Project: FREE policy brief
Development Policy After the Millennium Development Goals: Where Do We Go From Here?
This policy brief reports on a discussion of the Post-2015 Development Agenda held during a full day conference at the Stockholm School of Economics on August 23, 2013. The event was organized jointly by the Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics (SITE) and the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs and was the third installment of Development Day, a yearly development policy conference. The Millennium Development Goals established in year 2000 has been an essential concept for global and national efforts to promote economic, social and human development. Highlighting income poverty, health, education, gender equality and environmental sustainability, the targets have focused global efforts on a set of quantifiable and comparable measures of progress. The question for the development community as these goals reach their endpoint is how to build a successful agenda for the future beyond year 2015. To discuss this challenging question, the conference brought together a distinguished and experienced group of policy oriented scholars and practitioners from governments, International Financial Institutions, the business community as well as NGOs.
In September 2000, world leaders adopted the United Nations Millennium Declaration, committing their nations to a global partnership to reduce extreme poverty. The declaration defined eight time-bound targets expiring in 2015, the so-called Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These goals specify areas of focus; eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and empower women, reduce child mortality rates, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability, and develop a global partnership for development. They also set explicit targets such as halving the number of people living on less than US$ 1.25 a day and reducing maternal mortality by three quarters from 1990 to 2015. Some commendable success has indeed been realized; already in 2010 the worldwide goal to reduce by half the proportion of people living on less than US$ 1.25 a day was achieved. However, much less progress has been seen in some other areas, including maternal health, and there are countries for which none of the goals are expected to be achieved by 2015. Nevertheless, the use of quantifiable, comparable and time-bound targets to create awareness and direct political resources is generally regarded as a success. The question for the development community as 2015 quickly approaches is thus how to build a successful post-2015 development agenda that builds on what has worked but also incorporates areas identified as missing.
The process to establish a new agenda of course raises many questions and reveals some of the trade-offs involved. There seems to be a consensus that the Millennium Declaration and the MDG framework should serve as a starting point, but there are many details to pin down. For instance, there are important challenges not directly mentioned in the original eight goals such as political conflict, rising inequality and youth unemployment. Many also argue that environmental sustainability, though included, may deserve a more prominent role in the future agenda. On the other hand, loading the Agenda with more and more goals may also dilute the global effort across too many areas, and some scholars argue that the whole idea with specific goals is counterproductive based on an organic view of development ill-suited for social engineering from above. To protect credibility, it is also important to get a sense of what is realistic to aim for, and what responsibility to ascribe to the already developed world. Moreover, even if a consensus can be reached with regards to the goals, opinions on how to best reach those goals will most definitely vary widely.
To get the process towards a new agenda started, the UN Secretary General has launched several initiatives including task teams, special advisors and consultations, but also a High-level Panel of Eminent Persons co-chaired by the Presidents of Indonesia and Liberia, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; also including as its member Gunilla Carlsson, Swedish Minister for Development Cooperation. The panel, led by executive secretary and lead author Homi Kharas, submitted a report to the Secretary General on May 31. The program of Development Day 2013 started with a presentation of the report by Dr. Kharas, and remarks from Minister Carlsson. This was followed by an academic session corroborating projections of the report and outlining its limitations, and two panel discussions on sustainable development and Sweden’s potential as a leader in this process. Below follows a short representation of the main arguments and debates of the day.
A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable Development
Homi Kharas, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director at the Brookings Institution, presented the main messages contained in the report in the first session. An analysis of the situation since year 2000 shows many positive signs such as high global economic growth; increased international connectedness; a reduction in global inequality; and a substantial drop in absolute poverty rates. However, there are also many challenges ahead; rapid population growth, political conflicts, and the fact that the majority of the extremely poor live in conflict zones, increasing urbanization, a deteriorating environment and dwindling aid flows. This, in turn, leads Dr. Kharas to conclude that ‘business as usual’ is no longer feasible, and a new framework replacing the MDGs is needed.
The report seeks to address these issues and is conceived to serve as a set of guidelines, new goals and targets for the UN Secretary General and for the UN member states for the post-2015 period. At the core of the report is a bold aspiration to eradicate absolute poverty by 2030 through a unified framework of sustainable economic growth, increased social equality and environmental sustainability, and a new global partnership paradigm. This universal agenda, in turn, is proposed to be reached via five paradigm shifts to the status quo, (i) universal inclusion and equality, (ii) environmentally sustainable development, (iii) a transformation of national economies for sustainable growth, (iv) peace and effective, transparent public institutions, and (v) a new and more inclusive global partnership. In the report these broad and major shifts are further delineated across 12 illustrative targets, which, if met, will directly affect more than two billion people across the world and would require about $30 trillion spent by the governments worldwide.
Dr, Kharas emphasized that the report was prepared in cooperation with 5000 civil organizations, 250 large international corporations, and thematic, regional and country consultations all over the world, with another one million people taking part in an online questionnaire. He stressed that this kind of broad cooperation and consultation is needed to implement the goals set by the report and especially to operationalize these goals at the level of each of the member states.
Gunilla Carlsson, Swedish Minister for International Development Cooperation and a member of the UN High-Level Panel, continued the discussion and commended the members of the Panel on the impressive amount of work put in the report. She also emphasized the universal character of the agenda presented in the report, largely applicable both to developing and developed countries.
Carlsson stressed what she identified as the core values of the report; eradication of extreme poverty, prevention of violence and conflict, and inclusive peace. She further underlined the importance of local and global partnerships across governments, business communities and civil society. Broader public-private partnerships are essential both for fostering innovation in development work and to guarantee sufficient amounts of financing. The exact design of such a framework, however, is still an open question, but she hopes Sweden can serve as a leading example.
Both Homi Kharas and Gunilla Carlsson also showed great optimism when asked about the potential to implement the substantive initiatives by 2030. They stressed that not only does the world at present have more resources and more aid flows than it ever have, but the international community, including both public and private actors, is also showing more willingness to help the developing countries integrate successful development models than ever before.
Comments and Reflections
Martin Ravallion, Edmond D. Villani Professor of Economics at Georgetown University, started the commentary and reflection session. He showed how there is a strong current trend of between-country convergence of inequality rates (more equal countries becoming more unequal, while more unequal countries are becoming more equal) and declining poverty rate. The latter decline is to a considerable extent driven by Chinese economic growth, but this is far from the only source. He also underlined that the rate of poverty reduction has increased since the adoption of the MDGs in the 2000s, but said it was too early to judge the success or failure of the MDGs on these grounds.
Based on current trends, Ravallion also presented some estimates of the possibility to achieve the core objective of the report, eradication of absolute poverty by 2030. From a broad range of alternatives, the best case scenario, based on 3% annual growth rates of the world economy, absence of major economic crises and at least not decreasing participation of the poor in the benefits of growth, estimated a fall in absolute poverty rates from about 19% at present to 3% by 2030. In a less optimistic scenario, but historically not unlikely, levels of inequality and poverty would fall at a much slower rate, causing 12% to 14% of the world population to live below the absolute poverty line by 2030. Thus, the conclusion is that total eradication of absolute poverty by 2030 is hardly achievable, but substantial progress can be made, and it depends critically on continued high levels of world economic growth.
Professor Ravallion also stressed that these projections were made possible through a recent revolution in data availability, something the High Level Panel was asking for. To a large extent, this is attributed to a massive data collection effort by the World Bank, which not only provided better coverage of countries around the world, but also allowed for deeper insights into the nature of extreme poverty, including re-calculations and harmonization of cross-country comparable Purchasing Power Parity consumption baskets. This revolution provided more reliable inputs for his prediction models and improved the precision of estimates considerably.
Owen Barder, Senior Fellow and Director for Europe at the Center for Global Development, further emphasized this importance of credible statistics. Barder was somewhat skeptical to the report’s claim to be bold and offering a new approach, arguing that it largely reiterated the goals (jobs for young people, partnership with the private sector, reform of the financial system, etc.) already in the Millennium Declaration from year 2000. He also argued that the claim of success for the MDGs is almost entirely made on the basis of paragraph 19 of the Declaration; the objective to reduce by half the number of people living in absolute poverty. Much less progress has been made on the other explicit objectives, and all other aspects emphasized in the Millennium Declaration but which were not necessarily a part of the MDGs.
Barder suggested that there is too little effort to consistently measure whether rich countries are playing their part in the global partnership. Against that background he presented some preliminary results on the last round of the Center for Global Development’s Commitment to Development Index, calculated on the basis of OECD counties’ participation in aid, trade, investments, migration, environment, security and technology transfers. Over the last 10 years, OECD countries demonstrated on average a modest increase from four to five points on a ten-point scale, with Sweden ranked third from the top with a score of 7.2 for 2011 and 6.8 for 2012. Interestingly enough, this deterioration in the index for Sweden is mainly due to deterioration in the security component of the index, in turn resulting from larger sales of arms to undemocratic regimes, and from decreasing aid and immigration. There is obviously variation across countries, but on average there is scant improvements during the 13 years since the Millennium Declaration. This led Barder to question whether the developed countries have contributed their share to the objective of ending poverty, or if too much of the heavy lifting is left for the developing countries.
Barder concluded the presentation by pointing out the difference in language used in the report, namely the imperative used in the parts of the report describing recommendations for the developing countries, and the subjunctive used for recommendations for the developed countries. Again, to him this difference signaled the need to re-emphasize the importance of political commitment and operational goals also for the already developed countries in the Post-2015 Agenda.
Johan Rockström, Executive Director at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, started out noting that the population of the world is estimated to increase to eight billion people by 2030 and to nine billion by 2050. This, in combination with the currently prevailing development paradigm that emphasizes short-term economic growth over long run sustainability, causing degradation of biodiversity and climate change, means that we are hitting the planetary ceiling of eco-capacity. This suggests that ‘business as usual’ is no longer an option, and a new development paradigm is needed.
To address this issue, Rockström formulated a set of goals for human development balancing the needs of the environment, the needs of society and the needs of the people, all within the Earth’s life-support system. He proposed a broader framework for thinking about these issues, the so-called Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs rather than MDGs), which rebalances the relative weight on environmental, human and economic development with relatively more emphasis on the first two. This approach unifies the MDGs with planetary necessities (material use, clean air, nutrient and hydrological cycles, biodiversity, and climate stability), and sustainable development goals (sustainable food and water security, universal clean energy, governance for sustainable societies, etc.).
Discussion Panels
The first panel of the day focused on issues of sustainable development and was started by Klas Waldenström, Senior Advisor on the Post-2015 Development Agenda at Sida. He argued that the main challenge to the new partnership paradigm discussed earlier, will be the creation of trust both across nations and across the private and public sectors. Referring to the experience of Sida, he cited the successful creation of a network of 25 private Swedish companies focusing on models of sustainable development. An important role of official foreign aid in these partnerships, he argued, was to blend direct financial transfers with a combination of political support and business sector outreach, thereby potentially leveraging the financial flows with alternative sources of capital.
David Fergusson, Deputy Director at the Office of Science and Technology at USAID, called for more and better data in order to be able to operationalize and evaluate the new strategies that hopefully will come out of the report. He also reiterated the importance of transformative solutions for sustainable development and the need to understand that ‘business as usual’ is no longer an option. He also referred to the successful cooperation between Sida and USAID as an example of international collaboration of a new kind, more of which will be needed in the future to overcome the status quo and achieve the goals put forward by the report.
Garry Conille, Special Advisor to President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia and UNDP, discussed his experience of working with the MDGs and stressed that possibly the most challenging part was the negotiation between different stakeholders to reach a set of issues well-defined and contained enough to be operational. From his point of view, the major challenge is the operationalization of the rather opaque and broadly defined MDGs and how to find a proper allocation of resources across the many commendable ambitions. He therefore called for an effort to make the post-2015 agenda more practical.
The issue of operationalization was discussed further by Stefano Prato, Managing Director at the Society for International Development. He argued that with such large shifts proposed by the post-2015 agenda, it is perhaps difficult to understand how to work with the vision put forward by the panel. His suggestion for the Panel was to dig deeper into the challenging areas of the report but also to develop more applied recommendations for the member states and especially so for the private institutions desired as part of the new partnerships.
This need for operationalization was supported by Jakob Granit, Centre Director at the Stockholm Environment Institute. In his opinion, the broad vision as presented in the report is indeed difficult to work with, but he also suggested that progress on parts of the agenda can be instructive for how to go further also with the more challenging parts. He also emphasized the importance of a regional approach, building on existing networks of regional partnerships, and again stressed the importance of public-private partnerships to solve common international issues.
The second panel was devoted to the role Sweden can play in global sustainable development and the post-2015 agenda. The discussion was started by Ulla Holm, Global Director at Tetra Laval Food for Development Office. She presented some of Tetra Laval’s experiences of sustainable development work in Bangladesh, an example of a successful public-private partnership. In her view, one of the main pillars of sustainability is to prevent unnecessary food loss, and this can be achieved by building an integrated value chain that supports rural development in the long run. The crucial challenge on this path is the need for concurrent public and private investments, and how to overcome coordination problems and lacking trust across stakeholders. She therefore stressed the need to construct successful public-private partnerships on a large scale and in different areas, but also to make sure to document and scale up the existing models in order to replicate success in the most cost efficient way.
Erik Lysen, Director for International Affairs at the Church of Sweden, stressed the challenges in changing existing institutions and briefly discussed the main motives that could make such changes to occur. He also argued that some of the strongest motives that would actually provide the necessary motivation for change, namely fear, could not be desirable in the long run, but still viable in a context of post-2015 agenda if complemented with better social protection, institutes of civil society and a broader public discussion. Here, NGOs could act as watchdogs and catalysts, strengthening the desire for building new institutions and providing material and human support for their construction at the same time.
Stefan Isaksson, Head of Policy Analysis at the Department for Aid Management at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, continued the discussion on the challenges of changing existing institutions. He described current efforts to remodel the Swedish aid management system in order to become a more effective bureaucracy. In his view, the major shift in thinking is that of understanding aid less as simply giving money away and more as an investment for a common future. This is needed to improve the selection process of aid projects and also to motivate better the need to make projects and their results measurable and accountable. To achieve this, broader collaboration and consultations across stakeholders is needed. He also mentioned that perhaps at present many aid projects are too conservative, that the failure rate is too low because it reflects an aversion to risk that partly defeats the purpose of official foreign aid. The private sector will always be reluctant to venture into areas with high risk even if the potential social rate of return is high, so for official aid to serve as a more effective complement to private flows, more risk tolerance may be needed.
The issue of understanding aid as investment was discussed in detail by Jonas Ahlen, Investment Manager at the Storebrand Kapitalförvaltning. He described current efforts in the area of sustainable investments, mainly centered in microfinance and agricultural loans. In his opinion, broader involvement in such practices from the private sector would facilitate a transition to sustainable practices, but would at the same time require changing existing regulations in home countries to incentivize and alleviate the risks. He also stressed the need for broader public-private partnerships in these areas and briefly described the new consultative practices established by the Ministry of Finance in Sweden to catalyze private capital participation in for instance infrastructure projects in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Finally, Homi Kharas added to the Sweden-centered discussion by stressing that there exists no systematic assessment of what public-private partnerships can do. In his opinion, possibly the most important role for Sweden is to create conditions that would facilitate public-private partnerships in development and aid. By developing and experimenting with forms of public-private partnerships, as well as with new ways of measuring and monitoring of performance of such partnerships, Sweden could create a case for broader involvement of private funding and thus accomplish perhaps the most difficult part of bridging the post-2015 with the experience and skills of the private sector.
Conclusions
In sum, the discussion at the Development Day 2013 clearly highlighted the importance of sustaining some of the positive trends seen lately for economic and human development but also highlighted how crucial it is to take environmental sustainability into account. There is a growing consensus that long run human development necessitates an understanding of the planetary boundaries, even though exactly what trade-offs this involves and where to put the relative weight on more short run economic development is still debatable. There was also a wide consensus around the importance to get all different parts of society involved and working in tandem. Foreign aid cannot be expected to pull the heavy load by itself. The challenges are far too wide and important. Instead, much hope was attributed to public-private partnerships, but there is a lot of work that remains to make sure these vehicles generate the hoped for solutions. The capital, experience and skills of the private sector are needed. On the other hand, getting the incentives right is not a trivial challenge. Finding models of partnerships that work and can be scaled up may be an area in which Sweden can set an example and lead the way for other nations striving to contribute to long run sustainable development.
Trade Policy Uncertainty and External Trade: Potential Gains of Ukraine Joining the CU vs. the Signing Free Trade Agreement with the EU
This policy brief summarizes the results of recent research which predicts gains in Ukrainian exports from signing a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement with EU, and compares these gains with predicted gains from joining the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia. We argue that the gains would be mostly due to elimination of uncertainty in trade policy of Ukraine with the CU and the EU countries. We find that European integration brings higher potential for export growth, and that it also shifts the structure of Ukrainian exports towards capital goods, reducing the share of raw materials in total export.
Trade Policy Uncertainty and Export
Trade policy uncertainty (TPU) is a powerful negative factor that prevents economy from the realization of its export potential. In a recent paper, Handley and Limao (2012) argue that since the exporting decision involves substantial fixed costs, TPU significantly affects investment and entry decisions in international trade. In particular, they show that preferential trade agreements (PTAs) are important even when the pre-PTA tariff barriers are low. Comparing pre- and post-EU accession patterns of Portuguese exports, they find that Portuguese trade increased dramatically after 1985. The increase was the largest towards the EU partners, suggesting that it was caused by the accession. Export expanded through considerable entry of Portuguese firms into EU markets, even in industries where applied tariffs did not change. Handley and Limao estimated that the tariff reduction, which averaged 0.66 percentage points, has been responsible for only 20 percent of the increase in exports to EU10 after the EU accession, while 80 percent of the increase was due to resolving TPU.
Handley and Limao further argue that the Portuguese example should be highly relevant for any small open economy, facing important trade policy choices. In this regard, Ukraine is facing a very hard choice of selecting its regional integration strategy – towards the EU or the Customs Union (CU) with Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia, resulting in severe TPU. The options are mutually exclusive since the CU trade policy is not compatible with neither the WTO commitments of Ukraine, or with the parameters of the deep and comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) between Ukraine and the EU, finalized in 2012. Average tariff protection within the CU in 2012 was 10 percent (Shepotylo and Tarr, 2012), while the average WTO binding tariff rates in Ukraine were only 5 percent; the parameters of the FTA with the EU are even less protective, which would cause even stronger disagreements regarding the tariff schedules. Moreover, technical and phyto-sanitary standards in the EU and the CU are different; therefore, it would be extremely hard to harmonize the Ukrainian standards with both of them.
Despite low tariff protection, uncertainty on the parameters of the long run trade policy of Ukraine with the CU and EU countries is extremely high. It is crucial for both foreign and domestic investors to understand in what direction the regional integration will proceed before making decisions on investing or exporting, since these decisions can incur substantial sunk costs. Suppose that a large European multinational firm were interested in including Ukrainian companies in its production chains only if Ukraine signs the FTA with the EU (integrate vertically). If Ukraine instead joined the CU, this presumed European company would rather be interested in horizontal integration and invest by building a plant for final assembly of products to serve the Ukrainian and CIS markets. For Russian companies the situation would be the reversed. They would be interested to integrate vertically if Ukraine is a member of the CU and integrate horizontally if Ukraine signed FTA with EU. However, since vertical and horizontal integration are quite different strategies, neither European nor Russian companies invest in Ukraine before the uncertainty is resolved. The same holds true for domestic companies which would like to extend their export activities to new markets. Since entrance to new markets is costly and requires some irreversible investment, it is optimal to wait until the policy uncertainty is resolved.
Modeling Trade Policy Options of Ukraine
In Shepotylo (2013), we investigate which integration scenario is more preferable for Ukraine under the assumption that TPU is fully resolved and Ukraine trades up to its potential. Based on export data in 2001-2011, we estimate the gravity model by Helpman, Melitz, and Rubinstein (2008) method, adjusted for panel data case and endogeneity of a decision to sign a PTA. Using this model, we predict bilateral exports of Ukraine under three counterfactual scenarios: a) Ukraine joined the Customs Union in 2009 (CU); b) Ukraine signed the FTA with the EU in 2009 (EU FTA); c) Ukraine joined the EU in 2009 (EU). The model predictions take into account the level of economic development, geographical location, industrial structure, and quality of government and regulatory agencies. It also accounts for macro trends, including the global trade collapse of 2008-2009.
The results are not intended for a short-term forecast, but should be rather used as indicators of the long-run effects. Their interpretation is as follows. Suppose that Ukraine has signed the FTA with the EU in 2009. Taking into account all observable characteristics of Ukraine, what would be the level of Ukrainian export of product k to country j, if Ukraine, in all other respects, would behave as a typical country-member of the FTA EU? That would involve removal of the trade policy uncertainty, stronger integration of domestic companies into the global supply chains, and increase in foreign direct investments from the EU countries.
Unlike the studies based on the Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) method, which assumes that the policy choice affects the economy only marginally through reduced tariff barriers, and that the underlying economic structure and expectations of the economic agents remain intact, the gravity model captures all changes that occur in the economy over the investigated period and extract the differences in export flows between any two counterfactual scenarios, given all background economic changes.
Results
Our main results are as follows. First, the actual exports of Ukraine are far below their potential, compared with performance of both the CU countries and the FTA EU countries. The expected long run gains in Ukrainian exports to all countries under the CU scenario are equal to 17.9 percent above the export level in 2009-2011. The corresponding number for the FTA EU scenario is 36 percent, and for the full EU scenario, 46.1 percent. Based on 2011, the export of Ukraine would have been 98 billion US dollars under the EU scenario, 91 billion US dollars under the FTA EU scenario, and 72 billion US dollars under the CU scenario. All these numbers should be compared with the actual 68 billion US dollars of Ukrainian export in 2011.
Figure 1. Ukrainian Export under the Different Scenarios
Second, any scenario predicts that Ukraine severely underperforms in its trade with both CIS and EU countries, while its export to the rest of the world is in line with the predictions of the model. These results are consistent with the theory that unresolved TPU in relationships with the CIS and EU countries severely hurts the Ukrainian export potential to these countries.
Table 1. Ukrainian Export under the Different Scenarios
Note: CIS – Commonwealth of Independent States; EU12 – countries that joined EU after 2003; EU15 – countries that joined EU before 2004; RoW – rest of the World
Third, CU integration would be more beneficial for the Ukrainian agriculture and food industry, while FTA EU or full EU integration would be more beneficial for textiles, metals, machinery and electrical goods, and transportation. Conditional on not worsening its market access to Russia, Ukraine would expand its trade in these sectors to all countries, including Russia and other members of CU.
Figure 2. Expected Increase of Ukrainian Export under the Different Scenarios 
Finally, the CU integration would lead to a small increase in the share of capital goods from 17 percent to 20 percent of total exports. FTA EU would increase the share of capital goods to 28 percent, while full EU integration would increase it to 29 percent. In all scenarios, the share of raw materials would decline from 16 percent to 10-12 percent. The share of intermediate goods would decline from 48 percent to around 40 percent under the two EU scenarios and would only marginally decrease under the CU scenario. The share of consumer goods would remain stable around 20 percent.
Conclusions
Ukraine would be better off by signing a deep and comprehensive trade agreement with the EU and integrate into its production chains than joining the CU. Right now, Ukraine severely underperforms by exporting far below its potential. Evidence shows that high trade policy uncertainty plays a large role in Ukraine’s poor performance, since the gap between actual and potential exports are mainly due to low levels of export to the EU and CIS countries. Moreover, Ukraine should be interested in moving the integration process even further, because EU accession would bring even better results.
▪
References
- Handley, K., & Limão, N. (2012). Trade and investment under policy uncertainty: theory and firm evidence (No. w17790). National Bureau of Economic Research.
- Helpman, E., Melitz, M., & Rubinstein, Y. (2008). Estimating trade flows: Trading partners and trading volumes. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,123(2), 441-487.
- Shepotylo, O., & Tarr, D. (2012). Impact of WTO accession and the customs union on the bound and applied tariff rates of the Russian federation. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (6161).
Can Anti-Smoking Campaigns Increase Obesity? Evidence from Belarus
Authors: Aliaksandr Amialchuk, University of Toledo, and Kateryna Bornukova, BEROC.
In this brief, we discuss the possible effects of an anti-tobacco campaign on obesity levels in Belarus based on results of Amialchuk et al (2012). Both smoking and obesity are among the main health concerns in Belarus. Negative correlation between smoking and body weight is well documented, but can anti-tobacco campaign cause an increase in obesity rates? Results of studies from developed countries provide mixed evidence. In Amialchuk et al (2012), we use household survey data from Belarus to establish the link between smoking and body mass index (BMI). We use cigarette prices and regional smoking prevalence as instruments for smoking, and find a negative effect of smoking on BMI. Moreover, using the quantile regression approach, we find that smoking has different effects on body weight for different BMI quantiles, with the largest negative effect in the upper part of the conditional BMI distribution. These findings suggest that anti-tobacco campaigns may slightly increase obesity rates, and campaigns should therefore ideally also include measures to promote a healthy lifestyle. On the other hand, the potentially modest weight gain from an anti-tobacco campaign is likely to be more than offset by the general improvements in health.
Smoking and Obesity in Belarus
Smoking prevalence in Belarus, like in many other transitional countries, is quite high. According to the Belarusian Household Survey of Income and Expenditure from 2010, the smoking rate was 26%, with a much higher prevalence of among men (49.3%) compared to women (9.5%).[1]
Despite the troubling levels of smoking prevalence, little has been done to combat smoking in Belarus. While most of the post-Soviet economies liberalized the tobacco industry, it remains under government control in Belarus. The profits of the state-owned cigarette producers, along with tobacco taxes, constitute an important part of Belarusian budget revenues. This might explain why the Belarusian government has not engaged in anti-tobacco campaigns in the past. However, Belarus is currently implementing Anti-Tobacco Plan for 2011-2015 in cooperation with the World Health Organization.
The Anti-Tobacco Plan includes a variety of anti-tobacco actions and measures. In particular, the government has plans to gradually increase tobacco taxes, introduce smoking-free zones and restrict smoking in public places, along with a massive informational campaign about the dangers of smoking and ways to quit. These measures have the potential to lead to a significant decrease in smoking prevalence. However, an unintended consequence of these policies might be an increase in overweight and obesity rates.
In fact, obesity is another important health problem of Belarus. In 1996-2008, (the period of analysis in Amialchuk et al (2012)), the mean BMI among adults was 26, which suggests that an average Belarusian adult is just on the borderline between healthy weight and overweight. In particular, 34% of adults are overweight, while approximately 15% of adults are obese. Moreover, the distribution of weight status has undergone substantial changes over time: the percentage of individuals in the right tail of the BMI distribution has increased over time, with the percentage of obese increasing faster than the percentage of overweight individuals.
The Link between Smoking and Obesity
The negative relationship between smoking and body weight is well-documented in the medical literature. This inverse relationship is mostly attributed to how smoking affects body weight by boosting metabolism and suppressing appetite. However, causality is usually difficult to establish: for example, a smoking person may also be more likely to eat unhealthy foods and care less about their health in general. Nevertheless, most of the previous studies have found a significant negative effect of smoking on body weight.
Since in many developed countries, the decrease in smoking prevalence coincided in time with the surge in both overweight and obesity rates, the question arises whether anti-smoking campaigns are in part responsible for the increase in obesity rates. However, the evidence on the effects of anti-tobacco campaigns on overweight/obesity rates in developed countries is mixed. Some studies do not find any significant effect on obesity (Nonnemaker et al, 2009).
Evidence from Belarus
As mentioned above, smoking behavior and BMI may be jointly determined, and to deal with the challenge of establishing causality, we utilize the method of instrumental variables analysis. We employ two instrumental variables in our estimation: (i) the mean number of cigarettes smoked per day in the same year-region-gender- and education group as the respondent, and (ii) the average yearly price per pack of cigarettes in the region where the respondent lives. Gilmore et al. (2001) identify important demographic and socio-economic differences in smoking rates, which dictates our use of gender and education categories (below secondary, secondary, university degree) to construct groups of observations that will be followed over time. The use of region as a grouping variable allows us to capture the social norm associated with smoking at the regional level. We exclude the individual’s own cigarette smoking when we create group-level means. Group-specific smoking prevalence is likely to be predictive of the individual’s own smoking preferences, but is unlikely to have a direct effect on individual’s weight status other than through the effect on individual’s smoking. After accounting for the fixed differences in average smoking among regions, gender, and education groups within each year, the source of variation that is available to identify the effect of the instrument on individual’s smoking is the differences in smoking prevalence among various interactions of year, region, gender and education categories.
We use lagged prices as instrument for current year cigarette consumption of the individuals in order to account for the addictive and inelastic nature of demand for smoking and the inability to quickly change smoking behavior after a price change. Furthermore, we use natural log of cigarette prices in order to account for the potentially non-linear effect on the number of cigarettes smoked. Cigarette prices are likely to influence an individual’s BMI only through its effect on smoking.
Other controls in our regressions include total personal income; household size; age; gender; single vs. married indicator; indicators of self-reported health status (good health, fair health, and poor health indicators); number of medical visits in the last 3 months; indicator for having been hospitalized in the last 12 months; indicator for whether health affects ability to work; sports practicing indicator; indicators for the educational attainment (university diploma, secondary education); and indicators for being currently employed, having ever worked, and being a student.
Our endogeneity-corrected estimates suggest that one additional cigarette per day would decrease BMI by roughly 0.23 units, and would reduce the probability of being overweight by approximately 2.5%. Furthermore, there is a small but significant effect on the likelihood of being obese: an additional cigarette smoked per day decreases the probability of being obese by 1.3%. Our results suggest an important implication that smoking is inversely related to body weight, and has some effect on obesity rates.
We also explore the difference in the effect of smoking on body weight across different quantiles of conditional BMI distribution. The largest effect is obtained for the 75th and 90th percentiles, and the smallest effects for the 10th and 25th percentiles. Smoking has a large effect on the body weight of individuals who are at the upper tail of the BMI distribution. These findings suggest that a reduction in smoking rate may lead to an increase in obesity rates by inducing weight gain among the population near the top end of the conditional BMI distribution.
While we found evidence of a possible increase in obesity rates resulting from the anti-tobacco campaign, it is important to remember that adverse health effects of smoking are numerous and the health benefits of smoking cessation are far in excess of the risk of weight gain. The current high prevalence of smoking and number of overweight individuals in Belarus constitute a major public health concern. Our results suggest that the prevalence of overweight and obesity might be exacerbated by the anti-tobacco campaign. From a policy perspective, an increase in obesity rates among the general population may be a reasonable concern for policy instruments targeted at reducing the overall smoking rates. It would therefore be wise to promote healthy eating habits and sports together with the anti-smoking campaign. However, the potentially modest weight gain from anti-tobacco campaign only is likely to be more than offset by the general health improvements associated with a decline in smoking rates.
▪
References
- Amialchuk, A., K. Bornukova, M. Ali, 2012. Smoking and Obesity Revisited: Evidence from Belarus. BEROC Working Paper Series, WP no. 19
- Gilmore, A.B., McKee, M., Rose, R., 2001. Prevalence and determinants of smoking in Belarus: A national household survey, 2000. European Journal of Epidemiology 17: 245-253
- Nonnemaker, J., Finkelstein, E., Engelen, M., Hoerger, T., Farrelly, M., 2009. Have efforts to reduce smoking really contributed to the obesity epidemic? Economic Inquiry 47, 366–376
[1] The social norms explain difference in smoking rates of men and women. In younger population, however, gender differences in smoking rates are less pronounced.
Preferences for Redistribution in Post-Communist Countries
Public attitudes toward inequality and the demand for redistribution can often play an import role in terms of shaping social policy. The literature on determinants of the demand for redistribution, both theoretical and empirical, is extensive (e.g., Meltzer and Richard 1981, Alesina and Angelotos 2005). Usually, due to data limitations, transition countries are usually considered to be a homogeneous group in empirical papers on the demand for redistribution. However, new data on transition countries allow us to look more deeply into the variation within this group, and to look at which factors are likely to play a significant role in shaping a society’s preferences over redistribution.
The data we use are from the second round of the EBRD and WB Life in Transition Survey (LiTS) (EBRD Transition Report 2011). This is a survey of nationally representative samples consisting of at least 1000 individuals in each of the 29 transition countries.[1] In addition, and for comparison purposes, this survey also covers Turkey, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and UK. Furthermore, in six of the countries surveyed – Poland, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and UK – the sample consists of 1500 individuals.
Redistribution is, in general, a complex issue, which can take various forms and rely on different mechanisms. In this policy brief, we will only focus on two forms of public attitudes towards redistribution. The first is direct income redistribution from the rich to the poor and public preferences for or against this form of redistribution. The second is indirect redistribution through the provision of public goods, some of which favor certain groups of population over others. In particular, we will consider preferences over extra government spending allocations in the areas of education, healthcare, pensions, housing, environment and public infrastructure. Generally, we would like to explore in greater detail to what extent there are differences across countries in terms of public preferences over redistribution and what might explain differences both within and across societies.
Both survey rounds include questions regarding public preferences towards income redistribution, direct (from the rich to the poor) and indirect (through government spending towards certain public goods). Data for exploring public preferences for direct redistribution can be obtained from a question in the survey that asks respondents to score from 1 to 10 whether they prefer more income inequality or less. More specifically, in the LiTS 2010, the question is the following:
Q 3.16a “How would you place your views on this scale: 1 means that you agree completely with the statement on the left “Incomes should be made more equal”; 10 means that you agree with the statement on the right “We need larger income differences as incentives for individual effort”; and if your views fall somewhere in between, you can choose any number in between?
Note, however, that we use the reverse of this so that 10 represents greater equality and 1 represents wider differences. Bearing this in mind, figure 1 shows the average scores for redistribution preferences for a selection of the countries for 2010 and shows a sizeable variation ranging from 4.4 (more inequality) in Bulgaria to 7.87 (greater equality) in Slovenia. The mean for Russia is 6.92.
The data also allows for a comparison to be made between these preferences in transition countries and in the developed economies covered in the survey. For instance, Russians are on average close to Germans in their preferences for redistribution, while Estonians and Belarusians prefer less redistribution and are closer to the British, on average.
Figure 1. Preferences for Direct Redistribution
Indirect measures of attitudes towards redistribution can add further depth to these societies’ preferences. In particular, the indirect measures in the 2010 survey are derived from a question that asks respondents to rate from 1 to 7 their first priorities for extra government spending.
Q 3.05a “In your opinion, which of these fields should be the first priority for extra government spending: Education; Healthcare; Housing; Pensions; Assisting the poor; Environment (including water quality); Public infrastructures (public transport, roads, etc.); Other (specify)”?
The country averages for these indirect measures for 2010 are presented in Figure 2. The graph reveals a sizeable cross-country variation. For instance, 43.5% of respondents in Mongolia preferred channeling extra government money to education, while 48.7% of respondents in Armenia selected higher healthcare spending. Almost 39% of respondents in Azerbaijan chose assistance to the poor as the first priority for government spending, while the corresponding figure was only 8.3% in Bulgaria and 4% in the Czech Republic. More than 34% of the Russians choose healthcare as their first priority, another 20% choose education, 15% would like the money to be channeled to housing, 14.5% to pensions, 11% to support the poor, 3% to support environment, and only 2% to public infrastructure (2010).
These numbers highlight that there are sizeable differences across the transition countries regarding preferences for redistribution. Also, regarding the form of indirect redistribution in terms of preferences over how government budgets should be prioritized and allocated. Several groups of factors or determinants are typically listed in academic literature to help explain what drives public preferences over the degree and form of redistribution. In the first group of factors, there are various determinants at the individual level. Within the group of individual determinants, self-interest or rational choice of a degree of redistribution favorable to the individual with usual (individual) preferences are stressed. Alternatively, motives behind a preference for redistribution can be related to social preferences (preferences for justice or equity) and reciprocity. Within this general group of self-interest, attitudes towards risks can be stressed as a crucial factor behind demands for social insurance and hence for indirect forms of redistribution. Individuals’ prospects of upward mobility, expectations about their future welfare or ‘tunnel effect’ in shaping their views and preferences over redistribution are also underlined. Also, the commonly held beliefs about the causes of prosperity and poverty are considered to be important in shaping the public’s attitudes under the umbrella of social preferences.
The literature covers possible institutional determinants for preferences towards redistribution and emphasizes the role of the level of inequality in a society and typically relates to the median voter hypothesis in democracies. It is also stressed that welfare regimes (liberal, conservative) can play a role in shaping the level of public support for redistribution.
Figure 2. Preferences for Indirect Redistribution
A closer examination of the data and estimates of the factors shaping individuals preferences over redistribution in the 2010 survey, are consistent with motives involving strong self-interests of the respondents.[2] Those from richer households have less support for redistribution, with the result being robust to the measure of household income used. The past trend in household income positions is insignificant, while the higher the expected income position of household in the coming four years, the less supportive the respondents are of income redistribution (elasticity -0.1). Those who experienced severe hardships with the recent crisis tend to support redistribution more than those who had little problems or not at all (elasticity 0.13).
Furthermore, the role of preferences towards uncertainty is confirmed: the higher the (self-reported) willingness to take risks, the less likely the individual is to support or favor redistribution. Respondents with tertiary education are less inclined to support redistribution of income from the rich to the poor, compared to those with secondary education (elasticity is -0.4). Having a successful experience with business start-ups also decreases demand for income redistribution from the rich to the poor (elasticity -0.3). Those living in rural areas are more in favor of redistribution compared to metropolitan areas, while living in urban areas shows the same level of support for redistribution as those living in metropolitan areas. In each of these cases, it appears that those who would benefit the most from redistribution favor it more than those who view it as coming at their expense, or possible expense in the future.
Beliefs regarding the origins of success and poverty are also shown to be statistically significant and negative, as predicted: those who believe effort and hard work or intelligence and skills are the major factors for success are less supportive of income redistribution (elasticity -0.16). Those who consider laziness and lack of will power the major factors for people’s lack of success are also, consistently, less supportive of redistribution (elasticity -0.2).
It also turns out that better democratic institutions are correlated with a higher demand for redistribution. The result is robust across the measures used, i.e. it does not seem to depend on the particular measure used. The size of the effect is quite pronounced: a one standard deviation increase in the democracy measure increases demand for redistribution from 16 percentage points, when the voice and accountability measure is used, to 33 and 36 percentage points when controls of the executives and democracy index are used.
Furthermore, the better the governance institutions, as measured by the rule of law and control of corruption indexes, the higher is the demand for redistribution. However, the result is not robust to the various measures used. Government effectiveness appears to be insignificant (though with a positive direction), and the regulatory quality measure is insignificant but with a negative direction. The size of the effects is again quite pronounced. A one standard deviation increase in the rule of law measure increases demand for redistribution by 17 percentage points, and a one standard deviation increase in the control of corruption measure increases demand for redistribution by 27 percentage points.
The higher the level of inequality, the larger is the demand for redistribution as might be expected. This result is robust across all measures used. The size of the effect varies from 16 to 18 percentage points in response to a one standard deviation increase.
A regression analysis of preferences towards indirect redistribution also shows that self-interest motives are very pronounced, but there are traces of social preferences as well. In particular, younger people (age 18-24) would like to have more subsidized education and housing at the expense of healthcare and pensions in comparison with the age 35-44 reference group. Those in the age 25-34 group would like to redistribute public spending to housing and environment at the expense of education, pensions and public infrastructure. Respondents in the age 45-54 group would also like to redistribute additional spending from education but to pensions. The two groups of older people (age 55-64 and 65+) would like to shift extra spending from education and housing to healthcare and pensions. The group of age 65+ would also like to shift money from assistance to the poor.
Respondents with tertiary education (in comparison with holders of a secondary degree) favor extra spending for education, environment and public infrastructure at the expense of healthcare, pensions and assisting to the poor, thus revealing additional elements of social motivations. Respondents with primary education, when compared to holders of secondary degree, would like to redistribute public money from education to pensions and assistance to the poor. Respondents with poor health favor additional spending on healthcare and pensions at the expense of education.
High skilled (in terms of occupational groups) respondents would like to redistribute public money from pensions to education. Those with market relevant experience of being successful in setting up a business tend to support education and public infrastructure at the expense of housing and pensions, though the result lack statistical power.
Respondents from households with higher income support extra spending for education, environment and public infrastructure at the expense of healthcare, pensions and assistance to the poor; again pointing to the other elements of possible social motivations. Those with a self-reported positive past trend in income position tend to support spending extra money on the environment at the expense of assistance to the poor (the latter lacks statistical power). If the respondent lives in its own house or apartment, s/he tends to support redistribution from housing and assistance to the poor, to healthcare and pensions.
Respondents whose households were strongly affected by the crisis would like expenditure on environment and public infrastructure to be reduced. Those with higher self-reported willingness to take risks would redistribute extra public money to education at the expense of healthcare and housing.
Respondents who believe that success in life is mainly due to effort and hard work, intelligence and skills favor education at the expense of assistance to the poor and public infrastructure, suggesting they might view education as the key to escape poverty. Those who think that laziness and lack of willpower are the main factors behind poverty would, unsurprisingly, redistribute extra public money from assistance to the poor to healthcare.
Males (as compared to females) favor extra spending on education, housing, environment and public infrastructure at the expense of healthcare. The self-employed favor extra spending of public money to pensions at the expense of housing. There is no difference across respondents living in metropolitan, rural or urban locations.
A regression analysis shows that better democratic institutions are correlated with higher support for allocation of additional public spending to education and healthcare, environment and public infrastructure. The effects are larger for education and healthcare: one standard deviation in the democracy index increases the support for spending money on education by 3 percentage points, for healthcare by 3.1 percentage points, and only by 0.4 and 0.6 percentage points for environment and public infrastructure, respectively. This reallocation is at the expense of assistance to the poor (3.5 percentage points), housing (2.6 percentage points) and pensions (1.1 percentage points). The pattern is robust to the measure of democratic institutions used, though the marginal effects vary slightly depending on the measure.
The influence of governance institutions is similar. Respondents in countries with better governance institutions favor allocation of extra public money to education (3.2 percentage points in response to one standard deviation in government effectiveness), health care (2.9 percentage points), environment (0.9 percentage points) and public infrastructure (0.6 percentage points). The reallocation is at the expense of assistance to the poor (4.2 percentage points), housing (3.3 percentage points) and pensions (0.2 percentage points). The pattern is also robust to the measure of governance institutions with the marginal effects varying slightly depending on the measure.
The higher the level of inequality in a country, the higher the demand for spending extra public money for education at the expense of assistance to the poor, pensions and public infrastructure. A one standard deviation increase in the index, increases demand for spending extra public money on education by 3.8 percentage points, and decreases spending on assistance to the poor by 2 percentage points, pensions by 1.9 percentage points, and public infrastructure by 0.06 percentage points. The results are robust to the inequality measure used.
Overall, the analysis provides empirical evidence that transitional countries are not homogeneous with respect to preferences for redistribution, with sizeable variations in country averages and in public preferences. The study of individual determinants of preferences for redistribution confirms a dominant role of self-interest, with some indications of social sentiments as well. In addition to the usual measures used in individual level analysis, these data allow better control for both positive and negative personal and household experience. The study of institutional determinants also confirms the role of income inequality in shaping public attitudes. In particular, higher inequality is confirmed to increase the demand for direct income redistribution. A novel motive of the paper is the influence of democracy and governance institutions on demand for redistribution. Better democracy and governance institutions are likely to stimulate demand for income redistribution, revealing both higher societal demand for redistribution and appreciation of the potential capability of the government to implement redistribution effectively.
The study of individual determinants of indirect demand for redistribution adds to the overall picture and confirms not only the self-interest motives but also social preferences especially pronounced among people with tertiary education and in high income groups. Better democratic and governance institutions stimulate redistribution of public money towards education, healthcare, environment and public infrastructure, while weaker democratic and governance institutions increases demand for allocation of public money to assistance to the poor, housing and pensions.
▪
References
Meltzer, A., Richards, S., 1981. “A Rational Theory of the Size of Government”. Journal of Political Economy 1989, 914–927.
Alesina, A., Angeletos, G.M., 2005. “Fairness and Redistribution”. The American Economic Review, 95(4), 960-98
[1] The countries covered were: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, FYROM, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.
[2] The basic empirical equation to study individual determinants of public preferences towards income redistribution is the OLS with country fixed effects (for direct redistribution) and multinomial regression with country fixed effects (for indirect measures). When studying the influence of institutions, the equations are transformed to replace country fixed effects with an institutional measure (one at a time). To control for the basic economic differences, average GDP per capita was included.
Optimal Economic Policy and Oil Price Shocks in Russia
Significant oil price fluctuations are an important factor influencing real economic variables, especially in the countries with large dependency on export of natural resources. Under such fluctuations, it is natural to consider the possibility of economic policy to fine tune the real economy, achieve inflation stability, and to weaken the negative influence of oil price shocks. In terms of monetary policy, authorities realize the existence of many channels through which oil market is related to the real sectors and inflation. The Central Bank of Russia should analyze the necessity to react to oil prices and to change the effect of them on the real economic variables.
The most typical way of reaction to oil prices in the Russian Federation is accumulation of reserves at the Reserve Fund. The Stabilization Fund (was later in 2008 separated into the Reserve Fund and the National Welfare Fund) was created in 2004 based on the initiative of Mr. Alexey Kudrin, who was a Minister of Finance at the time. The idea of the fund is to direct the revenue from oil export to the budget, but only when the price of oil does not exceed a pre-specified level, and the residual income should be accumulated in the fund.
In addition, the Central Bank of Russia may respond with its refinancing rate to the changes of the oil price via an augmented oil price Taylor rule or indirectly without inclusion of a commodity quota into the monetary policy rule.
We consider whether the Central Bank of Russia should formally establish the policy of responding to the changes of the oil price. The key evaluation criterion for selecting the optimal response is the minimization of inflation and GDP fluctuations.
Taking into account the results of an applied Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium model estimated for the Russian economy, we suggest that the Central Bank, optimally, should include the oil price in its interest rate Taylor monetary rule. That is, it should react to oil price quotas but only in the case of stabilization fund absence. This suggested optimal monetary policy implies a positive direct response to oil price shocks; a 1% oil price increase (decrease) should trigger CBR to raise (decrease) the refinancing rate by 0.1%. In the case of stabilization fund presence, there is no need to respond to changes in the oil price since the former stabilizes the situation when the oil price fluctuates too much.
The main potential limitation of this study is the problem of model quality against the real data. In addition, other monetary policy instruments may be tested against the reaction to changes in the oil price.
▪
Transportation Infrastructure and Labor Market Integration: the Moscow Oblast Case
The model of city organization proposed by von Thünen in the beginning of the XIXth century, and then formalized by Alonso followed by Muth and Mills (see Ner (1986)), is one of the most “successful” models in economics in terms of practical applications. The model explains why the gradient of population density and land rents decline from the city center towards the periphery. In fact, almost all modern cities fit this pattern, i.e. the model invented two centuries ago is capable of describing today’s spatial structure of cities. Even though von Thünen’s original idea of a city center as a single “marketplace” is no longer realistic, a multitude of factors beyond this make central locations nevertheless attractive. If firms are located near each other, they can take advantage of a common labor pool, easier access to consumers and suppliers, shared infrastructure, and knowledge spillovers, to name but a few advantages. Access to the center brings tangible economic benefits to both labor and capital and these benefits exceed possible losses due to increased competition, and so the von Thünen mechanism still works today, albeit through different channels.
In cities, there are generally two types of spatial organizations possible with respect to household income. If the advantages of amenities in a city center are not very strong, rich people tend to choose to locate in suburbs in order to consume higher quality housing. Such patterns are typical in US cities. If the advantages of a center are strong, the rich choose to live in the center. (Brueckner et al. (1999)) Due to historical circumstances, such patterns are typical of European or Russian cities. In these cases we observe a declining gradient of income; the further we move from the center, the further residents’ average income falls.
There are two forces at work shaping this declining gradient of wage. First, poor people sort themselves into suburban locations. Second, residents of the suburbs who want to take advantage of the labor market in the center face a barrier involving commuting costs. Many of them forgo high-wage opportunities that require tedious everyday commuting and therefore remain poor as a consequence.
An apparent policy solution to reduce income inequality would be to reduce transportation costs. The higher transportation costs are, the steeper the gradient of income. Fast and convenient transportation promotes the integration of local labor markets, gives the residents of the suburbs more, and often better, job opportunities, and works toward equalization of income across the agglomeration. Moreover, as transportation costs decline, the geographic area of agglomeration grows, which opens new opportunities for real estate development as well as new possibilities for rural residents to commute and participate in large labor market.
We conducted a study at CEFIR (Mikhailova et al. (2012)) comparing the spatial patterns of average wages in the Moscow agglomeration with several agglomerations in Western Europe. We considered municipal-level data for Moscow Oblast and for 25 agglomerations in Sweden, Germany, and Netherlands. In the sample of municipalities that are served by suburban train system, we estimated how average wages in a given municipality respond to different lengths of travel times to the city center.
Figure 1 shows the estimated wage-travel time relationship for Moscow Oblast and Figure 2 for the selected European cities.
Figure 1. Average Wage and Travel Time to the City Center, Moscow 
The residents of the Moscow agglomeration are at a clear disadvantage according to the data shown above. Residents of Moscow Oblast, even those who live in relative proximity to the city, loose drastically in terms of average wage. Doubling the travel time (say, from 20 min to 40 min, which is the range most commuters fit into) results in a 25% drop in the average wage for residents in Moscow Oblast compared to only a 5% drop in Europe. The wage in a municipality, from which it would take 90 minutes to travel to the city center, is almost half of the average wage inside Moscow’s Ring Road whereas in Europe 90 minutes translates into a 10% loss of in average wages.
A 90 minutes travel time could be considered as a realistic limit to the size of an agglomeration. This is roughly the maximum distance over which a typical working commuter would be willing to travel each day in each direction. A 90 minute commute in Europe represents approximately a 100 kilometer distance. In Moscow Oblast, however, it is only 63 km. So, Moscow Oblast loses in the effective “reach” of suburban transportation: people who live further than roughly 60 km from the center cannot practically commute.
Even for the same commuting time, the difference in wages between center and suburban municipality is much smaller in Europe (see Figures 1 and 2). This means that a commute for the same time length (in terms of railroad transport) presents a larger barrier for the residents of Moscow Oblast. This is obviously an over simplification of the situation since taking into account only commuting times as the measure of costs we ignore many other critical factors such as price (relative to income), the convenience of schedule and travel comfort, alternative modes of transportation, etc. Suburban trains in Moscow Oblast run infrequently, they are overcrowded, and alternative transportation modes (car or bus) face considerable delays due to road congestion. All of these additional factors serve to reduce the labor market opportunities of the Moscow Oblast residents and make wage inequality even deeper.
Figure 3 presents wage-distance gradients for the Moscow agglomeration under different scenarios using a hypothetical “European” gradient to show what could be the case if changes were made to reduce barriers to transportation bringing the Moscow agglomeration in line with European standards. The graphs end at a distance that corresponds to a typical 90-minute commuting time under various scenarios ranging from the status quo to the best case, where Moscow Oblast replicates European standards. The red curve represents the upper bound estimate of the possible effect of investments to improve the transportation infrastructure to bring Moscow regional transportation network in line with the quality of a typical European agglomeration. The residents of Moscow region could gain up to 24% more in terms of current average wages if this were to take place. The purple curve, however, presents a more modest scenario assuming that the structure of Moscow regional transportation network remains the same, but the travel time were to be cut by 20%. Even in this case, the gains to Moscow Oblast residents are about 3% of wages which is very significant economically for an area populated by 5.5 million people.
Figure 3. Wage Distance Gradient 
Further, it is important to note that to take advantage of labor market integration residents do not necessarily all have to commute to work to the center. The mere possibility of commuting creates arbitrage opportunities in the labor market and puts upward pressure on wages. As a result, it is important for economic policy to constantly improve transportation infrastructure even if the private benefits of increased usage are modest.
In the end, our analysis did not touch on the other benefits from transportation infrastructure. Apart from labor market integration, improvements in transportation infrastructure promote real estate development (Baum-Snow (2007), Garcia-López(2012)) and expand the market for goods and services. We leave these questions for further research.
▪
References
- Baum-Snow, Nathaniel (2007) “Did Highways Cause Suburbanization?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 122(2): 775-805
- Brueckner, Jan K., Jacques-François Thisse, and Yves Zenou (1999) “Why is central Paris rich and downtown Detroit poor?: An amenity-based theory.” European Economic Review 43.1: 91-107.
- Garcia-López, Miquel-Àngel (2012) “Urban spatial structure, suburbanization and transportation in Barcelona”, Journal of Urban Economics, Volume 72, Issues 2–3, September–November, Pages 176-190
- Mikhailova, T, V. Rudakov and N. Zhuravlyova (2012) “Economic effects from the Moscow Oblast suburban railroad infrastructure development” («Экономические эффекты от развития инфраструктуры пригородного железнодорожного сообщения в Московской области»), project report, CEFIR.
- Ner, J. B. (1986). The structure of urban equilibria: A unified treatment of the Muth-Mills model. Handbook of regional and urban economics: Urban economics, 2, 821.
For Some Mothers More Than Others: How Children Matter for Labor Market Outcomes When Both Fertility and Female Employment Are Low
Authors: Krzysztof Karbownik and Michal Myck, CenEA.
Wide spread entry of women into the labor force has been one of the most pronounced socio-economic developments in the 20th century, and high levels of female employment are crucial from the point of view of continued economic growth and financial stability of many welfare systems (Galor and Weil, 1996). At the same time, demographic changes determined by the current and future fertility levels will play a vital role in shaping these developments and will affect the costs of social programs. Given the potentially strong link between female employment and family size, it seems that understanding the relationship between the two ought to be at the heart of policy discussions, especially in countries that are characterized by both low fertility and low female employment. In particular, in light of rising unemployment in low-fertility countries, which have been most severely affected by the economic crisis such as Greece, Spain and Latvia, our findings may serve as a guide with respect to the relationship between fertility and labor supply in an environment, which will be more common in Europe in the near future.
Becoming Entrepreneur in Belarus: Factors of Choice
This policy brief summarizes two papers by Maryia Akulava on entrepreneurship development in Belarus and outlines which factors affect the choice of becoming self-employed in Belarus. While one of the papers, “Choice of Becoming Self-Employed in Belarus: Impact of Monetary Gains”, focuses on the role of pecuniary benefits, the other paper, “Portrait of Belarusian Entrepreneur”, adopts a broader perspective by accounting for individual, sociological, and institutional factors.
Although the Belarusian government has repeatedly declared the importance of private entrepreneurship for the national economy, its role remains rather modest. In terms of private sector development, Belarus lags severely behind other post-socialist countries. Yet, over the last decade, some positive dynamics have been recorded. In particular, the number of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) per 1,000 people increased from 2.5 in 2003 to 7.2 in 2010. Still, this ratio is rather small in comparison with other post-socialist economies (Table 1) [3; 4; 5; 6].
Table 1. Number of Small Enterprises (SEs) per 1,000 People
| Number of SEs per 1000 people | |
| Belarus | 7.2 |
| Russia | 11.3 |
| Ukraine | 17 |
| Kazakhstan | 41 |
| United Kingdom | 46 |
| Germany | 37 |
| Italy | 68 |
| France | 35 |
| EU countries | 45 |
| United States | 74.2 |
| Japan | 49.6 |
Regarding the growth rates of SEs and individual entrepreneurs (IEs), the numbers leave much to be desired. Specifically, in 2009, the number of SMEs and IEs amounted to 62,700 and 216,000 respectively, while in 2011 – to 72.200 and 232,000. Therefore, despite the efforts of the authorities to encourage the development of private initiative, the number of SEs and IEs only increased by 15.2 and 7.4%, respectively.
Next, private sector employment remains rather low. It amounts to approximately 13%, while in the developed economies this figure varies between 60 and 70%. For instance, in the U.S., it amounts to 60%, in Germany and in France – around 65-70%, and in Japan – 85%. On the other hand, transition economies have smaller shares, including Russia – 17%, Kazakhstan – 20.6%, and Ukraine – up to 28.8%, [7].
Some important indicators are provided in Table 2 [8].
Table 2. Share of Small and Medium Business in Economic Indicators of Belarus
| Share of small sector | 2003 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 |
| GDP | 8.2 | 11.2 | 11.4 | 12.4 |
| Volume of industrial production | 8.4 | 8.3 | 9.2 | 9.4 |
| Exports | 18.2 | 31.4 | 34.3 | 38.9 |
| Retail trade turnover | 9.2 | 27.8 | 29.5 | 28.2 |
| Economically active labor force | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13.1 |
Table 2 reveals an increased contribution of private entrepreneurs to the national economy. At the same time, the share of labor employed in the private sector remains unchanged at the level of 13%. This fact suggests that self-employment remains relatively unattractive for salaried workers.
So, what are the drivers of people’s choice? On the one hand, people might be reluctant to become entrepreneurs because of the prevailing social and cultural attitudes, or the lack of necessary experience. Post-socialist economies all share the legacy of planning and suppression of private initiative. On the other hand, government’s policies and regulations might ‘cool down’ enthusiasm or people simply have had or heard of some bad experiences. Thus, it is important to think of the reasons behind people’s choice and formulate policies to encourage entrepreneurship development in Belarus.
Who Is a Belarusian Entrepreneur?
In Belarus, entrepreneurs are active mainly in the non-manufacturing sector, including trade (30% of all entrepreneurs), provision of different services (16.5%), construction (13%), logistics (7%), and real estate (7%). The most common reasons to start your own business include a sudden, but attractive, business opportunity (66%), and the availability of funding for project implementation (33%).
As for the gender and age profiles of Belarusian entrepreneurs, 64% are men and 36% are women, with an average age of around 40-42 years. The majority of entrepreneurs is religious (54%), married (69%), and has children (75%). Around 65% have higher education, and about one third of them were among the top 10% students of their classes. Entrepreneurs report a good health status: 64% of them consider themselves as ‘healthy’. This is not surprising, given that entrepreneurship in Belarus is ‘survival for the fittest’. An entrepreneur has to be ready to take risks, be energetic, active and to continuously search for new business opportunities. Moreover, entrepreneurs are optimists, who evaluate themselves as successful (77%) and happy (81%) people.
Sociological characteristics reveal strong reliance on social networks. In general, the number of relatives or friends involved in the business activities is about two times larger than for salaried workers. Besides that, a much larger share of entrepreneurs consider their parents wealthy and successful (45% and 82%), compared with employees (34% and 37%, respectively).
Belarusian entrepreneurs stay in business because they like what they do (53%), and think that their work is important for society (29%). Profits and income remain a strong, but are not a decisive reason (25%).
Although entrepreneurs and employees do not differ substantially in terms of their attitudes towards family, friends, health, financial stability, religion, and so on, there is still a notable distinction. Specifically, entrepreneurs tend to praise work, power and influence over other people, and also like political freedom. In addition, they value their function of a service provider to other people.
Moreover, entrepreneurs have more trust to colleagues, other business people and subordinates than salaried workers. This is not surprising, given the importance of horizontal networks mentioned above. It is important to note that more than 30% of respondents expressed their trust to political authorities despite the government-induced difficulties for entrepreneurship development in Belarus.
Analysis of institutional infrastructure for doing business detects a negative relationship between a publicly-stated favorable attitude of authorities towards entrepreneurs and their decision to work in the private sector. This can be explained in following way: a priori, the government’s stance on entrepreneurship is evaluated positively, or at least considered as not harmful. Moreover, a person considers himself as being too small to attract the ‘extractive attention’ of the authorities. However, a posteriori, entrepreneurs revise their initial views. Their experience tells us that the government’s attitude is far from welcoming.
As for corruption, the attitude is ambiguous. On the one hand, entrepreneurs generally disfavor corruption. On the other hand, those who seek to expand their businesses consider corruption a way to avoid ‘unnecessary troubles’ and to overcome barriers created by the excessive ‘red tape’ in the economy.
What Are The Obstacles For Doing Private Business In Belarus?
Belarusian entrepreneurs consider the following factors as barriers to business development: (i) inflation and macroeconomic instability (55%), (ii) lack of financing (31%), (iii) high taxes (27%) and complexity of tax system (18%), (iv) legal vulnerability (23%), and (v) toughness of state administrative regulation inspections, licensing and certification requirements (19%). These barriers are largely of macroeconomic and regulatory nature. Moreover, authorities conduct a policy of close-to-full formal employment. This policy is aimed at securing jobs for people even at loss-making and poorly performing companies, which are kept afloat by subsidizes and directed loans. As a result, employees prefer to trade risks of working in the private sector, for a stable employment in the sector of state-owned enterprises.
As for the main barriers, which impede business start ups financial constraints are the most common factor (33%), followed by high risks (25%), the lack of necessary business skills, a clear understanding what to do in the market (15% and 13% respectively), and unwillingness to work a lot (16%). In other words, financial constrains along with the lack of business education are the two most important domestic barriers.
These findings correspond to the results of the research on the impact of pecuniary benefits on entrepreneurs. In that study, education does not appear to have a significant influence on the level of earnings by entrepreneurs. The latter are ‘self-trained’ by the experience of starting a business in the uncertain environment of the 1990s and matured in the course of doing their business in unfriendly conditions. However, as the economy evolves, activities and contracts become more sophisticated. To survive in the changing environment, entrepreneurs have to acquire new skills and learn new methods and concepts of doing business.
So far, it appears that the quality of education obtained by the entrepreneurs does not match the skills required in the Belarusian economy. Thus, it is important to organize seminars, to hold training and to run business education programs for the future and current entrepreneurs in order to upgrade their skills and thus to contribute to their improved performance on the market.
Conclusion
An efficient development of the private sector in Belarus requires a drastic improvement of the domestic business environment. In order to encourage domestic entrepreneurship, the authorities should improve macroeconomic management and cut much of the ‘red tape’. Entrepreneurship possesses a great potential to contribute to growth and development. Surveys reveal that government policies constrain the development of the domestic private sector. Moreover, the high tax burden should be reduced, and some fiscal ‘sweeteners’ could be offered for business startups. In addition, a somewhat higher priority should be given to the improvement of the quality of business education, and make it more accessible for the current and future business people. If implemented, all these measures would supposedly have a fostering impact on the development of a dynamic private sector in Belarus.
▪
References
Akulava M. 2012. “Choice of Becoming Self-Employed in Belarus: Impact of Monetary Gains”.
Akulava M. 2012. “Portrait of Belarusian Entrepreneur”. Work in progress.
Djankov S., Miguel E., Qian Y., Roland G. and Zhuravskaya E. 2005. “Who are Russia’s Entrepreneurs?” Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press. Volume 3 (2-3), 04/05.
Djankov S., Miguel E., Qian Y., Roland G. and Zhuravskaya E. 2006. “Entrepreneurship in China and Russia Compared” Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press. Volume 4 (2-3), 04/05.
http://netherlands.mfa.gov.by/_modules/_cfiles/files/sme_belarus_2011_1670.pdf
http://www.tambov-rosnou.ru/monograf/files/ind4.htm
http://www.erce.ru/internet-magazine/magazine/27/389/
http://www.mspbank.ru/files/documents/Ukraine.pdf
Sulakshin S. “State Economic Policy and Economic Doctrine of Russia. To Smart and Ethic Economy”. Т. II.
http://netherlands.mfa.gov.by/_modules/_cfiles/files/sme_belarus_2011_1670.pdf
Recent Dynamics of Returns to Education in Transition Countries
While, in an international comparison, transition countries spend a relatively large share of their GDP on education, and the population in transition countries is fairly highly educated, the returns to education in transition countries have been found to be relatively low, especially in comparison to other developing countries. In our paper, ‘Recent Dynamics of Returns to Education in Transition Countries’, we investigate whether the economic boom that transition countries experienced up to the 2008 financial crisis, increased the returns to education in these countries. Theories of skilled-biased technical change typically predict that periods of fast economic growth go together with an increase in the relative demand for skilled labor and hence an increase in the returns to education.
Using data from the 2007 wave of the International Social Survey Program (ISSP), the estimated return to an additional year of schooling in transition countries varied between a low 5.2 percent in Ukraine to a high of about 10 % in Poland (see Figure 1). Returns in transition countries were relatively low compared to developing countries in the ISSP sample, and on average not unlike OECD countries.
Figure 1. Returns to Education by Countries, 2007 Wave – Basic Specification
Note: Coefficients of the years of schooling variable in earning regressions. Dependent variables are monthly earnings. Specification includes: potential experience (linear and squared), dummy for gender. Source: Ukraine – ISSP 2008, all other countries – ISSP 2007.
The estimated dynamics in returns to education in the period 2002-2007 further suggest that the economic boom that took place in that period did not affect people with different amounts of education in different ways. Returns to education increased slightly in some transition countries and decreased slightly in others, but overall returns to education remained relatively moderate. More specifically, from table 2 we can see a decrease in returns in Bulgaria, Latvia and Poland, and an increase in the Czech Republic, Russia, Slovakia and Slovenia. Both increases and decreases are small in size however.
Table 1. Dynamics of Returns, Basic Specification
Note: Coefficients of the years of schooling variable in earning regressions with few controls as specified in the text.Source: Estimates for 1991-2002 are from Flabbi et al. (2008); estimates for 2007 and for Ukraine are by the authors.
A more detailed analysis for Ukraine using data from the Ukrainian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey, confirmed that economic growth did not have a major impact on the returns to education. The analysis for Ukraine however does suggest that, while in 2003 a secondary degree resulted in a somewhat higher wage, just having secondary education was no longer a differentiating factor in 2007.Moreover, only academic education made a difference, possibly because less and less people were paid very small wages (i.e. less than the official minimum wage).
The relatively limited importance of education for success on the labor market does not only show itself in the low estimated returns to education, it is also clear from the opinions people express about the factors that are important to get ahead. Table 3 gives the percentage of people who say a given factor is essential, important or fairly important to get ahead in a given country (based on the 2009 ISSP).
Table 2. To get ahead, it is essential, important or fairly important to
In most transition countries in the sample, most people think that hard work and ambition is the key to get ahead. Ukraine is no exception with hard work being thought to be essential, important or fairly important by about 94 percent of the respondents. Having a good education is thought to be at least fairly important by only about 73 percent of the respondents, with four other factors, besides hard work, scoring better on this criterion: having political connections, having ambition, having a wealthy family and knowing the right people. Also for the other transition countries in our sample, good education ranks only 5th, 6th or 7th.
Optimists could interpret these results as implying that at least education does not create the same social inequalities in the transition countries as it does in some other countries. Pessimists, on the other hand, who see education as an important driver of economic growth, will argue that low returns to education mean there is a low incentive for people to invest in education and that it is better to have education as a source of inequality rather than political or social connections, or having a wealth family.
▪
The Eurasian Customs Union among Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan: Can It Succeed Where Its Predecessor Failed?
In 2010, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan formed the Eurasian Customs Union and imposed the Russian tariff as the common external tariff of the Customs Union. This resulted in almost doubling the external average tariff of the more liberal Kazakhstan. Russia has benefited from additional exports to Kazakhstan under the protection of the higher tariffs in Kazakhstan. However, estimates reveal that the tariff changes have resulted in substantial transfers from Kazakhstan to Russia since importers in Kazakhstan now purchase lower quality or higher priced Russian imports which are protected under the tariff umbrella of the common external tariff. Transfers from the Central Asian countries to Russia were the reason the Eurasian Economic Community (known as EurAsEC) failed, so this bodes badly for the ultimate success of the Eurasian Customs Union. What is different, however, is that the Eurasian Customs Union and its associated Common Economic Space aim to reduce non-tariff barriers and improve trade facilitation, and also to allow the free movement of capital and labor, liberalize services, and harmonize some regulations. Estimates by my colleagues and I show that if substantial progress could be made in trade facilitation and reducing non-tariff barriers, this could make the Customs Union positive for Kazakhstan and other potential Central Asian members. Unfortunately, so far the Customs Union has made these matters worse. On the other hand, Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization will eventually substantially reduce the transfers from Kazakhstan to Russia, but this will need a strong political commitment from Russia which we have not yet seen. If that Russian political leadership is forthcoming, the Eurasian Customs Union could nonetheless succeed where its predecessor has failed.
In January 2010, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan formed the Eurasian Customs Union. Two years later, the three countries agreed to even closer economic ties, by signing the agreement to form a “common economic space.” Regarding tariffs, the key change was that the three countries agreed to apply the tariff schedule of the Customs Union as their common external tariff for third countries. With few exceptions, the initial common external tariff schedule was the Russian tariff schedule. Kazakhstan negotiated exceptions from the common external tariffs for slightly more than 400 tariff lines, but was scheduled to phase out the exceptions over a period of five years (World Bank, 2012). In addition, the members agreed to have the Customs Union determine the rules regarding sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards (SPS) and standards on good. Fearing transshipment of goods from China through Kazakhstan and from the European Union through Belarus, Russia negotiated and achieved agreement on stricter controls on the origin of imports from countries outside of the Customs Union. The common economic space (CES) stipulates that, in principle, there will be free movement of labor and capital among the countries, there will be liberalization of services on the CES and coordination of some regulatory policies such as competition policy.
In February 2012, the Eurasian Economic Commission began functioning. It is intended to act as the regulatory authority for the Customs Union in a manner similar to the European Commission for the European Union.
The Economics of Tariff Changes — Gains for Russia and Losses for Kazakhstan
Some proponents of the Eurasian Customs Union have argued that as a result of the Customs Union firms in the three countries will have improved market access through having tariff free access to the markets in all three countries. Prior to 2010, however, along with other countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the three countries had agreements in place that stipulated free trade in goods among them. Thus, the Customs Union could not provide improved market access due to reducing tariffs on goods circulating among the three countries.
Since the common external tariff was essentially the Russian tariff, there was little change in incentives regarding tariffs in Russia. The big change occurred in Kazakhstan, who had a much lower tariff structure than Russia prior to implementing the Customs Union tariff. Despite the exemptions, Kazakhstan almost doubled its tariffs in the first year of the Customs Union (see World Bank, 2012). The increase in tariffs on many items which were not produced in Kazakhstan but produced in Russia, led to a substantial increase in imports from Russia and displacement of imports from Europe. Many of Russia’s manufacturing firms, which were not competitive in Kazakhstan prior to the Customs Union, were now able to expand sales to the Kazakhstani market. This represents gains for Russian industry. Given the deeper manufacturing base in Russia compared with most of the CIS countries and the resulting uneven benefits of the common external tariff in favor of Russia, acceptance of the common external tariff has been a fundamental negotiating position of Russia regarding acceptance of members in the Customs Union.
Some cite the expanded Russian exports in Kazakhstan as evidence of success of the Customs Union. But the displacement of European imports, to higher priced or lower quality imports from Russia, represents a substantial transfer of income from Kazakhstan to Russia and is an example of what economists call “trade diversion”. Moreover, it is the reason the World Bank (2012) has evaluated the tariff changes of the Customs Union as a loss of real income for Kazakhstan.
Furthermore, the three countries together (and even a broader collection of CIS countries) constitute too small a market to erect tariff walls against external competition. They would lose the benefits of importing technology from advanced countries and would rely on high priced production from within the Customs Union. Some would argue that there are political benefits of trade to be taken into account, but experience has shown that when a customs union is inefficient and the benefits and the costs of the customs union are very unequal, the customs union can inflame conflicts (see Schiff and Winters, 2003, 194-195).
Non-Tariff Barriers — Extremely Costly Methods of Regulating Standards Worsened by the Customs Union
Non-tariff barriers, in the form of sanitary and phyto-sanitary (SPS) conditions on food and agricultural products and technical barriers to trade (TBTs) on goods, are a very significant problem of the Customs Union. There are standards based trade disputes between Belarus and Russia on several products, including milk, meat, buses, pipes and beer (see Petrovskaya, 2012). Anecdotal evidence indicates that Kazakhstani exporters complain bitterly regarding the use by the Russian authorities of SPS and TBTs measures, either to extract payments or for protection.
If the Customs Union could make substantial progress on reducing these barriers, it would be a significant accomplishment. My colleagues and I have estimated that progress on the non-tariff barriers and trade facilitation could outweigh the negative impact of the tariff changes for Kazakhstan (see World Bank, 2012). Unfortunately, so far the Customs Union has taken a step backward on both non-tariff barriers and trade facilitation.
A big problem in reducing standards as a non-tariff barrier is that standards regulation, in all three countries, is still primarily based on the Soviet system. As a holdover from the Soviet era, mandatory technical regulations are employed where market economies allow voluntary standards to apply. This regulatory system makes innovation and adaption to the needs of the market very costly as firms must negotiate with regulators when they want to change a product or how it is produced. Legislation in both Russia and Kazakhstan calls for conversion to a system of voluntary standards, but this is happening too slowly in all three countries. The problem is that the Customs Union has worsened the situation. Technical regulations are now decided at the level of the Customs Union, so firms that previously negotiated with their national standards authority, have had to now get agreement from the Customs Union. This has reportedly caused further delays, impeding innovation and the ability of firms to meet the demands of the market.
A second problem with efforts to reduce the non-tariff barriers is that the Customs Union is trying to harmonize standards of the three countries by producing mandatory technical regulations. The alternative is to use Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs). Experience has shown that no customs union has been able to broadly harmonize standards based on mandatory technical regulations, with the exception of the European Union. In fact, even in the European Union, they have had to use MRAs and only harmonized technical regulations after decades of work. While each member of the Customs Union is expected to create a system of mutual recognition of certificates of conformity, these certificates are not presently recognized in the other countries of the Customs Union. There is little hope for a significant reduction in standards of non-tariff barriers unless the system of mutual recognition is more widely recognized and adopted.
Trade Facilitation —Participation in International Production Chains Made More Difficult by the Customs Union
Customs posts between the member countries have been removed and this has reduced trade costs for both exporters and importers in the three countries. Russia’s concerns regarding transshipment have, however, led to an opposite impact on trade with third countries, i.e., the costs of trading with countries outside the Customs Union have increased. Participation in international production chains has become a key feature of modern international production and trade. If goods cannot move easily in and out of the country, multinational firms will look to other countries to make their foreign direct investment and for international production sharing. Addressing this significant problem will take a change of emphasis on the part of Russia.
Russian WTO Accession —Liberalization That Will Significantly Reduce Transfers to Russia
It has apparently been agreed by the Customs Union members that the common external tariff of the Customs Union will change to accommodate Russia’s WTO commitments. As a result, the applied un-weighted average tariff will fall in stages from 10.9 percent in 2012 to 7.9 percent by the year 2020 (see Shepotylo and Tarr, forthcoming).[1] This will have the effect of lowering the trade diversion costs of Kazakhstan. In addition, the Customs Union will be expected to adapt its rules on standards to conform to commitments Russia made as part of its WTO accession commitments. In the case of Belarus, it remains to be seen if it will implement the changes, as this will increase competition for its industries.
Conclusion — the Need to Russia to Exercise Political Leadership for Standards and Trade Facilitation Reform for Success of the Customs Union
In 1996, the same three countries formed a customs union. Later the same year, they were joined by Kyrgyzstan, then by Tajikistan and in 2005 by Uzbekistan. As Michalopoulos and I (1997) anticipated, the earlier Customs Union failed because it imposed large costs on the Central Asian countries, which had to buy either lower quality (including lower tech goods) or higher priced Russian manufactured goods under the tariff umbrella. The present Customs Union also started with the Russian tariff, which protects Russian industry and suffers from the same problem that led to the failure of the earlier Customs Union. Nonetheless, the present Customs Union could succeed. Crucially, due to Russia’s accession to the WTO, the tariff of the Customs Union will fall by about 40 to 50 percent.[2] This will make the Customs Union a more open Customs Union, very significantly reduce the transfers from Kazakhstan to Russia, and thereby reduce the pressures from producers and consumers in Kazakhstan on their government to depart from enforcement of the tariffs of the Customs Union. Further, the present Customs Union aims to reduce non-tariff barriers and improve trade facilitation, as well as it has “deep integration” on its agenda, i.e., services liberalization, the free movement of labor and capital and some regulatory harmonization. Although, to date, the Customs Union has moved backwards on non-tariff barriers and trade facilitation, one could optimistically hope for substantial progress. In the important area of non-tariff barriers, given the common history of Soviet mandatory standards, Russia will have to take the lead in moving the Customs Union toward a system of voluntary standards where no health and safety issue are involved, and toward a system of mutual recognition agreements and away from commonly negotiated technical regulations. On trade facilitation, Russia will have to reverse its pressure and find a way to allow the freer movement of goods with third countries while addressing its transshipment concerns.
▪
References
- Michalopoulos, Constantine and David G. Tarr (1997), “The Economics of Customs Unions in the Commonwealth of Independent States,” Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, Vol. 38, No. 3, 125-143.
- Petrovskaya, Galina (2012), “Belarus, Rossia, Ukraina. Obrechennye na torgovye konflikty” (Belarus, Russia, Ukraine. Doomed for trade conflicts), Deutsche Welle, June 14. www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16023176,00.html.
- Schiff, Maurice and L. Alan Winters (2003), Regional Integration and Development, Washington DC: World Bank and Oxford University Press.
- Shepotylo, Oleksandr, and David G. Tarr (2008), “Specific tariffs, tariff simplification and the structure of import tariffs in Russia: 2001–2005,” Eastern European Economics, 46(5):49–58.
- Shepotylo, Oleksandr, and David G. Tarr (forthcoming), “Impact of WTO Accession on the Bound and Applied Tariff Rates of Russia,” Eastern European Economics.
- Shymulo-Tapiola, Olga (2012), “The Eurasian Customs Union: Friend or Foe of the EU?” The Carnegie Papers, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October. Available at: www.CarnegieEurope.eu,
- World Bank (2012), Assessment of Costs and Benefits of the Customs Union for Kazakhstan, Report Number 65977-KZ, Washington DC, January 3, 2012. Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/01/15647043/assessment-costs-benefits-customs-union-kazakhstan
[1] The final “bound rate” of Russia is higher at 8.6 percent on an un-weighted average basis; but there are about 1,500 tariff lines where the applied rate of Russia is below the bound rate. The applied weighted average tariff will fall from 9.3 percent in 2012 to 5.8 percent in 2020.
[2] Russian tariffs fall more on an un-weighted average basis than they do on a weighted average basis. See Shepotylo and Tarr (forthcoming).