Tag: EU accession

EU Accession and Sustainability Challenges for Ukraine’s Agricultural Sector

Posted on November 18, 2024 | Policy Brief

Combine harvester in a Ukrainian wheat field symbolizing EU accession impacts on agriculture.

Recently the EU opened accession negotiations for Ukraine. Apart from the trade benefits of having access to a large and wealthy EU market, Ukraine’s agricultural producers in particular, will have to comply with and implement a complex and demanding EU acquis in agriculture. Together with the Common Agricultural Policy, this includes regulation of markets and standards in farming practices, animal and plant health, food safety, and environmental and animal welfare. The potential additional compliance costs from EU accession may undercut Ukraine’s agricultural competitiveness and supply growth, crucial for feeding a growing population. However, in this policy brief, we show that these costs are not critical and that there is a potential for agricultural producers to simultaneously increase their output and contract harmful environmental impacts, which in turn can compensate for the additional compliance costs.

Introduction

The European Council granted Ukraine candidate status in June 2022 and eventually opened accession negotiations in December 2023. For the Ukrainian agricultural sector, an EU membership would bring trade benefits from having access to a large and wealthy EU market. At the same time, Ukraine would have to comply with a complex and demanding EU Acquis in agriculture (hereafter called EU agricultural acquis). This, together with the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), includes regulation of markets and standards in the areas of farming practices, animal and plant health, food safety, and environmental and animal welfare (Nivievskyi, 2024).

Complying with these regulations would entail additional costs for agricultural producers, raising concerns about the comparative advantage of Ukrainian agriculture. If these effects are strong enough, it could, in turn, hamper Ukraine’s agricultural supplies growth, crucial for feeding a growing global population.

While the evidence on the expected compliance costs is very scarce (see e.g. EU Commission, 2014), it shows they would be in the range of up to an additional 10 percent of the total costs. This cost increase, however, does not seem to ruin Ukraine’s comparative advantage in agriculture. Moreover, in this policy brief, we demonstrate that producers of grains and oilseeds in Ukraine have the potential to improve their efficiency by increasing their output by almost 20 percent and simultaneously contracting harmful environmental impacts by 16 percent. Such improvements can compensate for additional EU agricultural acquis compliance costs for Ukraine’s agricultural producers.

Relevance

Ukraine’s agricultural sector plays a key role domestically and internationally. It is noticeably dominated by crops, mainly by highly competitive grains and oilseeds. Agriculture alone accounts for about 10 percent of Ukraine’s GDP, but together with upstream (e.g. agricultural machinery) and downstream (e.g. food processing) industries, the entire agri-food sector’s share amounts to roughly 20 percent of GDP. The agri-food sector accounted for 60 percent of Ukraine’s total exports in 2023 with Ukraine’s shares in global corn and wheat trade reaching almost 20 and 10 percent, respectively.

At the same time, agriculture is among the top five sectors of the Ukrainian economy contributing to Nitruos Oxide (N2O) emissions in the country (SSSU, 2018). Since it generates not only desirable outputs but also environmentally undesirable ones (such as GHG emissions, pollution from applied chemical fertilizers and pesticides etc.), the negative outputs should be both considered in the assessment of the sector’s performance.

The existing empirical literature places the main focus on the economic aspects of the agricultural sector’s performance in Ukraine, more specifically on technical efficiency and total factor productivity. A recently published study (Halytsia, Vrachioli, Nivievskyi, Sauer, 2024) we undertake the first attempt to incorporate undesirable outputs of agricultural production in the analysis of Ukrainian agricultural producers’ efficiency and provide empirical evidence on how they perform from a combined economic and environmental perspective. This policy brief summarizes the study’s results.

Data and Methodology

To estimate the environmentally adjusted efficiency of crop producers, we use farm-level accounting data from 2017-2019, collected by the State Statistics Service of Ukraine. The analysis is conducted for cereals (including wheat, barley, maize and others) and sunflower production since they are the major crops in terms of sowing land and output shares and given their importance for Ukrainian agricultural export.

To account for both desirable and undesirable outputs of crop production (environmental bads in our study are N2O emissions originating from the usage of mineral fertilizers and CO2 emissions from fuels’ consumption), the production technology is formalized in the form of a hyperbolic distance function. This gives the maximum linear expansion of a desirable output vector and contraction of an undesirable output vector for a given input vector. Parametric estimation (deploying a so-called stochastic frontier model) of the distance function yielded hyperbolic efficiency estimates that reflect the producers’ ability to expand good outputs and simultaneously contract environmentally undesirable ones to achieve maximum environmentally adjusted economic efficiency.

Empirical Results

The results from the econometric analysis reveal that the average environmentally adjusted economic efficiency estimate for crop producers in Ukraine is 0.84 (efficiency estimates are bounded between 0 and 1). This suggests that, on average, producers of cereals and sunflowers in Ukraine can improve their production results by increasing crop output by 19 percent (1/0.84 = 1.19) while simultaneously contracting undesirable output by 16 percent (1–0.84 = 0.16) in order to be fully efficient, i.e. have their output level on the frontier of the production technology (Figure 1).

The obtained environmentally adjusted economic efficiency level is fairly comparable to the efficiency values estimated in empirical studies for crop producers in other Eastern European countries, more specifically Poland (Gołaś et al, 2020; Stępień et al., 2021).

Figure 1. Graphic synthesis of the study’s findings

Source: Authors’ presentation.

Policy Implications and Recommendations

Performance Improvement

The results from the empirical analysis show that there is room for Ukrainian crop farmers to improve their environmental and economic performance. The following policy interventions can be helpful in facilitating this improvement:

  • establishing clear standards for the quality of chemical fertilizers, promoting organic ones and robust agrochemicals management and monitoring systems
  • promoting the adoption of climate-smart agricultural technologies, such as, for instance, fertigation (which can be especially effective in the steppe agro-climatic zone where most Ukrainian crop production is concentrated and which is noticeably affected by changing climatic conditions)
  • governmental programs for energy saving in agriculture to help reduce the amount of farm CO2 emissions.

Implementation of these measures can contribute to closing the efficiency gap, bring more sustainable agricultural production growth and help farmers compensate for the anticipated costs of EU legislation compliance regarding environment, animal welfare, and food safety.  The latter, in turn, entails not only costs but also a number of benefits. Potential benefits from implementing environmental regulations are, for instance, input savings ( e.g. in fertilizer or pesticide costs), additional revenues (higher prices and increased consumer demand for agricultural products produced sustainably) and extension programs financed through public funds (Mettepenningen et al., 2009).

Data Collection Improvement

Key limitations of this study stem largely from issues related to data availability. More specifically, there is no data available on organic fertilizer application, specification of the types of used pesticides, or details on farm characteristics (such as farm economic size, land type, environmental subsidies, etc.). These data would enable a robust and comprehensive estimation of the environmentally adjusted economic efficiency of agricultural producers, accounting for a broader range of undesirable outputs and incorporating determinants of inefficiency into the analysis.

Currently, the State Statistics Service of Ukraine’s annual statistical survey forms do not contain questions which enable the collection of the above mentioned data. Enhancing farm-level data collection will be necessary to align Ukrainian statistical databases with Eurostat, given Ukraine’s candidate status for EU membership.

The importance of collecting data on farms’ environmental performance is supported by the ongoing transition in the EU from a farm accountancy data network to a farm sustainability data network, which aims to collect rich microeconomic data not only on farms’ income and business activities but also information on their environmental and social sustainability performance.

Conclusion

Over the two decades prior to Russia’s unprovoked full-scale invasion, Ukraine developed into an increasingly important global supplier of staple food.

In this policy brief, we quantify the improvement potential for the performance of crop producers in Ukraine from both economic and environmental perspectives and highlight that potential efficiency improvement could compensate for the additional EU agricultural acquis compliance costs that Ukraine’s agricultural producers are expected to face upon Ukraine becoming a full EU member.

Acknowledgment

This policy brief is based on the academic article Assessing the Environmental Performance of Agricultural Production Using a Parametric Approach: An Application for Crop Producers in Ukraine by Olha Halytsia, Maria Vrachioli, Oleg Nivievskyi and Johannes Sauer, published in Eastern European Economics.

References

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

The 2024 FREE Network Retreat: Economic Research and Capacity Building in Moldova

Posted on October 28, 2024 | Policy Brief

Panel discussion on capacity building in Moldova and research within the FREE Network experience with experts from ISET-PI, BEROC, BICEPS, CenEA, and SITE

The 2024 FREE Network Retreat, held in Chisinau, Moldova on September 11-13, brought together representatives from the FREE Network institutes and other stakeholders, focusing on economic research and capacity building, especially in the context of Moldova’s EU accession efforts. The event featured general sessions on institutional development, special tracks on academic, administrative and communication topics, and a half-day conference on “Economic Research and Capacity Building“. Key discussions addressed challenges such as Moldova’s weak economic research infrastructure, policymaking gaps, and the need for capacity building. Several examples of Moldovan success stories were also highlighted. The event concluded with a call for strengthened collaboration and donor support towards economics education and fostering Moldova’s research and capacity-building landscape.

Introduction

The FREE Network Retreat is an annual event for researchers and administrators from the FREE Network institutes. The 2024 Retreat took place in Chisinau, Moldova, September 11-13 and was attended by representatives from BEROC (Belarus – currently in exile in Lithuania), BICEPS (Latvia), CenEA (Poland), ISET (Georgia), KSE (Ukraine) and SITE (Sweden). In addition, although not being a member of the FREE Network, the New Uzbekistan University in Tashkent and its Greater Eurasia Research Center (GEAR) were represented.

Like at previous retreats, there were two general sessions with a focus on the development of the individual institutes and the Network as a whole, and three tracks of special sessions on academic, administration and communication topics. The Retreat also involved a meeting of the FREE Network’s joint initiative The Forum for Research on Gender in Eastern Europe (FROGEE) – and a special side event on the integration of Ukrainian Refugees in Moldova.

An integral part of this year’s Retreat was the half-day conference, “Economic Research and Capacity Building”. Drawing on the FREE Network’s experience, the conference focused on how capacity building and research can facilitate the transformation of societies and economies, particularly within the Moldovan context, on its path towards EU-accession. In addition, it provided the FREE Network members an opportunity to share their experiences of capacity building, economic research and policymaking with Moldovan stakeholders.

The Conference was open to external participants interested in the topic, particularly policymakers, academics, and think tank representatives. It clearly illustrated the need to strengthen not only economic research and capacity building but also academic education in economics and related fields, improve the quality and access to data, and raise the level of competence in economics within the government and public sector in general.

A summary of the Conference discussions is provided below. For a full overview of the program and participants see the Appendix.

The Opening Session

The opening session started with the general observation that EU integration, in addition to being a political and security issue is primarily an economic issue with a need for economic research and analysis that can inform policy discussions and educate current and future stakeholders. Within this context, all the FREE Network institutes have considerable experience engaging in research and discussions of policy and policy reform within the region. With Moldova not (yet) represented in the FREE Network, the Conference served as a platform for the Network to learn and eventually engage in sustainable partnership(s).

The discussion then shifted to the Moldovan situation and the challenges ahead on the path to EU membership. Several challenges were identified: a lack of economic research, with most existing research being rather weak; missing connections between researchers and policymakers; a shortage of human resources; and generally weak institutions; as well as policies often being based on trial and error rather than evidence-based decision-making.

To address these challenges several actions were suggested including the need to strengthen research and independent economic thinking through capacity building; drawing on the experience of the countries that have joined the EU during the last two decades; developing international research cooperation through networks like the FREE Network; business-friendly practices and treating investors right while at the same time encouraging entrepreneurship and educating society on the importance of private and public investments.

The discussion also addressed activities supporting civil society undertaken by the EU and Sweden, respectively. Examples of activities include building partnerships and strong ecosystems for innovation and entrepreneurship, supporting reforms cutting red tape and improving the business climate in general as well as supporting the Academy of Economic Studies Moldova and the Association of Women in Business.

Research and Capacity Building – the Moldovan Perspective

The discussion started with a presentation of three Moldovan success stories. The first one is a recently launched program on media, gaming development and animation. Currently, 1,000 students are being enrolled. The program attracts Moldovans from all over the country as well as Moldovan students abroad who decided to terminate their studies abroad to go back to Moldova and enrol in the program. The success of the program is a good example of cooperation between industry, higher education institutions and the Ministry of Education opening up to new professions and programs that attract young people.

The second example is taken from the fashion industry. Traditionally Moldova has been a country where sewing takes place thanks to cheap labor. However, in recent years a “pipeline” of talent, design and brands has developed. As a result, the value added in the industry and export revenues as well as wages have increased.

The final example is the Moldovan tech industry. The tech industry has been at the forefront and could be considered the tiger of the Moldovan economy with growth rates of 30-40 percent per year. There are two main reasons behind this success: the rapidly developing Moldovan startup scene combined with a 7 percent single tax mechanism for the tech industry.

The discussion then turned to the role of research in policymaking. The first argument put forward focused on the impact (or rather the lack of impact) of research and analysis on Moldovan policymaking. As the examples above show, the Moldovan economy has the potential to develop – however, the policy discussion does not focus on the transition towards higher-value activities. On the contrary, even though Moldovan research highlights the role of transition to higher value-added, this argument has essentially been ignored in the policy debate that has been mostly characterized by rhetoric on job creation rather than transition to an economy that creates jobs within the high(er) value-added sectors. Unfortunately, this is not the only example of Moldovan policy discussions and decision-making ignoring the research perspective and outcomes. Among other examples mentioned is the recent tax reform experience and programs supporting Small and Medium Sized Enterprises. Currently, reforms are driven either by purely political reasons or by lobbying or by any other vested interests. There is essentially no impact assessment or any economic analysis underpinning the decisions. Due to the fact that policy initiatives neither are based on economic analysis  nor on best practices, they are vulnerable to clientelism or corruption. The importance of rule of law was emphasized in light of Moldova’s anchoring to the EU and with reference to Latvia and the other Baltic states. It is a too important topic to be left to the lawyers and should hence be part of economic capacity building and research.

The second argument referred to access to reliable data needed for quality policy-oriented research. While the data collected by the National Bureau of Statistics in general is good, the main issue lies in accessing it. The Bureau does not have the resources to support researchers. To exacerbate the problem further, there seems to be no willingness among policymakers to address this issue. Given Moldova’s vulnerability to Russian disinformation and the increased pressure on Moldova, the issue of access to reliable data is even more pressing today than a few years ago.

To foster an informed policy debate and decision-making process taking evidence-based research into account, it would be desirable to create a platform to advocate the results of economic policy analysis where, e.g., policy papers and monitoring reports, could be presented and discussed by experts and decision-makers in the public and private sectors as well as the civil society.

The session continued with a discussion on human capital. The successful program attracting Georgians in the diaspora to return and work for the Georgian government, launched during the first decade of the 2000s, served as the point of departure for the discussion. The key to the success in Georgia was that the government was able to pay competitive salaries. This is one of the main challenges facing Moldova. Even though there have been some adjustments in government salaries during recent years, the government is still far from being anywhere close to paying the same salaries as the private sector in general and think tanks in particular. An understanding of this is important not only at the national level but also among donors. It was noted that there have been some adjustments in government salaries, but it has not been enough. Further, while the Moldovan diaspora are starting to return, they, however, have little governmental or political experience, which makes it difficult to involve them in, e.g. policymaking and development of support programs. It would be good to draw on experiences and best practices from other countries in the region – such as the Baltic states and Georgia – and use them as benchmarks, e.g., for the innovation ecosystem, incubators and accelerators.

Research and Capacity Building – the FREE Network Experience

The FREE Network institutes shared their experiences in capacity building and brain gain, developing an economics undergraduate program, research and policy impact, and network building through research.

ISET (Georgia) shared their experience on attracting talented economists in the Georgian diaspora back to Georgian academia, research, and government positions. The starting point was an initiative developed in collaboration with the donor community to establish a world-class economics school in the Caucasus – the International School of Economics (ISET). The school has developed from a small boutique school to a school with three academic programs (undergraduate and graduate) and about 700 enrolled students. ISET graduates are in high demand and are seen in the private and public sectors. The ISET Policy Institute plays a pivotal role in terms of contributing to evidence-based policymaking. Throughout the years more than 50 ISET graduates have been accepted in Ph.D. programs at top universities worldwide. Many of them have returned to Georgia and ISET after completing their Ph.D. Had not it been for opportunities offered by ISET and the Policy Institute, it is very unlikely that they would have returned. The FREE Network and the opportunities offered are a great resource for the ISET as well as for the ISET Policy Institute.

BEROC (Belarus – in exile in Lithuania since 2022) shared their experience on the process of creating and launching an undergraduate program in economics and business. BEROC started as a research center, but the idea to establish a Bachelor program in economics and business had been around for several years. As part of the re-organization and reformation of the European Humanities University (Belarusian, but in exile), the European Commission approached BEROC asking if it could develop an undergraduate program in economics and business for Belarusian students.

The challenge has been two-fold: first, in the current political situation, Belarusian people are “locked within the country” and for them it is much easier to go to Russia for studies. In addition, the cost of living and the tuition fee (although low by Baltic standards) provide additional barriers to potential students. Second, BEROC operates in exile themselves. Nevertheless, a Bachelor program in economics and business will be launched in October 2024 with the support of Belarusian business in exile. Thanks to cooperation with partners within the FREE Network the program is at the global frontier.

BICEPS (Latvia) provided an overview of how research can contribute to the policy agenda. BICEPS’s first policy reports, published more than 15 years ago, focused on the unsustainable Latvian economic growth and inflation levels at the time. These reports reached conclusions that, while correct ex-post, were contrary to those of the Latvian Central Bank. This divergence sparked substantial discussion at both the political level and in the media.

In the early 2010s, BICEPS was commissioned to produce the first-ever Latvian Competitiveness Report. This report has served as a foundation for policymaking and has left a lasting mark on the policy agenda. Furthermore, following BICEPS’s research on the shadow economy and the annual presentation of the shadow economy index, the Ministry of Finance, through public procurement, commissioned a 2021 project to develop a model addressing the impact of the shadow economy.

The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) Latvia and the EUROMOD tax-benefit microsimulation model are long-term projects run by BICEPS. Current projects include one focused on the impact of broadening the sugar tax base, a regional Global Entrepreneurship Monitor study, a project on road congestion tolls in cities and the development of sustainable agriculture in Africa.

CenEA (Poland) might be small in terms of people employed, but disproportionally big in terms of impact and presence in the Polish policy discussion. From the very beginning, CenEA has aimed at combining policy with solid economic research. The focus has primarily been in the areas of fiscal policy, ageing and health – with the latter two being major issues in Poland.

For CenEA, the FREE Network has been fundamental, both for funding and for building its credibility and position. CenEA has played an active role in terms of broadening and deepening the cooperation within the FREE Network. It has been very active in developing and coordinating the FROGEE project. The project (financed by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, SIDA) has run for six years and covered a wide range of topics within the field of gender equality. It has resulted in several FREE Policy Briefs, policy and research papers, and several conferences and workshops. In addition, the project has contributed to the development of tools and skills for both senior and junior researchers within the Network. Based on the success of the FROGEE project, new projects and initiatives within the Network have been developed.

SITE (Sweden) has taken the lead on the FREECE (the Forum for Research on Eastern Europe: Climate and Environment) project. The project has been around for eighteen months with a focus on the transition from an economy based on the production and consumption of fossil fuels to an economy based on the production and consumption of zero-carbon renewables. This will be a challenge for everyone, especially for countries throughout Eastern Europe that often rely on the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels for employment as well as for energy needs.

The FREECE project provides several opportunities to engage in policy-relevant research while at the same time filling a gap in the literature.

Initiatives and the Road Ahead

At the current stage of Moldovan economic and political development there is a higher demand for analysis and applied research, rather than general and theoretical research. In other words, policy relevance needs to be in focus. At the same time, such applied analysis and research need to involve well-educated human capital with relevant skills, such as university graduates. This puts focus on the role of universities and how they can reform.

The Moldova School of Economics initiative was launched approximately half a year ago. Among the first activities were public lectures on economic behaviour and public policies. In September, in cooperation with CERGE-EI in Prague, the first short economics course was launched. Currently, there are discussions with the Ministry of Education and the State University on developing the initiative into an actual program. So far, the response has been positive. The vision is to create the Moldova School of Economics into an initiative that reaches out not only to Chisinau and Moldova but to the wider region.

The session on this topic proceeded to discuss how the FREE Network could support Moldovan research and capacity building, focusing on its experience in implementing various projects. One potential starting point would be a summer school involving both the FREE Network and Moldovan economists living abroad. There are already contacts with members of the diaspora who have expressed a willingness to participate as faculty members, without compensation. Additionally, there is a need for shorter courses or executive classes aimed at individuals in ministries. Topics to be covered may include basic macroeconomic analysis, fiscal policy, and economic growth. It is also important to incorporate microeconomic subjects, such as the factors driving innovation and the development of economic clusters.

Concluding Comments

The FREE Network Retreat and conference has shown that many of the issues currently facing Moldova, have at least partly been addressed by the FREE Network members in their respective countries. Looking forward this should provide a good basis for cooperation between the Network and Moldovan partners. Three broadly defined areas for collaboration and partnerships were identified: (i) education and training: at the university level as well as for ministries and government agencies; (ii) creation and development of a good environment for research and policy analysis; (iii) communication and outreach.

The dialogue that has been initiated during the conference should continue and include a discussion on how to attract donors to support long-term cooperation that contributes to the needed strengthening of research and capacity building in Moldova.

Appendix

Conference Programme: Economic Research and Capacity Building

9.30 Conference Opening

  • Torbjörn Becker, Director, Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics
  • Jānis Mažeiks, Ambassador of the European Union to the Republic of Moldova
  • Katarina Fried, Ambassador of Sweden to the Republic of Moldova

10:00 Research and Capacity Building – the Moldovan perspective

  • Doina Nistor, Chief of Party, Moldova Future Technologies Activity
  • Adrian Lupușor, Executive Director, Independent Analytical Center Expert-Grup
  • Kálmán Mizsei, EU Adviser to the Government of Moldova

10:50 Research and Capacity Building: The FREE Network Experience

  • Tamar Sulukhia (ISET, Georgia): Capacity building and brain gain
  • Dzmitry Kruk (BEROC, Belarus – in exile): Development of a new academic programme
  • Marija Krūmiņa (BICEPS, Latvia): Research and policy impact
  • Michal Myck (CenEA, Poland): Network building and the FROGEE experience
  • Julius Andersson (SITE, Sweden): Network building and the FREECE experience

11:30 Initiatives and the Road Ahead

  • Mihnea Constantinescu, Advisor to the Governor National Bank of Moldova
  • Misha Zeldin-Gipsman, the Moldova School of Economics Initiative

12:10 Concluding Comments

  • Torbjörn Becker, Director, SITE
  • Kata Fredheim, Associate Professor, BICEPS and Stockholm School of Economics in Riga

12:20 Lunch and Networking

Conference moderator: Kata Fredheim, BICEPS and SSE Riga.

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

 

Moldova’s EU Integration and the Special Case of Transnistria

Posted on October 14, 2024 | Policy Brief

Flags of Moldova and the European Union at a diplomatic meeting, symbolizing Moldova's EU integration efforts.

In the shadow of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, another East European country is actively working to secure its European future. After three years of negotiating cooperation agreements with the European Commission, Moldova finally obtained its EU candidate status and is now on track to join the EU as a member state. However, among many remaining obstacles on the path to full membership, one stands out as especially problematic: the region of Transnistria. The region, officially Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic, is an internationally unrecognized country and is rather seen as a region with which Russia has “special relations”, including a military presence in the region since 1992. This policy brief provides an overview of the current state of the Transnistrian economy and its relationships with Moldova, the EU, and Russia, arguing that Transnistria’s economy is de facto already integrated into the Moldovan and EU economies. It also points to the key challenges to resolve for a successful integration of Moldova into the EU.

Moldova’s EU Integration: The Moldovan Economy on its Path to EU Accession

On December 14th, 2023, the European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Moldova, recognizing Moldova’s substantial progress when it comes to anti-corruption and de-oligarchisation reforms. The first intergovernmental conference was held on the 25th of June 2024, officially launching accession negotiations (European Council, 2024). On October 20th, 2024, Moldova will hold a referendum on enshrining Moldova’s EU ambitions in the constitution. However, several issues remain to be solved, for Moldova to enter the EU.

With a small and declining population of only about 2.5 million people and a GDP of 16.54 billion US dollars (2023), Moldova remains among the poorest countries in Eastern Europe. In 2023 the GDP per capita was 6600 US dollars in exchange rate terms (substantially higher if using PPP-adjusted measures; World Bank, 2024a). In the last decade, the largest share of its GDP, about 60 percent, stemmed from activities in the services sector, and about 20 and 10 percent from the industrial and agricultural sectors, respectively (Statista, 2024). Despite substantial economic growth in the last decade (3.3 percent on average between 2016 and 2021) and recent reforms (largely under the presidency of Maia Sandu), Moldova remains highly dependent on financial assistance from abroad and remittances, the latter contributing to about 15 – 35 percent of Moldova’s GDP in the last two decades (World Bank, 2024b).

The COVID-19 pandemic and refugee flows caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have only intensified this dependence. Furthermore, these events excavated existing vulnerabilities in the Moldovan economy, such as high inflation and soaring energy and food prices, which depressed households’ disposable incomes and consumption, while war-related uncertainty contributed to weaker investment (World Bank, 2024c).

The Contested Region of Transnistria – Challenge for Moldova’s EU Integration

In addition to Moldova’s economic challenges, the country also faces a particular and unusual problem; it does not fully control its territory. The Transnistrian region in the North-West of the country (at the South-Western border of Ukraine) constitutes about 12 percent of Moldova’s territory. The region has a population of about 350 000 people, mostly Russian-speaking Moldovans, Russians, and Ukrainians.

Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, a movement for self-determination for the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic resulted in a self-declaration of its independence on the 2nd of September 1990. More specifically, the alleged suppression of the Russian language and threats of unification between Moldova and Romania were the main stated reasons for the Transnistrian movement for self-determination, which in turn led to the civil armed conflict in 1992 and a following ceasefire agreement (Government of Republic of Moldova, 1992). The main points of the agreement concern the stationing of Russia’s 14th Army in Transnistria, the establishment of a demilitarized security zone, and the removal of restrictions on the movement of people, goods, and services between Moldova and Transnistria. As of 1992, Transnistria is de-facto an entity under “Russia’s effective control” (Roșa, 2021).

Over the years, the interpretations of the conflict have become more controversial, ranging from the local elite’s perspectives to assertions of an entirely artificial conflict fueled by malign Russian influence (Tofilat and Parlicov, 2020).

Notably, the Moldovan government has never officially recognized Transnistria as an occupied territory (see Article 11 of the Moldovan constitution stating “The Republic of Moldova – a Neutral State (1) The Republic of Moldova proclaims its permanent neutrality.  (2) The Republic of Moldova shall not allow the dispersal of foreign military troops on its territory” (Constitute, 2024)).

Furthermore, the European Council’s official recognition of Transnistria as an “occupied territory” on March 15, 2022, underscores the EU’s stance on the matter and highlights Russia’s pivotal role in providing political, economic, and military support to Transnistria (PACE, 2022).

The Transnistrian Economy: Main Indicators and Weaknesses

Despite Russia’s central role in Transnistria, the region’s economy is, in practice, substantially integrated into the Moldovan and EU economies. This fact should be considered at various levels of decision-making when discussing Moldova’s EU accession.

As depicted in Figure 1, economic activity in Transnistria has been quite “stable” in the last decade. GDP per capita has remained around 2000 US dollars, 2,5 times lower than Moldova’s GDP per capita in 2021.

Figure 1. Moldovan and Transnistrian GDP per capita, in thousand USD

Source: Data from World Bank, 2024; Pridnestrovian Republican Bank, 2024a. Note: since 2022 the Pridnestrovian Republican Bank has suspended publishing official statistics on macroeconomic indicators.

However, one must be careful when estimating and interpreting Transnistrian economic indicators in dollar terms. The local currency is the Transnistrian ruble which is not recognized anywhere in the world except in Russia. Its real value is thus highly uncertain as there is no market for this currency. Moreover, only Russian banks are authorized to open accounts and conduct transactions in the currency, demonstrating yet another significant weakness for Transnistria as a potential independent state, particularly given the current global ban on most Russian banks. As such, the official exchange rate for US dollars should be taken with a grain of salt. At the same time, there are no alternative statistics as the Pridnestrovian Republican Bank is the only source for relevant data on Transnistria.

Another distinctive feature of Transnistria is the substantial reliance on remittances from abroad (see Figure 2). In 2021, remittances amounted to 143.7 million US dollars, constituting 15.5 percent of GDP in 2021 (if relying on the official exchange rate for US dollars, as published by the Pridnestrovian Republican Bank).

Figure 2. Remittances to/from Transnistria, in million USD

Source: Data from the Pridnestrovian Republican Bank (2024b). Note: CIS denotes the Commonwealth of Independent States and all other countries.

Figure 2 illustrates a notable trend of increasing dependency on remittances in recent years, particularly on remittances originating from CIS countries, chiefly Russia and Ukraine.

In terms of reliance on Russia, this dependency is not a concern when it comes to Transnistria’s exports. Foreign trade data from recent years indicates that the Transnistrian economy no longer relies on exports to Russia. As seen in Figure 3, the share of exports to Russia has been constantly declining since 2014 and amounted to merely 9.2 percent in 2021. At the same time, exports to the EU, Moldova and Ukraine collectively accounted for about 80 percent in 2021. The primary commodities driving Transnistrian exports were metal products, amounting to 337.3 million US dollars in 2021, followed by electricity supplies at 130.1 million US dollars. Additionally, food products and raw materials contributed 87.6 million US dollars to Transnistrian exports in the same period.

Figure 3. Transnistrian exports by destination countries, in percent

Source: Data from the Pridnestrovian Republican Bank Bulletins (2024c).

These figures highlight the significant integration of the Transnistrian economy into the European market and, to some extent, indicate the strong potential to further align in this direction.

The increase in Transnistria’s exports to the EU in recent years can be largely attributed to the implementation of mandatory registration of Transnistrian enterprises in Moldova in 2006 as a prerequisite for engaging in foreign economic activities (EUBAM, 2017). Consequently, Moldova has exercised full control over Transnistrian exports and partial control over its imports since 2006.

However, Transnistria remains reliant on Russia for its imports, particularly in the energy sector. In contrast to the export structure, Russia’s share in Transnistrian imports was significantly larger in 2021. About 45 percent of the imports originated from Russia in 2021, and mostly constituted of fuel and energy goods (447.0 million US dollars) and metal imports (254.3 million US dollars), quite typical for a transition economy.

Figure 4. Transnistrian imports by origin countries, in percent

Source: Data from the Pridnestrovian Republican Bank Bulletins (2024c).

Transnistria’s Energy Dependence on Russia

The biggest challenge for Transnistria, as well as for Moldova, is the large fuel and energy dependence on Russia, mostly in the form of natural gas.

For many years, gas has been supplied to Transnistria effectively for free, often in the form of a so-called “gas subsidy” (Roșa, 2021).  This gas flows through Transnistria to Moldova, effectively accumulating a gas debt. Typically, Gazprom supplies gas to Moldovagaz, which in turn distributes gas to Moldovan consumers and to Tiraspol-Transgaz in Transnistria. Tiraspol-Transgaz then resell the gas at subsidized tariffs to local Transnistrian households and businesses. This included providing gas to the Moldovan State Regional Power Station, also known as MGRES – the largest power plant in Moldova. MGRES, in turn, exports electricity, further highlighting the interconnectedness of energy distribution between the Transnistrian region and the rest of Moldova.

Figure 5. Export/import of fuel and energy products from/to Transnistria, in million USD

Source: Data from the Pridnestrovian Republican Bank Bulletins (2024c). Note: Data for 2017 and 2018 unavailable.

The revenue generated from energy exports to Moldova has been deposited into a so-called special gas account and subsequently channeled directly into the Transnistrian budget in the form of loans from Tiraspol-Transgaz. In this way the Transnistrian government has covered more than 30 percent of their total budgetary expenditures over the last ten-year period. This further points to Transnistria’s’ fiscal inefficiencies and highlights its precarious dependency on gas from the Russian Federation.

In the last few years there have however been repeated disruptions in the gas supply and continuous disputes about prices and how much Moldovagaz owes Gazprom. De jure Tiraspol-Transgaz operates as a subsidiary of Moldovagaz, but de facto its assets were effectively nationalized by the separatist authorities in Transnistria (Tofilat and Parlicov, 2020). These unclarities has led to multiple conflicts over who owes the built-up gas debt. Given the ownership structure the debt is often seen as “Moldovan debt to Russia” (see e.g., Miller, 2023), albeit created by Transnistrian authorities. According to Gazprom, the outstanding amount owed by Moldovagaz to Gazprom stood at approximately 8 billion USD at the end of 2019 (Gazprom, 2024). This corresponds to about 7 times of Transnistria’s GDP. The Moldavian assessment of the debt is about two orders of magnitude lower  (Gotev, 2023).

The disagreement on the debt amount was the official reason for the gas supply to be drastically reduced in October 2022. From December 2022 to March 2023, Russia’s Gazprom supplied gas only to Transnistria and it was not until March 2023 that supplies to the rest of Moldova were resumed. Since then, there have been shifts back and forth with Moldova mainly buying gas from Moldovan state-owned Energocom, which imports gas from suppliers other than Gazprom (Całus, 2023; Tanas, 2023). Understanding all turns and events is at times challenging due to lack of transparency in dealings.

Currently, despite Gazprom’s debt claims, the entirety of Transnistria’s gas is still being provided by Russia. While this is a relatively “cheap” investment from the Russian perspective, its impact on Moldova is large, as highlighted by Tofilat and Parlicov (2020) “the bottomline costs for Russia with maintaining Transnistria as its main instrument of influence in Moldova was at most USD 1 billion—not too expensive for twenty-seven years of influence in a European country of 3 million people”.

Corruption in Transnistria – Who is the Real “Sheriff”?

Another obstacle hindering a resolution of the Transnistrian conflict is the near complete monopoly of political and economic power held by Transnistria’s former President Igor Smirnov (1991-2011), through his strong ties to the Sheriff corporation. The corporation, established in 1993 by two former members of Transnistria’s “special services” (Ilya Kazmaly and Victor Gushan), was enabled by Transnistria’s former president, Igor Smirnov. For instance, the Sheriff company was exempt from paying customs duties and was permitted to monopolize trade, oil, and telecommunications in Transnistria. In return, the company supported Smirnov’s party during his presidency. For more on the conflict between Transnistria’s power clans and their relationships with Russia, see Hedenskog and Roine (2009) and Wesolowsky (2021).

The Sheriff company encompasses supermarkets, gas stations, construction firms, hotels, a mobile phone network, bakeries, a distillery, and a mini media empire comprising radio and TV stations. Presently, the company is reported to exert control over approximately 60 percent of the region’s economy (Wesolowsky, 2021).

A straightforward illustration of Sheriff’s political influence is the establishment of the Sheriff football team. For the team, Victor Gushan constructed the Sheriff sports complex, the largest football stadium in Moldova, accommodating
12 746 spectators. This investment in sports infrastructure is notable, especially considering that the total population of Transnistria is only approximately 350 000, and that the region is fairy poor. A similar example concerns the allocation of a land plot of 6.4 hectares to the company “to expand the construction of sports complex for long-term use under a simplified privatization procedure” signed directly by the former president.

While these details may seem peripheral to broader problems, they illustrate how some vested interests in the Transnistrian region may not be keen to change towards a society based on the rule-of-law, increased transparency and a market-oriented economy.

Moldova’s Options for Resolving the Transnistrian Conflict in EU Integration

As Moldova grapples with both the consequences of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the prolonged “frozen” conflict with Transnistria, its economy remains vulnerable. With the recent attainment of EU candidate status, it’s essential for the Moldovan government to map out ways to solve the conflict despite strong interest from powerful political and economic groups in preserving the status quo.

While the perspectives of resolving the Transnistrian conflict obviously hinge on Russian troops withdrawing from the region, Moldova would also need to address a wide range of economic issues. The Transnistrian economy faces numerous critical structural challenges including a persistent negative foreign trade balance, an unsustainable banking system, and pervasive corruption. Notably, the dominant oligarchic entity, the Sheriff company, exercises monopolistic political and economic influence, striving to preserve the status quo for Transnistria. The obvious unviability of the local currency due to its artificial nature and a complete dependency on Russia’s banking system are additional challenges to be solved for Moldova to be able to integrate Transnistria properly into its economy. Therefore, introducing additional measures such as restricting access to remittances in Transnistria, and imposing personal sanctions on elite groups could help Moldova in establishing economic control over the region.

Furthermore, while the Transnistrian region de-facto has strong economic ties with the Moldovan and European markets in terms of exports, its heavy reliance on Russian gas imports remains a significant vulnerability.

When integrating Transnistria and severing its ties with Russia, Moldova would also need to resolve the issues arising from its reliance on the electricity produced at MGRES using subsidized Russian gas. Natural gas bought at market prices would make Moldovan electricity highly costly, presenting financial challenges to Moldova, and effectively destroying the competitive advantage and important source of revenue in the Transnistrian region. Moreover, alternative electricity routes to Moldova are yet to be completed (with an estimated cost of approximately 27 million EUR).

These and other issues need to be dealt with for a successful Moldovan transition into the EU. Although these challenges are highly important from a Moldovan point of view, and even more so from a Transnistrian perspective, it should be emphasized that these issues are, in economic terms, relatively small for the EU. Given that the EU has opened the way for Moldovan accession, it should be ready to step up financially to help Moldova solve these issues and stay on the membership path.

References

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

How to Intensify and Diversify Ukrainian Exports? The Case of Bilateral Trade with Germany

Policy Brief

20191021 How to Intensify and Diversify Ukrainian Exports FREE Network Policy Brief Image 00

This policy brief focuses on trade relations between Ukraine and Germany. In particular, it analyses bilateral trade in goods and examines the possibilities for increasing Ukrainian exports to Germany, in both the extensive and the intensive margins. The brief identifies prospective product groups for such increases and discusses potential obstacles to trade intensification. Finally, it provides recommendations for the further trade development.

German-Ukrainian Trade

Germany has recently become one of the most important trading partners for Ukraine. In 2018, Germany was fifth in terms of Ukrainian export destinations and third in terms of its import source countries.  While Ukraine, not surprisingly, is less important for German international trade (in 2018, Ukraine ranked 42nd in terms of Germany’s export and 45th in terms of its import), bilateral trade between Ukraine and Germany showed positive dynamics over the last five years.

Since Germany is a member of the European Union, its trade relations with Ukraine are regulated by legislation common for all EU member states. The EU’s political and economic cooperation with Ukraine is stipulated by the Association Agreement (AA). The AA is a comprehensive agreement provisioning the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) between Ukraine and the EU. While the provisional application of the AA began in the fall of 2014, the document fully entered into force on September 1, 2017. The abovementioned intensification of trade relations between Ukraine and Germany was to a significant extent driven by the signing of the DCFTA and a loss of a significant share of the Russian market.

The main Ukrainian exports to Germany include ignition wiring sets used in vehicles, aircraft and ships; low erucic acid, rape or colza seeds, iron ores agglomerated, maize, electrical switches etc. (see Table 1). Together, the top-15 product groups at a 6-digit level of the Harmonised System (HS) give 57% of the total exports from Ukraine to Germany.

Table 1. Top-15 Ukrainian product groups by export to Germany as of 2018

Source: UN Comtrade

This brief argues that both countries are likely to gain additional benefits from further intensifying bilateral trade relations. It summarizes the results of the research (Iavorskyi P. at al., 2019) on how to further expand and diversify Ukrainian exports to Germany, it identifies the prospective product groups and obstacles to their exports, and provides policy recommendations for trade development.

Promising Products

In order to find the most promising ways for increasing Ukrainian exports to Germany, this study employs a two-step approach. First, using a normalized revealed comparative advantage (NRCA) index (Run Yu et al, 2009) we distinguish goods, which Ukraine has world-wide comparative advantage in and Germany does not. A positive (negative) NRCA indicates that country’s actual share of a product in national exports is higher (lower) than the world average, – so that the country has a comparative advantage (disadvantage) in this commodity. According to this criterion, product groups with a negative NRCA for Germany and a positive NRCA for Ukraine were selected.

At the second stage, for the goods identified during the first step, a gravity model was estimated. A gravity model predicts bilateral trade flows based on the size of the economy and trade costs between them (such as distance, cultural differences, free trade agreements, tariffs, etc.). Being a general equilibrium model, it captures not only immediate impact of economic and political changes on trade between two countries, but also how it influences trade with other countries. A gap between current and potential export volumes predicted by the model is a potential for exports increase (which we refer to as undertrade).

The gravity model estimates the total undertrade between Ukraine and Germany at $ 500 million in 2016, or 35% of the total exports from Ukraine to Germany in the same year. Moreover, Ukraine has the potential to increase trade in both goods already exported to Germany as well as goods not yet supplied by Ukrainian companies to this market.

As for the structure of our findings, agricultural and mining commodities, as well as products of traditional Ukrainian export industries, such as metallurgy, are widely represented on the top of the undertraded commodity list. For example, more than a half of the estimated undertrade falls on primary food and primary industrial supplies, such as soybeans, barley, tomatoes, grain sorghum, iron ore, zirconium ores, etc. These categories already account for a large share of the current exports composition, and production in these sectors provides for a significant share of employment. Foreign currency inflow stipulated by exporting these products is also important for the Ukrainian economy.

At the same time, the undertrade in categories of final consumption, capital goods and transport is much lower. However, these product groups are important for exports diversification. These, for example, include liquid dielectric transformers, refrigerator cabinets, telescopes, tugs and pusher craft in capital goods, rail locomotives, railway cars, gas turbine engines in transport; automatic washing machines, electric space heaters, fans, coffeemakers, synthetic curtains, and leather apparel in consumer goods. Despite the complex regulation and relatively small amount of estimated undertrade, export diversification from primary to manufactured goods is important for overcoming export instability and long-term economic growth (Cadot at al. 2013), which is why promotion of trade in such areas is important.

Figure 1. Estimated undertrade according to broad economic categories

Source: Own calculations based on UN Comtrade data

Obstacles to Trade

Following the abolition or reduction of EU import duties between Ukraine and the EU under the DCFTA, tariffs do not significantly restrict exports of Ukrainian goods to the EU. Instead, technical regulations, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, geographical indications, licensing, etc. create significant barriers to bilateral trade. Thus, “non-tradability” can be explained, for instance, by the negative effects of various non-tariff barriers (both at European and national levels) or other factors, such as low competitiveness (in terms of price or quality) of Ukrainian goods compared to similar goods supplied by other countries, taste preferences of German consumers, peculiarities of importers’ associations, specific requirements of retailers, etc. Thus, harmonization of Ukrainian regulations with those of the European Union in accordance with the AA will help reduce customs barriers and existing divergences in regulations, and thus simplify the export of Ukrainian goods to the EU and Germany in particular.

Policy Recommendations

Based on the findings of the qualitative and quantitative research carried out, Ukrainian policy makers are advised to:

  • Timely and effectively align Ukrainian legislation, standards and practices with those of the EU, in line with the Action Plan and Commitments undertaken by Ukraine under the DCFTA within the framework of the AA with the EU, in particular in such areas as technical barriers to trade, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, customs, and protection of intellectual property rights.
  • Accelerate preparations for the signing of the ACAA (the Agreement on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance for Industrial Products) for the top three priority sectors of Ukrainian industry, which Ukrainian authorities agreed with European side, namely in the areas of low-voltage equipment, electromagnetic compatibility and machine safety, which will boost industrial technological exports to the EU and other countries.
  • Conduct government level negotiations with the EU and Germany regarding the removal of those barriers to the single market faced by the promising Ukrainian goods that will not be lifted as a result of harmonization of regulations with the European ones.
  • Take advantage of the Regional Pan-Euro-Mediterranean Preferential Rules of Origin Convention (the Pan-Euro-Med Convention), which establishes identical rules of origin for goods between its member-states under free trade agreements, and will facilitate the opening of new production facilities and involvement in regional and international value chains.
  • Provide information and consulting support to local manufacturers and exporters regarding the most promising destination markets, help them find partners on such markets, advise on the best ways to penetrate such markets by organizing trade missions, etc.

Another push to the German-Ukrainian trade promotion may arise from facilitating German FDIs to Ukraine. German entrepreneurs and investors are interested in localizing German production facilities in Ukraine and establishing joint German-Ukrainian enterprises, STIs, in particular in such areas as agriculture, light industry (including textiles), civil engineering, renewable energy, and circular economy (GTAI 2018a, 2018b, 2018c). This form of cooperation also boosts Ukrainian exports, since such enterprises often produce intermediate inputs for German production. In order to promote joint enterprises setup Ukraine should:

  • Establish effective mechanisms for protecting foreign investments, including export-oriented ones.
  • Ensure the rule of law and effective protection of property rights.
  • Create favorable macroeconomic conditions to ensure access to financing for both Ukrainian and foreign businesses.

References

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

“New Goods” Trade in the Baltics

Posted on May 22, 2017 | Policy Brief

20170522 Trade in the Baltics Image

We analyze the role of the new goods margin—those goods that initially account for very small volumes of trade—in the Baltic states’ trade growth during the 1995-2008 period. We find that, on average, the basket of goods that in 1995 accounted for 10% of total Baltic exports and imports to their main trade partners, represented nearly 50% and 25% of total exports and imports in 2008, respectively. Moreover, we find that the share of Baltic new-goods exports outpaced that of other transition economies of Central and Eastern Europe. As the International Trade literature has recently shown, these increases in newly-traded goods could in turn have significant implications in terms of welfare and productivity gains within the Baltic economies.

New EU members, new trade opportunities

The Eastern enlargements of the European Union (EU) that have taken place since 2004 included the liberalization of trade as one of their main pillars and consequently provided new opportunities for the expansion of trade among the new and old members. Growth in trade following trade liberalization episodes such as the ones contemplated in the recent EU expansions could occur because of two reasons. First, because countries export and import more of the goods that they had already been trading. Alternatively, trade liberalization could promote the exchange of goods that had previously not been traded. The latter alternative is usually referred to as increases in the extensive margin of trade, or the new goods margin.

The new goods margin has been receiving a considerable amount of attention in the International Trade literature. For example, Broda and Weinstein (2006) estimate the value to American consumers derived from the growth in the variety of import products between 1972 and 2001 to be as large as 2.6% of GDP, while Chen and Hong (2012) find a figure of 4.9% of GDP for the Chinese case between 1997 and 2008. Similarly, Feenstra and Kee (2008) find that, in a sample of 44 countries, the total increase in export variety is associated with an average 3.3% productivity gain per year for exporters over the 1980–2000 period. This suggests that the new goods margin has significant implications in terms of both welfare and productivity.

In a forthcoming article (Cho and Díaz, in press) we study the patterns of the new goods margin for the three Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. We investigate whether the period of rapid trade expansion experienced by these countries after gaining independence in 1991—average exports grew by more than 700% between 1995 and 2008 in nominal terms, and average imports by more than 800%—also coincided with increases in newly-traded goods by quantifying the relative importance of the new goods margin between 1995 and 2008. This policy brief summarizes our results.

Why focus on the Baltics?

The Baltic economies present an interesting case for a series of reasons. First, along a number of dimensions, the Baltic countries stood out as leaders among the formerly centrally-planned economies in implementing market- and trade-liberalization reforms. Indeed, those are the kind of structural changes that Kehoe and Ruhl (2013) identify as the main drivers of extensive margin increases. Second, unlike other transition economies, as part of the Soviet Union the Baltics lacked any degree of autonomy. Thus, upon independence, they faced a vast array of challenges, among them the difficult task of establishing trade relationships with the rest of the world, which prior to 1991 were determined solely from Moscow. Lastly, as former Soviet republics, the Baltic states had sizable portions of ethnic Russian-speaking population, most of which remained in the Baltics even after their independence. At least in principle, this gave the Baltic economies a unique potential to better tap into the Russian market.

Defining “new goods”

We use bilateral merchandise trade data for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania starting in 1995 and ending in 2008, the year before the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). The data are taken from the World Bank’s World Integrated Trade Solution database. The trade data are disaggregated at the 5-digit level of the SITC Revision 2 code, which implies that our analysis deals with 1,836 different goods.

To construct a measure of the new goods margin, we follow the methodology laid out in Kehoe and Ruhl (2013). First, for each good we compute the average export and import value during the first three years in the sample (in our case, 1995 to 1997), to avoid any distortions that could arise from our choice of the initial year. Next, goods are sorted in ascending order according to the three-year average. Finally, the cumulative value of the ranked goods is grouped into 10 brackets, each containing 10% of total trade. The basket of goods in the bottom decile is labeled as the “new” goods or “least-traded” goods, since it contains goods that initially recorded zero trade, as well as goods that were traded in positive—but low—volumes. We then trace the evolution of the trade value of the goods in the bottom decile, which represents the growth of trade in least-traded goods.

Findings

For ease of exposition, we present the results for the average Baltic exports and imports of least-traded goods, rather than the trade flows for each country. Results for each individual country can be found in Cho and Díaz (in press). We report the least-traded exports and imports to and from the Baltics’ main trade partners: the EU15, composed of the 15-country bloc that constituted the EU prior to the 2004 expansion; Germany, which within the EU15 stands out as the main trade partner of Latvia and Lithuania; the “Nordics”, a group that combines Finland and Sweden, Estonia’s largest trade partners; and Russia, because of its historical ties with the Baltic states and its relative importance in their total trade.

Least-traded exports

Figure 1 shows the evolution over time of the share in total exports of the goods that were initially labeled as “new goods”, i.e., those products that accounted for 10% of total trade in 1995. We find that the Baltic states were able to increase their least-traded exports significantly, and by 2008 such exports accounted for nearly 40% of total exports to the EU15, and close to 53%, 49% and 49% of total exports to Germany, the Nordic countries, and Russia, respectively. Moreover, we find that the fastest growth in least-traded exports to the EU15 and its individual members coincided with the periods when the Association Agreements and accession to the EU took place. Finally, we discover that the rapid increase in least-traded exports to the EU15 during the late 1990s and early 2000s is accompanied by a stagnation of least-traded exports to Russia. This suggest that, as the Baltics received preferential treatment from the EU, they expanded their export variety mix in that market at the expense of the Russian. Growth in least-traded exports to Russia only resumed in the mid 2000s, when the Baltics became EU members and were granted the same preferential treatment in the Russian market that the other EU members enjoyed.

Figure 1. Baltic least-traded exports

Source: Cho and Díaz (in press).

Least-traded imports

Figure 2 plots the evolution of Baltic least-traded imports between 1995 and 2008. We find that new goods imports also grew at robust rates, but their growth is about half the magnitude of the growth in the least-traded exports—the least-traded imports nearly doubled their share, whereas the least-traded exports quadrupled it. The least-traded imports from the EU15 and its individual members exhibited consistent growth throughout. On the other hand, imports of new goods from Russia—which had also been growing since 1995—started a continuous decline starting in 2003. This change in patterns can be attributed to the Baltics joining the EU customs union. Prior to their EU accession, the average Baltic tariff was in general low. Upon EU accession, the Baltics adopted the EU’s Commercial Common Policy, which removed trade restrictions for EU goods flowing into the Baltics, but—from the perspective of the Baltic countries—raised tariffs on non-EU imports, in turn discouraging the imports of Russian new goods.

Figure 2. Baltic least-traded imports

Source: Cho and Díaz (in press).

Are the Baltics different?

Figure 1 shows that the Baltic states were able to increase their least-traded exports by a significant margin. A natural question follows: Is this a feature that is unique of the Baltic economies, or is it instead a generalized trend among the transition countries?

Table 1: Growth of the share of least-traded exports (percent, annual average)

Source: Cho and Díaz (in press).

Table 1 reveals that the new goods margin played a much larger role for the Baltic states than for other transition economies such as the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland (which we label as “Non-Baltics”), for all the export destinations we consider. Moreover, we find that while until 2004—the year of the EU accession—both Baltic and Non-Baltic countries displayed high and comparable growth rates of least-traded exports, this trend changed after 2004. Indeed, while there is no noticeable slowdown in the Baltic growth rate, after 2004 the Non-Baltic growth of least-traded exports to the world and to the EU15 all but stops, with the only exception being the Nordic destinations.

Conclusion

The Baltic states, and in particular Estonia, are usually portrayed as exemplary models of trade liberalization among the transition economies. Our results indicate that the Baltics substantially increased both their imports and exports of least-traded goods between 1995 and 2008. Since increases in the import variety mix have been shown to entail non-negligible welfare effects, we expect large welfare gains for the Baltic consumers experienced due to the increases in the imports of previously least-traded goods. Moreover, the literature has documented that increases in export variety are associated with increases in labor productivity. Our findings reveal that the Baltics’ increases in their exports of least-traded goods were even larger than their imports of new goods, thus underscoring the importance of the new goods margin because of their contribution to labor productivity gains.

References

  • Broda, Christian; and David E. Weinstein, 2006. “Globalization and the gains from variety,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 121 (2), pp. 541–585.
  • Chen, Bo; and Ma Hong, 2012. “Import variety and welfare gain in China,” Review of International Economics, Vol. 20 (4), pp. 807–820.
  • Cho, Sang-Wook (Stanley); and Julián P. Díaz. “The new goods margin in new markets,” Journal of Comparative Economics, in press.
  • Feenstra, Robert C.; and Hiau Looi Kee, 2008. “Export variety and country productivity: estimating the monopolistic competition model with endogenous productivity,” Journal of International Economics, Vol. 74 (2), pp. 500–518.
  • Kehoe, Timothy J.; and Kim J. Ruhl, 2013. “How important is the new goods margin in international trade?” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 121 (2), pp. 358–392.