Tag: Russia

Traces of Transition: Unfinished Business 25 Years Down the Road?

Posted on June 13, 2016 | Policy Brief

FREE Policy Brief Image

This year marks the 25-year anniversary of the breakup of the Soviet Union and the beginning of a transition period, which for some countries remains far from completed. While several Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) made substantial progress early on and have managed to maintain that momentum until today, the countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) remain far from the ideal of a market economy, and also lag behind on most indicators of political, judicial and social progress. This policy brief reports on a discussion on the unfinished business of transition held during a full day conference at the Stockholm School of Economics on May 27, 2016. The event was organized jointly by the Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics (SITE) and the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and was the sixth installment of SITE Development Day – a yearly development policy conference.

A region at a crossroads?

25 years have passed since the countries of the former Soviet Union embarked on a historic transition from communism to market economy and democracy. While all transition countries went through a turbulent initial period of high inflation and large output declines, the depth and length of these recessions varied widely across the region and have resulted in income differences that remain until today. Some explanations behind these varied results include initial conditions, external factors and geographic location, but also the speed and extent to which reforms were implemented early on were critical to outcomes. Countries that took on a rapid and bold reform process were rewarded with a faster recovery and income convergence, whereas countries that postponed reforms ended up with a much longer and deeper initial recession and have seen very little income convergence with Western Europe.

The prospect of EU membership is another factor that proved to be a powerful catalyst for reform and upgrading of institutional frameworks. The 10 countries that joined the EU are today, on average, performing better than the non-EU transition countries in basically any indicator of development including GDP per capita, life expectancy, political rights and civil liberties. Even if some of the non-EU countries initially had the political will to reform and started off on an ambitious transition path, the momentum was eventually lost. In Russia, the increasing oil prices of the 2000s brought enormous government revenues that enabled the country to grow without implementing further market reforms, and have effectively led to a situation of no political competition. Ukraine, on the other hand, has changed government 17 times in the past 25 years, and even if the parliament appears to be functioning, very few of the passed laws and suggested reforms have actually been implemented.

Evidently, economic transition takes time and was harder than many initially expected. In some areas of reform, such as liberalization of prices, trade and the exchange rate, progress could be achieved relatively fast. However, in other crucial areas of reform and institution building progress has been slower and more diverse. Private sector development is perhaps the area where the transition countries differ the most. Large-scale privatization remains to be completed in many countries in the CIS. In Belarus, even small-scale privatization has been slow. For the transition countries that were early with large-scale privatization, the current challenges of private sector development are different: As production moves closer to the world technology frontier, competition intensifies and innovation and human capital development become key to survival. These transformational pressures require strong institutions, and a business environment that rewards education and risk taking. It becomes even more important that financial sectors are functioning, that the education system delivers, property rights are protected, regulations are predictable and moderated, and that corruption and crime are under control. While the scale of these challenges differ widely across the region, the need for institutional reforms that reduce inefficiencies and increase returns on private investments and savings, are shared by many.

To increase economic growth and to converge towards Western Europe, the key challenges are to both increase productivity and factor input into production. This involves raising the employment rate, achieving higher labor productivity, and increasing the capital stock per capita. The region’s changing demography, due to lower fertility rates and rebounding life expectancy rates, will increase already high pressures on pension systems, healthcare spending and social assistance. Moreover, the capital stock per capita in a typical transition country is only about a third of that in Western Europe, with particularly wide gaps in terms of investment in infrastructure.

Unlocking human potential: gender in the region

Regardless of how well a country does on average, it also matters how these achievements are distributed among the population. A relatively underexplored aspect of transition is to which extent it has affected men and women differentially. Given the socialist system’s provision of universal access to education and healthcare, and great emphasis on labor market participation for both women and men, these countries rank fairly well in gender inequality indices compared to countries at similar levels of GDP outside the region when the transition process started. Nonetheless, these societies were and have remained predominantly patriarchal. During the last 25 years, most of these countries have only seen a small reduction in the gender wage gap, some even an increase. Several countries have seen increased gender segregation on the labor market, and have implemented “protective” laws that in reality are discriminatory as they for example prohibit women from working in certain occupations, or indirectly lock out mothers from the labor market.

Furthermore, many of the obstacles experienced by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are more severe for women than for men. Female entrepreneurs in the Eastern Partnership (EaP) countries have less access to external financing, business training and affordable and qualified business support than their male counterparts. While the free trade agreements, DCFTAs, between the EU and Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, respectively, have the potential to bring long-term benefits especially for women, these will only be realized if the DCFTAs are fully implemented and gender inequalities are simultaneously addressed. Women constitute a large percentage of the employees in the areas that are the most likely to benefit from the DCFTAs, but stand the risk of being held back by societal attitudes and gender stereotypes. In order to better evaluate and study how these issues develop, gendered-segregated data need to be made available to academics, professionals and the general public.

Conclusion

Looking back 25 years, given the stakes involved, things could have gotten much worse. Even so, for the CIS countries progress has been uneven and disappointing and many of the countries are still struggling with the same challenges they faced in the 1990’s: weak institutions, slow productivity growth, corruption and state capture. Meanwhile, the current migration situation in Europe has revealed that even the institutional development towards democracy, free press and judicial independence in several of the CEEC countries cannot be taken for granted. The transition process is thus far from complete, and the lessons from the economics of transition literature are still highly relevant.

Participants at the conference

  • Irina Alkhovka, Gender Perspectives.
  • Bas Bakker, IMF.
  • Torbjörn Becker, SITE.
  • Erik Berglöf, Institute of Global Affairs, LSE.
  • Kateryna Bornukova, Belarusian Research and Outreach Center.
  • Anne Boschini, Stockholm University.
  • Irina Denisova, New Economic School.
  • Stefan Gullgren, Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
  • Elsa Håstad, Sida.
  • Eric Livny, International School of Economics.
  • Michal Myck, Centre for Economic Analysis.
  • Tymofiy Mylovanov, Kyiv School of Economics.
  • Olena Nizalova, University of Kent.
  • Heinz Sjögren, Swedish Chamber of Commerce for Russia and CIS.
  • Andrea Spear, Independent consultant.
  • Oscar Stenström, Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
  • Natalya Volchkova, Centre for Economic and Financial Research.

 

Coming to Terms with the Past – Challenges for History Teaching in Russian Schools

Posted on May 2, 2016 | Policy Brief

20160502 FREE Network Policy Brief Featured Image

Russia is currently reforming its history teaching in basic schools. An original idea of producing one single textbook was abolished. Instead, three different textbook series for 6th to 10th graders, as well as teacher’s manuals and map books, have been written. They are all based on the same conceptual framework (kontseptsiia) and differ merely in pedagogical approaches. To facilitate teaching on topics in Russia’s millennium-long history where the professionals disagree on interpretations, a series of survey brochures are written on over twenty “difficult questions”. Contrary to the views by some observers in the West of a state-ordered streamlining of historical narratives, the new history textbooks offer the pupils an overview of how and why historians diverge in their interpretations and assessments of many events, personalities and transitions in the millennium-long Russian history.

How to educate the next generations on Russia’s past has been in the focus for more than a decade, and not only among the professional historians, history teachers and pedagogues. New textbook proposals have spurred debates in society at large.

After the breakdown of the Soviet educational system in history, one whole year passed when the subject of history even disappeared from the curriculum; the old textbooks on the 20th century in particular were recognized as full of myths; taboo subjects were omitted and propaganda clichés abundant. In lack of new textbooks, teachers were free to use materials from the vital press and journals of the glasnost period. Only a few years later, however, there was a plethora of newly written history textbooks, including translations such as the French historian Nicolas Werth’s on Russia in the 20th century (Werth 1992). These new textbooks were checked at the Ministry of Education and either authorized or recommended, depending on their pedagogical qualities. Among the pioneers of history schoolbooks should be mentioned Aleksandr Danilov and Liudmila Kosulina, whose works are printed in many new editions (see e.g. Danilov 2007).

In the 2010s, there were already a huge number of recommended and authorized textbooks on Russian history. Every schoolteacher in the Russian Federation had a plethora of handbooks with their accompanying pedagogical matters (‘blind history maps’, questionnaires, teacher’s manual, CD-ROMs, etc.) to choose from. Interpretations differed in these books. Children from two parallel schools in the same town could have read two contradictory presentations of a number of events, depending on the textbook author’s ideological framework.

In 2013, the president and the government approved the oft-repeated demand for ‘a unified, single history textbook for schools’ (edinyi uchebnik istorii). While president Putin had just hinted on what was wishful, the burdensome task to accomplish a sound standardization of history teaching fell on commissions in the academic community. The historians responsible for the new conceptual framework emphasize their striving towards de-politization of history (Chubarian 2013). The evolution of ‘history policy’ in neighboring states set a bad example, as parliaments, governments or even presidents legitimate the one and only correct historical facts or interpretations. The Council of Europe and OSSE use a similar ‘history policy’ adopting resolutions described as scientific accomplishments, not merely political attitudes. Institutes for the national memory, sometimes jointly with laws of the parliaments, dictate how historical personalities, events and political movements are to be characterized, and divergent presentations may be subject to judicial prosecution. Contrary to a widespread opinion in the West, Russian historians and politicians who are interested in history questions actually strive to avoid ‘history policy’ (Chubarian 2016).

Nonetheless, Russian parliamentarians have sometimes tried the same approach to counter the political use of past events. Examples can be quoted of how specific events during and after the First World War, as well as the Second World War 1939-1945 have been used to criticize the present-day Russian regime, its leaders or even its people (Miller & Lipman 2012) .

The process to achieve a new uniform history textbook was multifaceted. First, a ‘concept framework’ (kontseptsiia) was set up in a concise form. This included the main historical facts to be treated. It further enumerated tens of historical events, processes and changes that have been hotly debated. This framework was thereafter widened to become a ‘historical-cultural standard’ with detailed description of how each epoch in Russia’s millennium-long history would be presented in the new textbooks.

Russia decided to use a ‘linear system’ of history education’ (lineika), i.e., to teach chronologically from 5th to 10th class and use the 11th, final year for special courses. Six author groups and publishing houses participated in the contest for a set of new schoolbooks. Merely three of them were approved. Today, the first textbooks have appeared from the publishing companies Prosveshchenie (Enlightenment), Russkoe Slovo (Russian Word) and DROFA. The reformation will however be gradual as the older, authorized books can still be used. It will take at least until 2020 before these new history textbooks are the only standard ones.

Professional historians do not create history manuals for teachers, textbooks as well as auxiliary pedagogical matters in splendid isolation. Numerous seminars and colloquiums have been organized all over the country, where history teachers met with authors, discussed projects or shared their experiences from using pilot copies of the new books. Likewise, now that the first new textbook is used in schools, several hundred tutors will organize courses for teachers’ advancement and acquaintance with recent research.

The ‘conceptual framework’ was widely discussed in 2013–14 at teachers’ seminars all over Russia and at the First All-Russian congress of history teachers. The first new teacher’s manuals and textbooks have been presented by the authors at the Third history teachers’ congress held in Moscow in the first week of April 2016. Most sections at this congress concerned strict pedagogical and examination matters. For your humble servant, the most fascinating section at this congress was devoted to what has been termed as “difficult questions”.

Contrary to the views by some observers in the West of a state-ordered streamlining of historical narratives, with emphasis on the state and high politics level, these new textbooks give the teenage pupils a basic understanding on how and why historians diverge in their interpretations and assessments of many events, personalities and transitions in the millennium-long Russian history. Already at the first meetings with history teachers, over thirty such thorny historical riddles were mentioned. To give history teachers a better position, the publishing companies have engaged leading specialists to write up-to-date surveys of recent research and the present state of debates.

These surveys start with the century-long debates on the origins and character of the early medieval Russian state formation. How the rule of Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible, Ivan Groznyi) has been evaluated is described in another survey. Similar debate surveys are due to appear on Peter the Great and other tsars.

Western observers of the Russian historical scene concentrate on how the country’s 20th century history is analyzed. These are also the matters that tend to divide the scholarly community as well as the general public in Russia. Consequently, teacher’s guidebooks on these topics are much in demand. They treat such complex questions as how the autocracy had progressed by the 1900s, what long-term processes and which events caused the downfall of the monarchy in 1917. Other surveys analyze Soviet nationality policies. The international situation in the 1930s and in the early phase of World War Two is carefully described. The Soviet Union during the Cold war is analyzed with references to the most recent findings in Russian and Western archives. Furthermore, the causes of the failure of Gorbachev’s perestroika and its effects are discussed in another survey.

In Russia, as elsewhere, anniversaries and centenaries tend to heighten an already eager public interest in history. For the approaching 100th anniversary of the Russian revolution, we likewise expect to find numerous collective monographs, encyclopedias, as well as re-printed memoirs and scores of unearthed archival documents in exhibitions. No doubt, however much professional historian complain of “the tyranny of jubilees” that divert from their chosen fields, the scholarly community in Russia will certainly take this opportunity to widen its research field to new aspects of the historical scenes during 1917.

Literature

  • Chubarian, Aleksandr O. (2013) “Istoriia ubivaet Ivana Groznogo” (History kills Ivan the Terrible), Rossiiskaia gazeta, 4 September.
  • Chubarian, Aleksandr O. (2016), “Voprosy k istorii” (Questions to History), Ogonëk, No 12, 28 March.
  • Danilov, A.A. & L.G. Kosulina (2007), Istoriia. Gosudarstvo i narody Rossii: 9 klass (History. The State and peoples of Russia. 9th class), Moscow.
  • Miller, A. & M. Lipman (2012), Istoricheskaia politika v XXI veke (History policy in the 21st century), Moscow.
  • Werth, Nicolas (1992), Istoriia sovetskogo gosudarstva 1900 – 1991, Moscow (translation of Histoire de l’Union Soviétique. De l’Empire russe à la CEI, 1900 – 1991, Paris 1991).

Is Local Monetary Policy Less Effective When Firms Have Access to Foreign Capital?

Posted on April 18, 2016 | Policy Brief

20160418 FREE Network Policy Brief featured image 01

Central banks affect growth in part by raising or lowering the cost of investment through their influence over local interest rates. We examine whether the ability of local firms to raise money abroad reduces the influence of local monetary policy authorities. Surprisingly, it does not. In fact, we find that firms that are able to raise equity capital from foreign investors are more responsive, not less, to local monetary policy shocks than those that raise capital only in the domestic market. These findings suggest that foreign investors confer an efficiency effect, improving the sensitivity of stock prices to local monetary policy shocks.

One means by which central banks affect economic growth is by influencing interest rates that impact the cost of financing for firms. For example, when a central bank lowers interest rates, those lower rates make new investment cheaper and more profitable. That encourages companies to invest more. Profits rise, firms hire more and we see growth in the economy as a whole.

When firms are able to raise money abroad, they are no longer as dependent on the local economy for financing. This potentially causes problems for central banks and other local monetary policy authorities who wish to influence the local economy by controlling interest rates.

This brief summarizes the results of Francis, Hunter and Kelly (2016), where we examine the extent to which monetary policy authorities’ influence differs across firms that are able to access foreign capital (also called “investable stocks”) and those that are largely dependent on the local market (also called “non-investable stocks”). Contrary to expectations, the evidence shows that firms that are able to raise foreign capital by being open to foreign equity investment are actually more sensitive to local monetary policy shocks than those that are not.

The perks and perils of financial liberalization

Over the last 30 years, the authorities in several less developed countries liberalized their domestic financial markets by allowing foreign ownership of local stocks. There are tremendous benefits for the local firms that became ‘investable’ as these countries liberalized, relative to firms that remained dependent solely on domestic stock markets. These include, inter alia, (1) being able to raise large tranches of foreign capital at lower rates than available in the domestic market, which reduces their financing constraints and increases their ability to invest, (2) substantial improvement in the liquidity of their stocks, (3) improvements in corporate governance and reporting (see Reese and Weisbach, 2002), and (4) greater efficiency with which their stocks incorporate value-relevant information.

Despite these benefits, there is widespread concern that liberalization comes with several problems. First, foreign capital flow (“hot money”) can cause excess volatility in local stock markets and exchange rates when foreign investors rapidly repatriate their funds. Second, local firms may become sensitive to foreign monetary policy shocks, and those foreign monetary shocks may be contrary to what is needed in the local economy. Third, and perhaps chief among the problems, is that if a large segment of domestic firms is able to raise capital abroad, then local monetary authorities may lose their ability to influence the domestic economy through their control of local policy interest rates.  We examine this last concern in this policy brief below.

What does the research tell us?

One of the big challenges when measuring the impact of changes in monetary policy on an economy is the fact that the effects of investment started or stalled by changes in monetary policy may take months, or even years, to play out. The long time frame makes it very difficult to tell whether changes in monetary policy affect the macro economy. To solve this problem we follow in the footsteps of the former Chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke (see Bernanke and Blinder, 1992, and Bernanke and Kuttner, 2005) and examine the impact of monetary policy shocks on stock returns. We do this because stock prices reflect anticipated changes in the economy and they are one of several channels through which monetary policy actions are transmitted to the real economy. That is, if local stock prices respond to monetary policy changes, it is likely the local economy will respond as well.

Because stock prices move in anticipation of future improvements in the economy, it is very important that we measure monetary policy surprises (also referred to as shocks) and not merely observed changes in monetary policy. To do this we model expectations about local monetary policy as a function of changes in oil price, changes in the U.S. Fed-funds rate (a proxy for changes in U.S. monetary policy), local industrial production growth, inflation rate and exchange rate changes. Details are described in the companion paper to this brief, Francis, Hunter and Kelly (2016).

We examine the impact of local monetary policy shocks on local stock returns. We find that for 17 of the 24 developing markets in our sample a one-standard-deviation surprise increase in local monetary policy interest rates results in an immediate and statistically significant 1.06% decline in the country’s overall stock market index. Interestingly, the unresponsiveness of the remaining seven stock markets to local monetary policy is not entirely due to the dominance of foreign (U.S.) monetary policy. In only four of the seven markets is foreign monetary policy simultaneously significant.

As noted above, one possible concern is that local monetary policy influences the investment and financing decisions of only non-investable firms. However, we find that firms that have access to foreign equity capital are at least as sensitive to local monetary policy shocks as are firms that are closed to foreign equity investment. In about 30 percent of our sample, Chile, Mexico, Venezuela, Jordan and Russia, firms that are open to foreign investment are even more sensitive than the ones that are closed. This evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that foreign investor participation in investable stocks improves the informational efficiency of investable firms’ stock prices, making them more sensitive to local monetary policy shocks. We call this an “efficiency” effect. This is counter to the predictions of the “integration” effect, whereby local stocks that are accessible to foreign investors are more responsive to foreign, not local, monetary policy shocks.

As an example, consider the impact of local monetary policy shocks on the returns of Brazilian stocks that are open and closed to foreigners, as depicted in Figure 1. In both panels the stock market is subjected to a one- standard-deviation surprise tightening of monetary policy, which is equivalent to 0.52% higher policy interest rates. In the top panel, the response is a statistically significant decline of 1.9% in the stock prices of firms that are open to foreign investment. In the bottom panel, the same monetary policy surprise translates into a statistically insignificant 0.9% lower prices for stocks that are closed to foreign investment. These findings are typical of the other countries in our companion study.

Figure 1. Impulse Responses of Brazilian Stock Returns to a One-Standard-Deviation Structural Shock in Local Monetary Policy

Investable stocks – open to foreign investment

fig1

Non-investable stocks – closed to foreign investment

fig2

Source: This figure reports impulse responses (center line) of investable and non-investable stock returns over 24 months in response to a one-standard-deviation structural shock in local Brazilian monetary policy. The impulse responses are obtained from a structural VAR model with eight endogenous variables: oil prices, the U.S. Fed-Funds rate, local industrial production growth, inflation, exchange rates and investable and non-investable Brazilian stocks. The left axis is in percent and the horizontal axis is months after a policy shock. The outer bands are probability bands used to determine statistical significance. The impulse response in a given period is significant, if both outer bands are on the same (lower or upper) side of the horizontal line at zero.

Ruling out alternate interpretations

One concern with the above results is that they might be driven by the simultaneous response of stock prices and monetary policy to emerging market crises that occurred during our sample period. However, the results when controlling for the Mexican and Asian currency crises are materially the same. The Russian default in 1998 is prior to the start of our data for Russia.

Additionally, one might be concerned that when we separate stocks into investable and non-investable, what we are really doing is separating firms on the sensitivity of their product markets to changes in the local economy. To examine this, we determine whether our results hold for stocks that operate in traded-goods markets and for those that operate in non-traded goods markets. We continue to find that investable stocks are more sensitive than non-investable stocks to local monetary policy in both markets.

Summary and policy implications

Our research suggests that firms that are open to foreign investment are at least as sensitive to local monetary policy as are firms that remain closed to foreign investment. These findings assuage a non-trivial concern among monetary policy authorities that while access to foreign capital has many benefits, it may come at the cost of a loss of ability to influence one’s own local economy. The primary policy implication of our work is that foreign investment in local stocks does not result in a loss of monetary policy control. In fact, our results suggest that foreign investment makes local firms more responsive to monetary policy shocks.

Important Policy Lessons from Swedish-Russian Capital Flows Data

Posted on March 21, 2016 | Policy Brief

A recent study of capital flows between Sweden and Russia provides many policy lessons that are highly relevant for the current economic situation in Russia. In line with studies on other countries, bilateral FDI flows were more stable than portfolio flows, which is important for a country looking for predictable external sources of funding. However, much of the FDI flows came with trade and growth of the Russian market. The sharp decline in imports and fall in GDP is therefore bad news also when it comes to attracting FDI. The conclusion is (again) that institutional reforms and reengaging with the West are crucial policies to stimulate both the domestic economy and encourage much-needed FDI.

In a recent paper (Becker 2016), I take a detailed look at the trends and nature of bilateral capital flows between Sweden and Russia over that last 15 years. Although the paper focuses on the capital flows of a relatively small country like Sweden with Russia, it sheds some light on more general theoretical and empirical issues associated with FDI and portfolio flows that are highly relevant for Russia today.

Measuring Bilateral FDI

One general qualifier for studies of bilateral capital flows is however the reliability of data; Not only is a significant share of international capital flows routed through offshore tax havens which makes identifying the true country of origin and investment difficult, but also many investing companies are multinationals (MNEs) with operations and shareholders in many countries so it is hard to have a clear definition of what is a “Swedish” or a “Russian” company. In addition, when different official data providers, in this case Statistics Sweden (SCB) and the Central Bank of Russia (CBR), report capital flows on the macro level, there are large discrepancies.

Private companies also gather company level data on FDI that can be aggregated and compared with the macro level FDI data. This data is on gross FDI flows and should not be expected to be the same as the net macro level FDI flows data but is a bit of a “reality check” of the macro data.

Figure 1. Average annual FDI flows

Fig1Sources: SCB, CBR, fDi Market, MergerMarkets

The reported annual average flow of FDI from Sweden to Russia varies from around USD500 million to USD1.2 billion depending on the data source. Russian flows to Sweden are rather insignificant regardless of the source but the different sources do not agree on the sign of the net flows (Figure 1).

The differences between data sources suggest that some caution is warranted when analyzing bilateral FDI flows. With this caveat in mind, there are still some clear patterns in the capital flows data from Sweden to Russia that emerge and carries important policy lessons in the current Russian economic environment.

FDI vs. Portfolio Investments

There is a large literature discussing the distinguishing features of FDI and portfolio flows (see Becker 2016 for a summary). Some of the key macro economic questions include which type of flows provides most international risk sharing; are most stable over time; or most likely to contribute to balance of payments crises when the flows go in reverse. In addition, there are potential differences in terms of the amount of international knowledge transfers and how different types of capital flows respond to institutional factors.

Figure 2. FDI and portfolio investments

Fig2Source: SCB

Figure 2 shows that FDI has been much more stable than portfolio flows in the years prior to and after the global financial crisis as well as in more recent years. Although all types of capital flows respond negatively to poor macroeconomic performance, and the stock of portfolio investments swing around much faster than FDI investments, i.e., portfolio flows go in reverse more easily and can contribute to external crises. This makes FDI a more preferable type of capital flow for Russia.

FDI and Trade Go Together

Since FDI is a desired type of capital flow, it is important to understand its driving forces. The first question to address is whether FDI and trade are substitutes or complements. Since the bulk of FDI comes from MNEs that operate in many countries, we can imagine cases both when FDI supports existing trade and cases when it is aimed at replacing trade by moving production to the country where the demand for the goods is high.

In the case of Sweden and Russia, the macro picture is clear; FDI has increased very much in line with Swedish exports to Russia (Figure 3). Both of these variables are of course closely correlated with the general economic development in Russia, but even so, the very close correlation between FDI and trade over the last 15 years suggests that they are compliments rather than substitutes.

Figure 3. Swedish Exports and FDI to Russia

Fig3Source: SCB

Most FDI is Horizontal

FDI flows are often categorized in terms of the main motivating force for MNEs to engage in cross-border investment: vertical (basically looking for cheaper inputs), horizontal (expanding the customer base), export-platform (producing abroad for export to third countries) or complex (a mix of the other reasons) FDI.

Looking at the sectoral composition of FDI from Sweden to Russia (Figure 4), most investments have come in sectors where it is clear that MNEs are looking to expand their customer base. Even in the case of real estate investments, a large share is IKEA developing new shopping centers that host their own outlets together with other shops. Communication and financial services are also mostly related to service providers looking for new customer. Only a small share is in natural resource sectors that would be more in line with vertical FDI, while there are very few (if any) examples of MNEs moving production to Russia to export to third countries.

Figure 4. Sectors of Swedish FDI to Russia

Fig4Source: SCB

Policy conclusions

The above figures on bilateral capital flows from Sweden to Russia carry three important policy messages: 1) FDI is more stable than portfolio flows; 2) Trade goes hand in hand with FDI; and 3) FDI to Russia has mostly been horizontal and driven by an expanding customer base.

In the current situation where Russia should focus on policies to attract private capital inflows, the goal should be to attract FDI. Instead, the government is now looking for portfolio inflows in the form of a USD3 billion bond issue. But FDI is a more stable type of international capital than portfolio flows and also come with the potential of important knowledge transfers both in terms of new technologies and management practices.

However, as we have seen above, FDI inflows have in the past been correlated with increased trade and an expanding Russian market. In the current environment, where imports with the West declined by 30-40 percent in the last year, GDP fell by around 4 percent, and the drop in consumers’ real incomes have reached double digits in recent months, it is hard to see any macro factors that will drive FDI inflows.

Instead, attracting FDI in this macro environment requires policy changes that remove political and institutional barriers to investments. The first step is to fulfill the Minsk agreement and contribute to a peaceful solution in Ukraine that is consistent with international laws. This would not only remove official sanctions but also provide a very serious signal to foreign investors that Russia plays by the international rulebook and is a safe place for investments from any country.

The second part of an FDI-friendly reform package should address the institutional weaknesses that in the past have reduced both foreign and domestic investments. It is telling that many papers that look at the determinants of FDI flows to transition countries include a ‘Russia dummy’ that is estimated to be negative and both statistically and economically significant (see e.g. Bevan, Estrin and Meyer, 2004 and Frenkel, Funke, and Stadtmann, 2004). One factor that reduces the significance of the ‘Russia dummy’ is related to how laws are implemented. Other studies point to the negative effect corruption has on FDI.

Reducing corruption and improving the rule of law are some of the key reforms that would have benefits far beyond attracting FDI and has been part of the Russian reform discussion for a very long time. It was also part of the reform program that then-President Medvedev presented to deal with the situation in 2009 together with a long list of other structural reforms that would help modernize the Russian economy and society more generally.

As the saying goes, don’t waste a good crisis! It is time that Russia implements these long-overdue reforms and creates the prospering economy that the people of Russia would benefit from for many generations.

References

  • Becker, T, 2016, “The Nature of Swedish-Russian Capital Flows”, SITE Working paper 35, March.
  • Bevan, A, Estrin, S & Meyer, K 2004, “Foreign investment location and institutional development in transition economies”, International Business Review, vol. 13, no. 1, pp.43-64.
  • Frenkel, M, Funke, K & Stadtmann, G 2004, “A panel analysis of bilateral FDI flows to emerging economies”, Economic Systems, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 281-300.

Non-Tariff Barriers and Trade Integration in the EAEU

Posted on February 29, 2016 | Policy Brief

It is a commonly held view that the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is a political enterprise (Popescu, 2014) that has little economic meaning other than redistribution of oil rents (Knobel, 2015). With a new reality of low oil prices and reduced rents, a legitimate question is how stable this Union is, or whether there is any hope for mutual economic benefits that can provide incentives to all the participants to maintain their membership in the Union? Our answer is yes, there is hope, but only if countries, especially Russia, make progress on deep integration such as services liberalization, trade facilitation, free movement of labor and especially in the reduction of the substantial non-tariff barriers (NTBs). NTBs are hampering trade both within the Union (World Bank, 2012; Vinokurov, 2015), as well as against third country imports. Our research shows (see Knobel et al., 2016) that all the EAEU members will reap benefits from a reduction of NTBs against each other, but they will obtain considerably more substantial gains from a reduction in NTBs against imports from the EU and China.

Since the early stages of creation of the Customs Union (CU) between Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia back in 2010, the economic benefits of the CU have been questionable. The main reason for this in Kazakhstan was the increase in its import tariffs in order to implement the common external tariff of the CU, which initially was Russia’s external tariff (Tarr, 2015). Kazakhstan almost doubled its average tariff from 5.3% to 9.5% (Shepoltylo, 2011; Jondosov and Sabyrova, 2011) in the first year of its CU accession. Belarus did not increase its average tariff, but the structure of its tariffs shifted toward a protection of Russian industry.

In 2015, the CU was transformed into the EAEU, and Armenia and Kyrgyz Republic have joined the EAEU. These two countries are WTO members; Kyrgyzstan entered the WTO in 1998, and Armenia in 2001. In 2014, the simple average most-favored nation (MFN) applied tariff rate in Armenia was 3.7%, and 4.6% in the Kyrgyz Republic. Due to differences between Armenia and Kyrgyzstan’s WTO commitments and the EAEU tariff schedule, the new members of the EAEU are not implementing the full EAEU tariff schedule. That is, they have numerous exemptions. However, they have started a WTO commitments modification procedure.

Despite adverse impacts from the higher import prices from implementing the common external tariff of the EAEU in Armenia and the Kyrgyz Republic, there are potentially offsetting gains. Given the importance of remittances to the Kyrgyz Republic, the benefits coming from the right of workers to freely move and legally work inside EAEU likely dominate the tariff issues. Armenia also benefits from the free movement of labor, receives Russian gas free of export duties, and wants to preserve the military guarantee granted by Russia through the six-country Collective Security Treaty Organization.

In the case of Belarus, it receives Russian oil and natural gas free of export-duties, which, when oil prices were high, tended to dominate their calculus. Kazakhstan hopes for more FDI as a platform for selling to the EAEU market; but President Nazarbaev has expressed concerns that the EAEU is not providing net benefits to his country.

To date, the members have judged participation to be in their interest, but with the plunge in the price of oil and gas, the calculus could swing against participation in the EAEU. That is why it is so important to achieve progress with deep integration in the EAEU. One of the most important areas of deep integration for the EAEU is the substantial reduction of non-tariff barriers in goods trade, both between the EAEU members and against third countries. Estimates by the Eurasian Development Bank (Vinokurov et al., 2015) reveal that NTBs account are 15% of the value of intra-union trade flows.

In our paper, Knobel et al (2016), we estimate substantial gains to all the EAEU members from a reduction of NTBs. We employ a global computable general equilibrium model with monopolistic competition in the Helpman-Krugman style based on Balisteri, Yonezawa, Tarr (2014). Estimates of the ad-valorem equivalents of NTBs were based on Vinokurov et al (2015) for the EAEU member countries and Kee, Nicita, Olarreaga (2009) for non-members.

We find that the effects of deep integration are positive for all countries of the EAEU. Armenia’s accession to the EAEU will have a strong positive effect only if coupled with a decrease of non-tariff barriers. Armenian accession is associated with an increase in external tariffs, which causes a negative economic impact and decrease in output.

The effect of deep integration in the EAEU will be even greater if any spillovers effect reducing NTBs for EAEU’s major trading partners are present. Knobel et al. (2016) simulate a 50% decrease in “technical” NTBs inside the EAEU and a 20% spillover effect of reduction NTBs toward either the EU and USA or China. Reduction of NTBs in trade with the EU and the USA dominates the comparable reduction of NTBs with China for all countries of the EAEU in terms of the welfare gain. Armenia’s welfare gain with a spillover effect towards the EU is 1.1% of real consumption compared to 1.02% with a spillover effect towards China. Growth in welfare in Belarus will be 2.7% with a EU spillover versus 2.5% with a spillover effect towards China. Kazakhstan’s gain in real consumption is also greater in the first (EU+USA) case: 0.86% versus 0.66% (with spillover towards China). Russia’s gain in real consumption in the case of a spillover effect with the EU is 2.01% versus 0.63% in the case of China.

Summing up, our findings suggest an answer to the recent concern about stability of the EAEU. We think that eliminating NTB, hampering mutual trade, and decreasing NTBs in either European or Chinese direction could provide mutual economic benefits that could tie countries of the EAEU together, thereby giving a much needed solid economic ground for the Union.

References

Did Russian Migration to Russia Affect the Labor Market?

Posted on January 25, 2016 | Policy Brief

20160125 FREE Network Policy Brief Featured Image

As a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, five million Russian and Russian-speaking people repatriated to Russia during 1990-2002. I use this natural experiment to study the effect of a large migration wave on the employment and wages of the local population. Taking into account the non-random choice of location by migrants within Russia, I find a negative effect of the inflows of immigrants on the local population’s employment but not on wages. The initial negative effects on employment are particularly large for local men, but they disappear after about ten years from the peak of the migration wave.

The effect of migration on the labor market of the host country is a long-standing question within economic literature and in public debate. In many cases, researchers try to estimate this effect using the data on large and unanticipated migration movements. The most famous study of this kind is probably Card (1990). Another case is the Russian migration to Russia resulting from the collapse of the Soviet Union. According to the 2002 Russian Census, 5.2 million of the people living in Russia in 2002 resided outside the country in 1989. That is, 3.6 percent of the 2002 population immigrated to Russia after 1989. Almost all of them (94.4 percent) immigrated from the former Soviet republics, most notably Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

The existing literature on migration flows in the former Soviet Union (fSU) since its collapse has emphasized the socio-political factors of migration. Locher (2002) finds that ethnic sorting was a major determinant of migration among the fSU countries, with the countries’ stage of transition and wealth level playing a minor role. Yerofeeva (1999) shows that ethnic repatriation was one of the main reasons behind migration from northern and eastern Kazakhstan.

In Lazareva (2015), I study two sides of the labor market effects of the immigration from fSU countries to Russia. The first side is the process of assimilation of migrants in the Russian labor market. The second side is the effect that inflows of immigrants had on the labor market position of the local population in Russia. Data used for estimation span a long period of time, which allows for tracing dynamic long-term effects of the influx of immigrants. This is the first comprehensive study of the labor market effects of one of the largest migration waves in Europe in recent history.

Method

In order to estimate the effects of the inflow of immigrants on the employment and wages of the local population, I exploit variation in the share of immigrants across Russian regions. According to the Census in 2002, migrants were quite dispersed over Russia’s vast territory; their share in population varied from 0.42% in the Tyva region to 8.5% in the Kaliningrad region. A relatively large share of migrants is observed along the border to fSU countries as well as in the oil-rich regions of Western Siberia.

A major problem when using regional variation to estimate labor market effects is that the migrants’ choice of region may be affected by the condition of that region’s labor market. Naturally, migrants tend to choose locations with higher wages and more employment opportunities. If this is the case, the estimates of the labor market effects will be biased.

However, the immigrants’ choice of location was not completely unconstrained due to the costs of migration related to the distance and access to information. Given these constraints, there is a relative crowding of immigrants in the regions of Russia that are closer to the border with fSU countries. Hence, I use the variation in the share of migrants across regions, which depend on the geographical distance from the source countries. In other words, I obtain the estimates from the comparison of regions that are similar in all their characteristics except for the distance to the border with fSU.

Data and Results

I use panel data on households from the Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey for the period 1995-2009. In the 2009 survey, the respondents were asked since what year they live in the Russian Federation. I define as immigrants, people at the age of 18 and above who moved to Russia after 1989. Note that the RLMS sample, which consists of people residing in the same dwelling units in each round, is unlikely to include illegal migrants or temporary (seasonal) labor migrants. Rather these are mainly people who settled in Russia permanently at some point during the 1990s and 2000s.

In the RLMS sample, 3.6 percent of the respondents moved to Russia after 1989. This is consistent with the national-level statistical data on immigration flows. A majority of the immigrants arrived to Russia in the early and mid-1990s. Immigration peaked in 1994 when almost 1.2 million people moved to Russia. After that, immigration steeply declined; during the 2000s, the registered level of immigration was at about 200,000 people per year.

A majority of the immigrants (71.7%) in the RLMS sample are of Russian ethnicity, and there is a slightly higher share of males. Importantly, migrants are not significantly different from the locals in terms of their education levels. The statistics on marital status show that a higher share of migrants compared to locals have families and children. Apparently, family migration was a large part of this migration wave.

Using the methodology described above, I obtain an insignificant effect of the share of immigrants on the wages of the local population over the period of 1995-2009. The effect of immigrant share on the unemployment of the local population is also insignificant. In contrast, estimates for the labor force participation (LFP) show a significant negative effect of immigration on the LFP of the local population. The size of the effect is non-negligible: a one-percentage point increase in the share of immigrants in a region reduces the probability for a local person to be in the labor force by 0.6 percentage points. Thus, over the whole period of 1995-2009, Russian immigration is estimated to have had some displacement effect, but only in terms of the labor force participation of the local population.

Since the inflow of immigrants was mostly concentrated in the first half of 1990s, I estimate my model for three sub-periods: 1995-2000, 2001-2004, and 2005-2009. The results for the wages remain insignificant in all sub-periods. Immigration is shown to increase the unemployment among locals in the first half of 2000s, but this effect dissipated in the second half of 2000s. The effect of immigration on the labor force participation is negative and highly significant for the late 1990s, still negative and significant but smaller in magnitude in the early 2000s, and disappears in the late 2000s. This analysis suggests that the immigration wave had a quite significant displacement effect for the local population in terms of unemployment and labor force participation, but not in terms of wages. This effect slowly declined and had disappeared by the second half of 2000s. My results also suggest that the negative labor market effects were more significant for men than for women.

Conclusion

The results of this study have implications for the debate on the effect of immigration on local labor markets, in particular on wages and employment opportunities for the native population. The majority of existing studies find only minor negative effects of migration on the labor market position of locals. My results suggest that immigrants who are close substitutes to the local labor force, due to the common language and similar education, have more significant effects on the labor market outcomes of the local population.

The finding that displacement effects in Russia dissipated quite slowly may be related to the very low migration rates of the local population in Russia throughout the transition. In order to reduce negative labor market effects of large influxes of immigrants, policy measures are needed that improve labor mobility across regions. These may include moving or housing subsidies, retraining programs and policies ensuring equal access to jobs and public services for internal migrants across the regions of Russia.

▪

References

  • Card, David, 1990, The Impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami Labor Market, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 245-257.
  • Lazareva O. Russian Migrants to Russia: Assimilation and Local Labor Market Effects //IZA Journal of Migration. 2015. No. 4:20
  • Locher, Lilo, 2002, “Migration in the Soviet Successor States,” Applied Economics Quarterly, 48 (1), 2002, 67-84
  • Yerofeyeva, Irina, 1999, “Regional aspects of Slavic migration from Kazakhstan on the basis of examples from North Kazakhstan and East Kazakhstan provinces”. In: Vyatkin, Anatoly, Kosmarskaya, Natalya, Panarin, Sergei (Eds.), V Dvizhenii Dobrovoljnom i Vynuzhdennom [In Motion—Voluntary and Forced]. Natalis, Moscow, pp. 154–179

Does Social Media Promote Protests?

Posted on November 23, 2015 | Policy Brief

 Author: Ruben Enikolopov, CEFIR.

Despite a lot of speculations about the role of social media in recent political protests throughout the world, there is still no persuasive empirical evidence to support these claims. We fill this gap by providing evidence that social media indeed played an important role in promoting political protests in Russia in 2011-2012. Using data on the dominant Russian online social network, VKontakte, we show that higher penetration of the social network across cities increased the likelihood of protest occurrence and the number of participants in these protests. Additional evidence suggests that reducing the costs of coordination is a mechanism behind social media influence.

Environmental Implications of Russia’s Accession to the WTO

Posted on October 26, 2015 | Policy Brief

Authors: David G. Tarr, NES and Natalia Turdyeva, CEFIR.

We investigate the environmental impacts of Russia’s World Trade Organization (WTO) accession with a computable general equilibrium model incorporating imperfectly competitive firms, foreign direct investment and endogenous productivity. The WTO accession affects CO2 emissions through technique (−), composition (+) and scale (+) effects. We consider three complementary policies to limit CO2 emissions: cap and trade, emission intensity standards, and energy efficiency standards. With imperfectly competitive firms, gains from WTO accession result with any of these policies.

Russia: Increasing Concentration of the Economy and Low Investment

Posted on October 12, 2015 | Policy Brief

Author: Oleg Shibanov, New Economic School and Corporate University of Sberbank.

The Russian economy became more concentrated in 2014. The new RBC-500 rating shows that the 643 largest companies in Russia produce 77% of the country’s GDP. Moreover, 94% of the net profit of these companies was generated in the oil and gas sector. This is up from 71% in 2013. This increasing concentration appears unstable at times of huge external shocks on commodity prices.

Urban Land Misallocation and Markets in Russian Cities

Posted on June 8, 2015 | Policy Brief

Authors: Paul Castañeda Dower, CEFIR and William Pyle, Middlebury College.

Former socialist countries inherited factory-dominated cityscapes since planners made industrial location decisions in relative ignorance of land’s opportunity costs. Drawing on unique survey evidence and policy variation across territorial units within Russia, this brief discusses the relationship between land tenure reforms and land reallocation. The evidence points to land privatization as an important factor in the reallocation of land in Russian cities.