnected from oil prices somewhere between 2009 and 2014 (Figure 1), the link between real GDP growth and changes in oil prices persists (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Russia real GDP and oil prices

Source: Author’s calculations based on U.S. Energy Information Administration and Rosstat.

The empirical regularity that still holds is that, on average, a 10 percent increase (decline) in oil prices leads to around 1.4 percent real GDP growth (fall), see Becker (2016a). With a 35 percent decline in oil prices in 2020, this alone would lead to a drop in GDP of around 5 percent.

Figure 2. GDP growth and oil price changes

Source: Author’s calculations based on U.S. Energy Information Administration and Rosstat.

One factor that has a fundamental impact on how the relationship between oil prices and different measures of GDP changes over time is the ruble exchange rate. For a long period, Russia had a fixed exchange rate regime with only occasional adjustments of the rate. A stable exchange rate was the nominal anchor that should instill confidence among consumers and investors. However, when changes in the oil prices were too significant, the exchange rate had to be adjusted to avoid a complete loss of foreign exchange reserves. This was evident in the 90’s with the crisis in 1998 and later in the global financial crisis in 2008/09. Eventually, this led to a flexible exchange rate regime and in 2014, Russia introduced a flexible exchange rate regime together with inflation targeting as many other countries had done before it.

As can be seen in Figure 3, this has important implications for how changes in international oil prices in dollars are translated into rubles. Note that the figure shows index values of the series that are set to 100 in the year 2000 so that values indicate changes from this initial level. Starting in 2011, but more prominently since 2014, the oil price in rubles has been at a significantly higher level compared to the oil price measured in dollars, which is of course due to the ruble depreciating. This affects the government’s budget as well as different measures of income in rubles. However, if oil prices in dollars change, this affects the real spending power of Russian entities compared with economic actors in other countries regardless of the exchange rate regime. Moving to a flexible exchange rate regime was inevitable and the right policy to ensure macroeconomic stability in Russia when oil prices went into free fall. Nevertheless, it does not change the fundamental economic fact that falling oil prices affect the real income of an oil-exporting country. It also makes it even more important to understand how real GDP is calculated.

Figure 3. Oil prices and exchange rate indices

Source: Author’s calculations based on U.S. Energy Information Administration and Central Bank of Russia.

The components of real GPD

GDP is an aggregate number that can be calculated from the income or expenditure side. The focus in this brief is on the expenditure side of GDP. The accounting identity at play is then that GDP is equal to private consumption plus government consumption plus investments (that can be divided into fixed capital investments plus change in inventories) plus exports minus imports (where exports minus imports is also called net exports). Being an accounting identity, it should add up perfectly but in the real world, components on both the income and expenditure sides are estimated and things do not always add up as expected. This generates a statistical discrepancy in empirical data.

Another important note on real GDP (rather than nominal GDP measured in current rubles) is that the focus is on how quantities change rather than prices or ruble values. The idea is of course to get rid of inflation and focus on, for example, how many refrigerators are consumed this year compared to last year and not if the price of refrigerators went up or down. This may sound obvious, but it comes with its own problems concerning implementation and interpretations. For Russia, real GDP becomes problematic because its main export is oil (gas and its related products). The price of oil is just one of many drivers of Russia’s inflation but is an extremely important driver of its export revenues and growth as has been discussed above. On top of that, oil prices are volatile and basically impossible to control for Russia or even the OPEC.

So why does this matter for understanding Russia’s real GDP growth in 2020? The answer lies in how the different components of real GDP are computed. To make this clear, the evolution of the components between 2019 and 2020 is shown in Table 1.   

Table 1. Russia’s GDP components from the expenditure side

Source: Author’s calculations based on data from Rosstat

In short, private consumption fell by close to 9 percent in 2020 compared to 2019; government consumption increased by 4 percent; gross fixed capital formation declined by 6 percent while inventories increased by 26 percent; exports lost 5 percent, but imports went down by 14 so that net exports showed an increase of 65 percent! To calculate the impact these changes have on aggregate GDP growth, we need to multiply with the share of GDP for a component to arrive at the impact on GDP growth in the final column of Table 1.

Although there are some issues to resolve with both government consumption and inventory buildup, to understand real GDP growth in 2020, it is crucial to understand what happened to exports and imports in real GDP data. First of all, how does this data compare with the balance of payments data that measures exports and imports in dollar terms or the data that show the value of exports of oil, gas, and related products? Table 2 makes it clear that the numbers do not compare at all! Again, this is due to real GDP numbers being based on changes in volumes rather than values while the trade date reports values in dollars (that can be translated to rubles by using the market exchange rate).

In the real GDP statistics, net exports show growth of 66 percent in 2020, compared to declines of 37 to 44 percent if merchandise trade data is used. Going into more detail, real GDP data has exports declining by 5 percent, while other indicators fall by between 11 and 37 percent. It is similar with imports (that enter the GDP calculation with a negative sign); the import decline recorded in real GDP is 14 percent, while trade data suggest a 6 percent decline in dollar terms but an increase of 7 percent in nominal ruble terms.

Table 2. Trade statistics

Source: Author’s calculations based on Rosstat, Central Bank of Russia and BOFIT

What would it mean if we use some of these alternative growth rates for exports and imports (while keeping other components in line with official statistics) to calculate aggregate GDP growth in 2020? The rationale for keeping other components unchanged is that this provides a first-round effect of changing trade numbers on real GDP growth.

To make this calculation, the GDP shares of exports and imports (or net exports) in 2019 are needed. Table 1 shows that these numbers are 27 and 24 percent (or a net 3 percent) of total GDP. Multiplying the share of a GDP component with its growth rate gives the contribution of the component to overall GDP growth. The calculations based on different trade data are shown in Table 3. The last line of the table is what GDP growth would have been with these alternative trade data. Note that the real GDP growth number is -2.9 percent when we use the individual components of GDP decomposition (rather than the official headline number -3.1 real GDP growth when using aggregate GDP) so this is shown here to make the table consistent with the alternative calculations. In the last column of Table 3, oil and gas exports are assumed to make up for half of exports and this number disregards changes in other exports or imports to isolate the effect of changes in the value of oil and gas exports from other changes.

The summary of this exercise is that with more meaningful trade data used in calculating GDP growth, Russia would have recorded a decline of around 9 percent rather than 3 percent. This is of course a partial analysis focusing on the trade part of real GDP since this effect is very striking. Other components of the calculation may also have issues that need to be adjusted to arrive at a more realistic growth number. Still, even the current estimate is not unrealistic. For example,  household consumption fell by around 9 percent, which would be consistent with a GDP decline of 9 percent that is not recovered in the future in a permanent income model.

Table 3. GDP growth contributions from alternative trade data

Source: Author’s calculations based on U.S. Energy Information Administration and Rosstat

Conclusions

Real GDP growth numbers are important to understand economic developments in a country and provide the foundation for many types of economic decisions. The numbers are also used to compare the economic performance of different countries and evaluate policy responses in the COVID-19 pandemic we are currently part of.

The problem with Russia’s reported growth of minus 3 percent is not that the real GDP calculation is wrong per se, but it is clearly the wrong metrics to use for understanding how incomes and purchasing powers of Russian households, companies, and the government changed in 2020. If we instead use trade data that better reflect plummeting oil prices in international markets, alternative estimates of Russia’s real growth show a GDP decline of (at least) 9 percent.  This is a three times larger drop than the official number of minus 3 percent. This is important to keep in mind when Russia’s economic performance in the pandemic is compared with other countries or while discussing the economic realities of people living in Russia.

References

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Addressing the COVID-19 Pandemic: Vaccination Efforts in FREE Network Countries

Posted on March 1, 2021 | Policy Brief

Preparing Covid Vaccine on Pink Surface representing COVID-19 vaccination

There are great expectations that vaccinations will enable a return to normality from Covid-19. However, there is massive variation in vaccination efforts, vaccine access, and attitudes to vaccination in the population across countries. This policy brief compares the situation in a number of countries in Eastern Europe, the Baltics, the Caucasus region, and Sweden. The brief is based on the insights shared at a recent webinar “Addressing the COVID-19 pandemic: Vaccination efforts in FREE Network countries” organized by the Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics.

Introduction

As of February 16, 2021, the total number of confirmed COVID-19 deaths across the globe has reached 2.45 million according to Our World in Data (2021).  Rapid implementation of vaccination programs that extend to major parts of the population is of paramount importance, not only from a global health perspective, but also in terms of economic, political, and social implications.

Eastern Europe is no exception. Although many countries in the region had a relatively low level of infections during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020, all have by now been severely affected. Vaccination plays a key role for these economies to bounce back, especially as many of them depend on tourism, trade, and other sectors that have been particularly hurt by social distancing restrictions.

 Figure 1. Cumulative confirmed COVID-19 cases (top panel) and deaths per million (bottom panel) in the FREE Network region

Source: John Hopkins University CSSE COVID-19 visualizations: Ourworldindata.org/coronavirus

Against this background, the Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics invited representatives of the FREE Network countries to discuss the current vaccination efforts happening in Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and the Caucasus (the represented countries were Belarus, Georgia, Latvia, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and Ukraine). This brief summarizes the main points raised in this event.

Vaccination Status

In Latvia, Poland, and Sweden, the second wave of infections started to pick up in November 2020 and peaked according to most COVID-19 impact measures in early 2021. As all three countries are members of the EU and take part in its coordinated efforts, they have all received vaccines from the same suppliers (i.e. Astra/Zeneca, Moderna, and Pfizer/BioNTech).

Latvia had problems early on with getting the vaccination process off the ground. The health minister was blamed for the slow start since he declined orders from Pfizer/BioNTech in the early stages, and was forced to resign. As of February 16, two doses per 100 people have been distributed primarily to medical staff, social care workers, and key-state officials.

Figure 2. Cumulative COVID-19 vaccination doses per 100 people

Source: Our world in data, last updated February 24th, 2021. This is counted as a single dose, and may not equal the total number of people vaccinated. Visualizations: Ourworldindata.org/coronavirus

With the first phase starting in late December, Sweden has by February 16th, 2021, fully vaccinated 1,05% of the population while experiencing serious problems with delivery and implementation. As planning and delivery of vaccines are centralized while the implementation is decided regionally, there have been some unclarities regarding who stands accountable for issues that emerge. Guidelines, issued by the Public Health Agency of Sweden, for how to prioritize different groups have been changed a couple of times. Currently, the (non-binding) recommendation is to prioritize vaccinating people living in elderly care homes, as well as personnel working with this group, followed by those above 65 years of age, health care workers, and other risk groups.

Looking at regional statistics there are significant differences in vaccinating people across regions with an average of 70% usage rate of delivered vaccines, and with lows at 40-60%, see figure 3. Reasons for this remain unclear.

Figure 3. Distributed relative to delivered vaccines across counties (län) in Sweden.

Source: Authors’ calculations based on data collected by the Public Health Agency of Sweden. Last updated February 14th, 2021.

Poland has so far been somewhat more efficient than Sweden in its vaccination efforts. Despite turbulent political events over the last couple of months, it has managed to distribute 5.7 doses per 100 people. The country has just finished the first phase of the national vaccination plan, which focused on vaccinating healthcare personnel, and has now entered the second phase with a shifted focus towards elderly care homes, people above 60 years of age, military, and teachers.

Among the countries that are not members of the EU, and thus, not taking part in its coordinated vaccination efforts, the vaccination statuses are more diverse.

Russia was fast in developing and approving the Sputnik V vaccine. The country started vaccinating in early December, although only people in the age of 18-60 in prioritized occupations such as health care workers, people living and working in nursing homes, teachers, and military. At the start of 2021, the program extended to people above 60 and, on January 16, all adults were given the possibility to register themselves and get vaccinated within one week. There are no precise data at the moment, but the fraction of the population vaccinated is likely to be higher than 1%.

Others in the region have faced greater challenges in signing contracts with vaccine suppliers. Georgia and Ukraine are still waiting to secure deliveries and have not yet started to vaccinate. Being outside the EU agreements and with public and political mistrust towards Sputnik V and Russia alternatives are being explored. Georgia has ordered vaccines through the COVAX platform (co-led by Gavi, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and WHO) but there are concerns about potential delays in deliveries. In terms of prioritizing groups once vaccinations can start, both Ukraine and Georgia have set similar priorities as other countries, with extra focus on health-care and essential workers, age-related risk groups, and people with chronic illnesses.

While Belarus’ official figures on the death toll have been widely perceived as unrealistic from the beginning, the most accurate and recent data shows an excess deaths rate of about 20% in July. The country has no precise data on vaccinations, but some reports have emerged based on interviews with government officials in the Belarusian media. These suggest that around 20,000 imported doses of Sputnik V have been distributed mainly to medical professionals and an additional 120,000-140,000 doses have been promised by Russia.

Main Challenges

The discussion during the Q&A session at the webinar concerned the economic and political implications of vaccinations in the region.

Pavlo Kovtoniuk, the Head of Health Economics Center at KSE in Ukraine, stressed the importance of a coordinated vaccination effort in Europe with regards to geopolitics. There is a clear EU vs Non-EU divide in the vaccination status across European countries. The limited vaccine availability in Non-EU countries such as Ukraine, Georgia, and Belarus offers opportunities for more influential nations like Russia and China to pressure and affect domestic policy in these countries.

Also highlighting the fact that no one is safe until everybody is safe, Lev Lvovskiy, Senior Research Fellow at BEROC in Minsk, noted that vaccination efforts in Europe are important for recovery in small open economies like Belarus as many of its trade partners currently have imposed temporary import restrictions.

Similar to the political crisis happening alongside the pandemic in Belarus, the challenges we see in Poland – protests against the recent developments regarding abortion rights and attempts by the government to limit free media – have deflated the urgency to vaccinate in terms of its future economic and political implications, according to Michal Myck, director of CenEA in Szczecin.

Looking forward, another major challenge for the region is vaccine skepticism. Not only do many countries have to build proper infrastructure that can administer vaccines at the required scale and pace, but also make sure that people actually show up. In Latvia, Poland, Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine, polls show that less than 50% of the population are ready to vaccinate. Sergejs Gubin, Research Fellow at BICEPS in Riga, highlighted that there can be systematic variation in the willingness to vaccinate within countries as e.g. Russian-speaking natives in Latvia have been found to be less prone to vaccinate on average. Also, most of the skepticism in Georgia has been more directed towards the Chinese and Russian vaccine than towards those approved by the EU, according to Yaroslava Babych who is lead economist at ISET in Tbilisi.

Even though vaccine skepticism is an issue in Russia too, Natalya Volchkova, Director of CEFIR at New Economic School in Moscow, pointed to the positive impact of “bandwagon effects” in vaccination efforts. When one person gets vaccinated, that person can spread more accurate information about the vaccine to their social circle, resulting in fewer and fewer people being skeptical as the share of vaccinated grows. In such a scenario vaccine skepticism can fade away over time, even if initial estimates suggest it is high in the population.

Concluding Remarks

Almost exactly a year has passed since Covid-19 was declared a pandemic. The economic and social consequences have been enormous. Now vaccines – developed faster than expected – promise a way out of the crisis. But major challenges, of different types and magnitudes across the globe, still remain. As the seminar highlighted, there are important differences across transition countries. Some countries (such as Russia) have secured vaccines by developing them, but still face challenges in producing and distributing vaccines. Others have secured deliveries through the joint effort by the EU, but this has also had its costs in terms of a somewhat slower process (compared to some of the countries acting on their own) and sharing within the EU. For some other countries, like Belarus, Ukraine, and Georgia, the vaccination is yet to be started. All in all, the choice and availability of vaccines across the region illustrates how economic and geopolitical questions remain important. Finally, for many of the region countries vaccine skepticism and information as well as disinformation are important determinants in distributing vaccines. Summing up, the combination of these factors once again reminds us that how to best get back from the pandemic is truly a multidisciplinary question.

List of Participants

  • Iurii Ganychenko, Senior researcher at Kyiv School of Economics (KSE/Ukraine)
  • Jesper Roine, Professor at Stockholm School of Economics (SSE) and Deputy Director at the Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics (SITE/ Sweden)
  • Lev Lvovskiy, Senior Research Fellow at the Belarusian Economic Research and Outreach Center (BEROC/ Belarus)
  • Michal Myck, Director of the Centre for Economic Analysis (CenEA/ Poland)
  • Natalya Volchkova, Director of the Centre for Economic and Financial Research  ­New Economic School (CEFIR NES/ Russia)
  • Pavlo Kovtoniuk, Head of Health Economics Center at Kyiv School of Economics (KSE/Ukraine)
  • Sergej Gubin, Research Fellow at the Baltic International Centre for Economic Policy Studies (BICEPS/ Latvia)
  • Yaroslava V. Babych, Lead Economist at ISET Policy Institute (ISET PI/ Georgia)

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Video of the FREE Network webinar “Addressing the Covid-19 Pandemic: Vaccination Efforts in Free Network Countries“

Can Central Banks Always Influence Financial Markets? Evidence from Russia

Posted on June 8, 2020 | Policy Brief

Tall buildings in Moscow city representing central banks and financial markets

In many financial markets, including the UK and US, central banks are able to influence asset prices through unexpected interest rate changes (so-called indirect channel of monetary policy). In our paper (Shibanov and Slyusar 2019) we study the Russian market in 2013-2019 and measure policy shocks by the difference between the key rate and analysts’ median forecast. We show that in the short-term, the Central Bank of Russia does not significantly influence the general stock market or the ruble exchange rate outside December 2014 and January 2015, while some sectoral stock indices react to the changes opposite to what theoretical models predict. Overall, the Russian case is more similar to the ECB and the case of the German economy than to results from the UK or the US. This may mean that the Bank of Russia has more influence through the direct channel on the interest rates of credits and deposits.

Asset Price Reaction to Policy Changes

What should we expect from a general stock market or a national currency reaction to the central bank interest rate policy? This indirect effect may lead to changes in the collateral available in the economy, or in imports and exports of a country. Theoretical models predict that an expected decrease in the key rate would have no impact on asset prices, while unexpected increases in the key rate may have a negative impact on asset prices (Kontonikas et al. 2013). If the interest rate increases more than the markets or analysts expect, we would see prices decrease as discount rates most probably increase; the opposite happens when the interest rate decreases more than expected.

The results of testing this presumption on different countries are not uniform. While in the US (Kontonikas et al. 2013) and in the UK (Bredin et al. 2009) the impacts of key rate policy surprises are significant, the ECB influences neither the UK nor the German stock markets (Breidin et al. 2009).

Regarding the exchange rate (Hausman and Wongswan, 2011), there is evidence that unexpected changes in the US interest rate have a strong impact on floating currencies.

The Case of Russia

Russian monetary policy has changed a lot since 2013. The introduction of the “key rate” as the main policy tool, switch to the floating ruble and inflation targeting in November 2014 all lead to a new framework used by the Bank of Russia. Therefore, it is of interest to check what happens with the indirect channel of policy transmission (through asset prices and financial markets).

There is at least one paper that precedes our research. Kuznetsova and Ulyanova (2016) study the impact of verbal interventions by the Bank of Russia (Central Bank of Russia) on both the returns and the volatility of the Russian stock market index (RTS) in 2014-2015. Their findings suggest that returns do react to the Bank of Russia communications, while volatility does not.

In our paper (Shibanov and Slyusar 2019) we study the period of 2013-2019, that is the time of Elvira Nabiullina as governor of the Bank of Russia. Our approach is based on the assumption that news are incorporated in the stock market reasonably fast, no later than 4 trading days after the day of announcement. For the exchange rate we take short-term movements 30 minutes before and after the time of publication (like in Hausman and Wongswan 2011). Monetary policy surprise is measured as the difference between the realized key rate and the median expectations of analysts in Thomson Reuters. Abnormal returns are computed using an index model.

Figure 1 shows that the surprises are close to zero except for two dates: December 2014 and January 2015. In the first period the key rate was increased to 17%, while in the second it was reduced to 15%. In the paper we show that these two days are clear outliers that bias the results, so we study the relationship without them.

Results for the Stock Market

The stock market reaction in the symmetric window of four days before the announcement and four days after is muted (see Table 1). While the main index (MICEX) does not react significantly, two sectors (MM – metals and mining, and chemistry) react positively to the unexpected increase in the key rate. This result seems to contradict what we would expect from the market. The bond index does not significantly react to the changes.

Table 1. Cumulative effect, sample with no shocks (days from -4 to +4).

Sector Estimate t-statistic P-value Significance
MICEX 1.6192 0.6803 0.4999 0.041
OG 0.2511 1.125 0.2668 0.005
Finance -1.2933 -1.080 0.2860 0.024
Energy -0.4513 -0.7145 0.4787 0.004
MM 2.2876 3.326 0.0018 *** 0.113
Telecom -0.2534 -0.2844 0.7774 0.001
Consum. 0.2178 0.4191 0.6772 0.001
Chemistry 2.9787 2.642 0.0114 ** 0.132
Transport 0.3200 0.1548 0.8777 0.001
Bonds 1.4080 1.048 0.3002 0.037

Source: Shibanov and Slyusar (2019), Thomson Reuters, Moscow Stock Exchange and Bank of Russia data.

Results for the Ruble Exchange Rate

The exchange rate should react with a depreciation to the unexpected key rate decrease. If there is an unexpected increase, the return on the ruble-denominated bonds rises and so the currency becomes more attractive to the international investors.

However, we do not observe any significant difference between the cases of expected and unexpected changes (see Table 2). All the movements are quite noisy and do not show any stable pattern.

Table 2. Exchange rate reaction to the key rate changes.

Key rate increase Key rate decrease
Unexpected -1.05% -0.04%
Expected 0.65% 0.003%

Source: Shibanov and Slyusar (2019), Thomson Reuters and Bank of Russia data.

Figure 1. Deviations of the actual key rate from median expectations (key rate surprises), percentage points.

Source: Shibanov and Slyusar (2019), Thomson Reuters and Bank of Russia data.

Conclusion

As we see from our analysis, the Bank of Russia’s impact on financial markets is similar to the one observed in Germany after ECB policy changes. There is almost no sizeable and stable effect neither on asset prices nor on the exchange rate.

The results do not mean, however, that monetary policy in Russia is irrelevant. The direct channel – i.e. the impact of the central bank’s decisions on the interest rates of credits and deposits works well. Moreover, we only consider short-term effects concentrated around the announcement date. Longer-term effects may be more pronounced.

References

  • Bredin, D. et al. (2009) ‘European monetary policy surprises: the aggregate and sectoral stock market response’, International Journal of Finance & Economics. Wiley Online Library, 14(2), pp. 156–171.
  • Hausman, J. and Wongswan, J. (2011) ‘Global asset prices and FOMC announcements’, Journal of International Money and Finance. Elsevier Ltd, 30(3), pp. 547–571. doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2011.01.008.
  • Kontonikas, A., MacDonald, R. and Saggu, A. (2013) ‘Stock market reaction to fed funds rate surprises: State dependence and the financial crisis’, Journal of Banking and Finance, 37(11), pp. 4025–4037. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.06.010.
  • Kuznetsova, O. and Ulyanova, S. (2016) ‘The Impact of Central Bank’s Verbal Interventions on Stock Exchange Indices in a Resource Based Economy: The Evidence from Russia’, Working Paper, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876617.
  • Shibanov, O. and Slyusar A. (2019) ‘Interest rate surprises, analyst expectations and stock market returns: case of Russia’, Working Paper.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Covid-19 and Gender Inequality in Russia

Posted on May 14, 2020 | Policy Brief

20200514 Covid-19 and Gender Inequality in Russia FREE Network Policy Brief Image 01

Gender inequality is a complex phenomenon characterized by significant and persistent differences in social and economic indicators for women and men. In connection with the Covid-19 pandemic and unprecedented quarantine measures around the world, economists are thinking not only about the obvious global consequences for the global economy but also about the indirect effects, including those through gender-related changes in the labor market. What will the consequences of this crisis on the labor market be in the long run, especially on its gender and family-related components? In this brief, we look at the potential effects of the Covid-19 epidemic and the associated quarantine on gender inequality in Russia.

Introduction

Gender inequality is a complex phenomenon characterized by significant and persistent differences in social and economic indicators for women and men. These may be differences in access to education and medicine, labor market participation, wages, entrepreneurship, participation in politics and public administration, and the distribution of domestic unpaid labor within the family. Reducing gender inequality (like any other form of inequality) correlates with increases in GDP.

The prevalence and scale of gender inequality is, on average, lower in developed countries than in developing countries, and although there is a general tendency for gender gaps to narrow over time, this does not happen simultaneously and equally in all countries. According to the Global Gender Gap Index (2020), which ranks more than 150 countries, the five countries with the best indicators include Iceland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Nicaragua, while Congo, Syria, Pakistan, Iraq, and Yemen are in the very bottom. As of 2020, Russia is located approximately in the middle, being the 81st, right between El Salvador and Ethiopia.

In connection with the Covid-19 pandemic and unprecedented quarantine measures around the world, economists are thinking not only about the obvious global consequences for the global economy but also about the indirect effects, including those through gender-related changes in the labor market. A study of World War II, for example, shows that even short-term gender differences in the labor market can have long-term consequences (Goldin and Olivetti, 2013). What will the consequences of this crisis on the labor market be in the long run, especially on its gender and family-related components? In this brief, we look at the potential effects of the Covid-19 epidemic and the associated quarantine on gender inequality in Russia.

Heterogeneous Cross-Sectoral Effects

Economists are now discussing two main channels that can influence gender inequality (Alon et al., 2020). The first one works through differential risk of losing jobs and salaries for women and men due to the disproportionate impact of the epidemic and quarantine on sectors which predominantly employ each gender. The direction of this effect is not easy to predict. On the one hand, the current crisis differs from ordinary recessions in that the service sector, where more women are traditionally employed, is now suffering more than usual. However, it is very important to emphasize what kind of services we are talking about: restaurants and salons are not the whole of the Russian economy. According to the Russian Statistical Agency (Rosstat) 49% of all employed women in 2019 worked in three sectors – trade, healthcare, and education. At the same time, hotels, restaurants, and other services (which include hair and beauty salons) provided less than 8% of women’s employment.

Therefore, from the point of view of assessing the risk of job loss, it makes sense to consider state-financed sectors, where employees are likely to be retained, separately. Among the private businesses, two (non-mutually exclusive) types of sectors are likely to suffer the least. First, the critical ones that do not stop their activity during quarantine (for example, food retail, private medical centers). And second, those that are characterized both by a high ability to work “remotely” and continue to have sufficient demand for their goods and services – either directly or through value chains (see e.g. Volchkova, 2020). For example, agriculture, manufacturing and hotels are worse off in this combination than the financial sector, science, administration, and some types of online education. At the level of the individual characteristics of the employee, even when comparing the same occupations, the possibility of remote work positively correlates with the level of education, wealth, working for a company (rather than self-employment), and being female (according to Saltiel, 2020, for developing countries).

According to the same data from Rosstat, it turns out that about 49% of all women and 40% of all men worked in the “state-financed” and “remote-work” sectors (or 69% against 52%, if we add the trade sector). This is of course an overestimate, since not every job within a sector is characterized by state-financing or remoteness, but it likely represents the relative propensity across genders, which is of our interest. This relative propensity is mostly due to the much higher employment of women compared to men in health and education (approximately 4 to 1 in both sectors). In general, this may mean that the risk of job loss is now higher for men, and not for women as was predicted using US data by Alon et al. (2020), given the gender structure of employment by industry in the US. This rough assessment does not account for different opportunities for women and men to quickly find a new job, especially in the areas of high demand. For example, if the need for delivery workers has increased, and men are more likely to take this job, then it may be easier for them to quickly find a new job. This adaptive effect would unlikely overturn the original difference, because the number of such jobs is also limited.

The Effect of Childcare Facilities Closure

The second channel, likely having a multiplicative effect on the first, operates through the unexpected closure of children’s educational institutions (kindergartens and schools). These effects may be different depending on family composition. While before the pandemic, working parents could send their children to kindergarten and school, this opportunity is now completely unavailable. In the case of online education, not all children are independent enough to learn at home, especially primary school students. At the same time, other childcare support (e.g. from nannies, grandparents and other relatives, etc.) can also be significantly limited due to social distancing and self-isolation, although Russia is in a better position in this regard compared to many developed countries because grandparents traditionally help more in raising children. (It is interesting that in developed countries, the possibility of outsourcing household chores – childcare, cleaning, etc. – is one of the important explanatory factors for higher fertility among more educated women, compared with less educated ones, (see Hazan and Zoabi, 2015)).

Naturally, the situation with closed childcare and educational institutions will not affect the productivity of people without young children. According to the latest census in 2010, about 88 million people, which is as much as 75% of the total adult population of the country, do not live together with children under 18 years old. Also, most likely there will not be a big negative effect on families with children where one of the parents (most often the mother) or another individual in the household (a grandparent) took care of the child at home before the quarantine.

For all other families, the critical problem is juggling childcare with work. The most vulnerable categories of the population here are single mothers and single fathers (and there are about 5 and 0.6 million in Russia, respectively), especially those who do not have any outside help.

Among families with small children where both parents work, several important factors can be identified. On the one hand, according to developed countries, even in families where both parents work, women spend more time on household chores and childcare than men (Doepke and Kindermann, 2019). If one believes that the initial factors that affected this distribution of domestic work (such as traditional norms and role models or the relative income of spouses) have not disappeared, then the sharply increased burden of household chores will disproportionately fall on women. This can lead to a decrease in the relative productivity of women compared to men in the labor market and a greater risk of dismissal. In the long run, this can also negatively affect gender inequality, as even a temporary exit from the labor market may be accompanied by human capital losses and a worse career path in the future.

The Interaction of Both Effects

On the other hand, the opposite situation is also possible. If, due to the disproportionate effect of quarantine on various sectors of the economy, which has been discussed above, women have a lower risk of losing their jobs, then it is possible that at least temporarily, a significant part of the childcare will fall on men. This situation can also happen in families where the woman works in critical sectors of the economy (especially in healthcare) and the man works remotely from home.

Economists have suggested several mechanisms for the effect of short-term additional interaction between fathers and children on long-term participation in their upbringing: there is more information about children’s needs, learning-by-doing, and greater attachment to children. For example, the data from Canada shows that the introduction of 5 weeks of parental leave for fathers led to a more even distribution of domestic labor in households and a greater likelihood of the mother’s participation in the labor market, even 1-3 years after the fact (Patnaik, 2019). Moreover, even if there are not many families like this in the country, the new social norms can gradually spread in society through so-called “peer effects”. Dahl et al. (2014), for example, show using Norwegian data that the brothers and colleagues of men who took parental leave were 11-15% more likely to take it in the future, relative to brothers and colleagues of men who did not take such leave.

Other Hypotheses

Another major consequence of the epidemic and quarantine is the potential upsurge in domestic violence. Several European countries have already noticed an increase in such crimes (European Parliament, 2020), and some crisis centers in Russia have also reported an increase in calls to helplines. Economists identify different triggers for this behavior (Peterman et al., 2020). This may be a direct consequence of quarantine, which increases the time spent by the potential victim and abuser in a closed space, and the inability to seek immediate help, both psychological and medical. Indirect effects can also work through an increased risk of depression and post-traumatic stress syndrome, which were well documented for previous epidemics such as SARS and swine flu. and that may happen due to job loss, reduced income, general economic uncertainty, or a direct fear of getting sick.

These effects disproportionately affect women (and children); therefore, additional resources should be dedicated to identifying such crimes, strengthening support structures for women, and increasing the availability of reporting options without attracting the attention of an abuser (for example, such a warning system may be installed in pharmacies – a place where a woman can go to alone).

Economists have yet to accurately measure and test all these mechanisms, which interact with each other in complex combinations, but it is now clear that very different scenarios are possible, including the positive ones – of a long-run decrease in gender inequality.

References

  • Alon T.,  Doepke M., Olmstead-Rumsey J., and Tertilt M. “The impact of Covid-19 on gender equality”, Covid Economics, Issue 4, 14 April 2020.
  • Dahl G.B., Løken K.V., Mogstad M. “Peer Effects in Program Participation”, American Economic Review 104(7): 2049–2074 (2014).
  • Doepke M. and Kindermann F. “Bargaining over Babies: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications”, American Economic Review, 109(9): 3264–3306 (2019).
  • Goldin C. and Olivetti C. “Shocking Labor Supply: A Reassessment of the Role of World War II on Women’s Labor Supply”, American Economic Review, 103(3): 257-262 (2013).
  • Hazan M. and Zoabi H. “Do highly educated women choose smaller families?” Economic Journal, 125(587): 1191-1226 (2015).
  • Patnaik A. “Reserving Time for Daddy: The Consequences of Fathers’ Quotas”, Journal of Labor Economics, 37(4): 1009-1059 (2019).
  • Peterman A., Potts A., O’Donnell M., Thompson K., Shah N., Oertelt-Prigione S., and van Gelder N. “Pandemics and Violence Against Women and Children”, Center for Global Development working paper, 1 April 2020.
  • Saltiel F. “Who can work from home in developing countries?” Covid Economics, Issue 6, 17 April 2020.
  • Volchkova N. “Who should receive government support during Covid-19 crisis”, in “Economic Policy during Covid-19”, April 2020.
  • European Parliament. “COVID-19: Stopping the rise in domestic violence during lockdown”, Press Release  7 April 2020.
  • Rosstat, “Russian census 2010”.
  • Rosstat, “Russian labor force survey 2019”.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Covid-19: News for Europe’s Energy Security

Posted on May 7, 2020 | Policy Brief

Black and white image of natural gas processing plant representing Energy security Europe

While there has been a lot of attention on the effect of Covid-19-related developments in the oil market, the effect on the natural gas market has almost evaded media attention. For the EU, however, the gas market and especially the impact of the pandemic on the gas relationship with its largest gas supplier, Russia, is of high relevance. This brief discusses the potential implications of Covid-19 on this relationship both under the pandemic and during the expected slow economic recovery. We argue that, while in the short run the security of Russian gas supply is likely to improve, this is unlikely to be the case in the aftermath of the pandemic. To ensure gas supply security in post-pandemic markets, the EU may need to finally implement the long-awaited “speaking with one-voice” energy policy.

Introduction

The ongoing coronavirus pandemic will not only affect human lives, but also bring new economic and political challenges. The energy sector, and in particular the dramatic decrease of oil prices, has been in the news since the beginning of the Covid-19 crisis. But discussions have so far rarely touched the natural gas market, despite the pandemic taking its toll also on this market. As for oil, the demand and price have been negatively affected by the economic slowdown. While not as drastic as for oil, the price of natural gas in the EU has declined by approximately 40% since the beginning of 2020 (World Bank, 2020). However, the impact of the pandemic is likely to be quite different in oil and gas markets. There are multiple reasons for that; for example, oil and oil products are predominantly consumed by the transport sector while natural gas is mostly used in the power sector, the industry and households, and these sectors were differently affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Understanding the impact of the pandemic on the gas market is especially interesting from the European point of view, given that natural gas accounts for 25% of total energy consumption and two thirds of this gas is imported. The imports are also very concentrated, with the main supplier Russia providing around 40% of the gas, compared to 25% of the crude oil. This dependency, as well as a long history of tensions with third parties (Ukraine and Belarus) on the Russian gas transit routes, has made the EU’s concerns about the security of Russian gas supply much more pronounced than for oil (see Le Coq and Paltseva, 2012). The combination of these factors – i.e. the importance of natural gas for the EU and the long-standing concern about gas supply security warrant an analysis of the short and mid-term effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the gas market, and, specifically, on the EU-Russia gas relationship. This brief discusses how the pandemic-driven decline in gas demand, and the potential shift in the balance of power between the parties may affect both the dependency on, and the transit of, Russian gas.

EU Dependency on Russian Gas Under the Covid-19 Pandemic

As is well known, Covid-19 and the associated lockdowns imposed by many EU Member States, have caused a slowdown in most economies and a decline in energy demand. However, for natural gas, the effect is likely to be significantly smaller than for oil. While we do not yet have statistics for the EU’s gas demand in recent months, the Norwegian energy consultancy Rystad Energy has predicted the decline of gas demand to be around 4% for March and April 2020. This forecast was given quite early in the course of the pandemic, and is very likely an underestimation; still, it is very different from the one for oil, with the demand drop estimated to be a whopping 34% in April.

One reason why we do not observe a sizable decrease in gas demand is that the natural gas is used in electricity generation, especially as a base-load fuel to compensate for the intermittency of green energy sources, such as sun and wind. With the reduced electricity demand, renewable power generation has become relatively more important in the electricity supply in many countries. Since mid-March 2020, the share of renewable power generation across the EU is 46%, nine percent higher than during the same period last year (Energy Transition Lab, 2020). Interestingly, in France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary, the absolute volume of electricity generation by renewable sources even increased relative to the same period in 2019, despite declining energy demand. One potential channel, anecdotally recorded for Germany could be higher solar generation due to cleaner skies resulting from the decline in emissions because of lower fossil energy consumption. A higher volume of a renewable generation often requires more back-up power to maintain grid stability. While natural gas is not the only back-up source, this need might still limit the decline in gas demand (or even increase it like e.g. in the Czech Republic). Of course, cheaper gas prices may also play a role: for example, Slovakia and Romania experienced an increase in gas-based generation, but a drop in the renewable generation since mid-March 2020 relative to the same period in 2019. Finally, another reason for the moderate gas demand decline is its residential use – which is likely to be sustained due to the lockdown regime introduced by many countries.

When it comes to Russian gas imports, the official statistics since mid-March – roughly the beginning of lockdown policies across the EU – are not available yet. However, we can with some reservation look at the evolution of the volume of gas sales to the EU disclosed by Gazprom (2020). There was a very sizable decrease in Russian gas imports by the EU – of more than 21% – as compared to the same period last year but it started before the lockdown: January 2020 recorded a drop of 34% and February of 20%). This suggests that the current decrease in Russian gas imports is only marginally related to the pandemic, and more related to the overall gas market situation (such as relatively full gas storage in the EU in 2020, a warm winter, an increase in LNG imports, etc.).

It is, however, likely that the negative effect of the pandemic on Russian gas imports by the EU will be noticeably higher than it currently appears in the Gazprom data, thereby further decreasing the EU’s dependency on Russian gas. Moreover, since demand and prices decrease, substituting for Russian gas, were there a supply interruption, should be relatively easy and cheap with the current excess capacity of the natural gas market and the substantial storage in the EU.

Another reason for the improvement in the security of Russian gas supply to the EU is the observation that Russia’s dependency on oil and gas exports in combination with pandemic-associated factors may lead to a substantial economic downturn in Russia (Becker, 2020). In these dire circumstances, Russia is unlikely to further risk its gas export revenues by pursuing geopolitical goals through the means of gas supply and gas transit. For all these reasons, one may expect the security of Russian gas supply to the EU to improve during the pandemic.

However, the EU dependency on Russian gas may still be a concern due to medium-run effects of Covid-19. First of all, while the gas prices have been in decline for roughly a year now, the recent decrease in natural gas prices has accelerated the negative impact on the unconventional natural gas industry. For example, the US natural gas rig count has declined by 20% since mid-March 2020, which accounts for more than a third of the 54% year-to-year decline (Ycharts.com, 2020). Similarly, nearly 42% of Australian gas resources could be uneconomic under the current gas prices, according to Rystad Energy. While gas prices are unlikely to stay low forever, the industry will need time to recover even if/when the natural gas demand rises again. Moreover, the East-Asian markets are likely to be served first, as they are expected to recover from the pandemic shock before Europe. This dynamic, coupled with historically higher LNG prices in Asia may delay the LNG flows to Europe. A shortage of LNG in Europe, in turn, is likely to hinder any diversification strategy from Russian gas, weakening the EU’s bargaining power. The new Russia-China gas pipeline, “Power of Siberia”, operational since the end of 2019, will also be used to satisfy the post-Covid-19 Chinese gas demand which is likely to recover before demand picks up in the EU. Its use will then allow Russia to be less reliant on exporting gas to the EU, further contributing to the EU’s gas security concerns.

Transit of Russian Gas to the EU: Covid-19 Effect

The EU’s energy security also depends on the reliability of Russian gas transit to the EU. There are currently 5 transit routes connecting Russia to the EU (plus the routes that are serving the Baltic states and Finland without further transit), see Figure 1. Three onshore routes connect Russia to the EU via Ukraine and Belarus. There has been a history of gas transit disputes associated with these routes, at times threatening the Russian gas supply to the EU. Two newer offshore pipelines, Nord Stream 1 (in operation since 2011) and TurkStream (in operation since 2020) connect Russia directly to Germany, and to the South-East of Europe via Turkey. Further, one more offshore route to Germany, Nord Stream 2, is currently underway, with the operations announced to start in the first quarter of 2021. All three offshore projects are expected to not suffer from geopolitical transit issues.

In relation to the Covid-19 pandemic, there are likely to be two major effects on Russian gas transit. First, the inauguration of Nord Stream 2 is likely to be further delayed. Nord Stream 2 is 50% financed by Gazprom, and this financing scheme may be difficult to sustain after the fall in oil and gas prices and a significant decrease of Gazprom’s export revenues. Indeed, while the statistics for March and April 2020 are not yet available, the Russian customs statistics suggests that the USD value of gas exports from Russia in January-February 2020 has decreased by 45% relative to the same period last year. Because Nord Stream 2 could facilitate gas delivery to the EU in case of a transit conflicts, its expected delay may negatively impact the EU’s gas security.

Additionally, the Covid-19 related demand drop may impact the utilization of Russia-EU gas routes, driven by the current agreements between Russia and the transit countries. Russia and Ukraine have just signed a transit agreement for the next 5 years. This agreement was widely perceived as a diplomatic success of the EU (that facilitated the deal), given the historically difficult geopolitical relation between Ukraine and Russia. One of the new features of this agreement is of particular interest within the Covid-19 context. Unlike for previous deals, Russia agreed to prepay a fixed volume of gas transit, 178.1 mcm/day for 2020, and 110 mcm/day units for 2021-24 (Pirani et al., 2020). So, underutilization of this route is costly for Russia.

Figure 1. Gas supply Routes to the EU.

Source: Ukrainian Liaison Office in Brussels

With decreased demand due to Covid-19, warmer weather in the coming months and almost full gas storages in the EU, this contractual feature may affect how Russia allocates its gas exports across the routes. At least, in the short term, it may undermine Russian gas transit via the Belarus-Poland route. The concern about the utilization of this route in relation to the new Russia-Ukraine transit agreement has already been raised by Pirani et al. (2020). The Covid-19-associated decrease in gas demand is likely to make this concern much more real. Russia may use the Belarus-Poland pipeline sporadically, e.g. to adjust for the seasonal spikes in demand, without long-term capacity booking. Recent gas tensions between Russia and Poland (e.g. Poland winning in the arbitration court against Gazprom (RFE/RL, 2020), and Poland repeatedly expressing opinions and exercising legislative effort restricting the usage of Nord Stream 1 and construction of Nord Stream 2) may further exacerbate the issue.

In the medium term, however, when the EU gas demand has recovered but Nord Stream 2 is not yet in place, the Belarus-Poland route is likely to prove useful for Russia, at least starting from 2021 (when prepaid volumes of Russian gas transit via Ukraine will decline according to their agreement).

The transit contract between Russia and Poland is to be renewed in mid-May 2020, and as of now, it is unclear if, and how it will be written and whether the Belarus-Poland transit route will be used to a substantial degree or only marginally. If transit through the Belarus-Poland route is limited, it will imply poorer route diversification for a major part of European consumers of Russian gas, thereby lowering their security of Russian gas supply.   This may also put another strain on the bargaining power allocation within the EU and the EU’s intended common energy policy of “speaking with one voice” with external energy suppliers like Russia.

Conclusion

Summing up, the decrease in demand of natural gas, as well as other factors associated with the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, such as economic recession and turbulence in stock markets, are likely to have noticeable implications for the security of Russian gas supplies to the EU in the short term. On the one hand, even if the current pandemic-associated decrease in demand of gas from Russia seems rather moderate, the ultimate negative effect on Russian gas imports by the EU is likely to be larger. Lower imports from Russia are likely to improve the security of supply, both through lower import dependency of the EU, and through improved market opportunities due to the current market’s overcapacity. On the other hand, in the medium run, lower demand also negatively affects the non-conventional gas industry, undermining the diversification opportunities to LNG, and, consequently, natural gas energy security. Further, a fall in the gas demand by the EU coupled with the newly signed transit agreement between Russia and Ukraine may potentially cause underusage of the Belarus-Poland transit route, thereby putting a strain on the diversification of Russian gas import routes to the EU and on the power balance within the EU.

Energy security might be even more of a concern in the post coronavirus period when the economy is slowly recovering, and cheap and guaranteed energy supply is crucial. To ensure this supply, national efforts combined with an EU-wide policy coordination would be required. The long-discussed “speaking with one voice” common energy policy may finally need to materialize in order to facilitate reliable access to natural gas.

References

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.