Yaptırımların ve İktisadi Entegrasyonun Avrasya Ekonomik Birliği Üyeleri Arasındaki Ticarete Etkisi: Çekim Modeli Testi

Özet

Anahtar kelimeler: Avrasya Ekonomik Birliği, Çekim modeli, Dış ticaret,

The Impact of Sanctions and Economic Integration on the Trade between Eurasian Economic Union Members: The Gravity Model Test

Abstract

The customs union between the three countries, which was established in 2010, turned into an economic union in 2015 and the number of members increased to five. The main purpose of economic integration is to develop trade and economic relations between countries. However, after the joining of the Crimea to Russia in March 2014, the USA and the West have adopted economic sanctions against Russia and this still continues. This also affects trade between Russia and other countries. It is said that the trade relations of the union were negatively affected due to the contraction of the economy and the total foreign trade volume due to the sanctions, and the devaluation of the Russian ruble and later the currencies of other countries. On the other hand, as a result of the integration established at that time, it is expected that the countries' foreign trade with third countries narrowed and the trade between them may has been positively affected by their orientation to countries within the union. In this study, the panel data analysis and the annual data for the 2000-2019 period were used to test these hypotheses. The analysis is based on the gravity model and shadow variables were used to detect the effects of the sanctions and integration. It has been revealed that the gravity model is valid in the mutual trade of the Eurasian Economic Union. Three shadow variables were used in the regression estimation. However, it has been determined that only the economic union positively affected mutual trade.

Keywords: Eurasian Economic Union, Gravity model, Foreign trade,

Asst. Prof. Dr. Junus Ganiev (Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan)
0000-0001-8859-5464 junus.ganiev@manas.edu.kg

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şaban Nazlıoğlu (Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey)
0000-0002-3607-3434 snazlioglu@pau.edu.tr

Asst. Prof. Dr. Damira Baigonushova (Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan)
0000-0002-9740-0021 damira.baigonushova@manas.edu.kg

Gönderim tarihi: 2021-10-18 Kabul tarihi: 2022-07-08

Year:2022 - Volume:1 Issue:2 Pages: 13-19

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36880/J01.2.0109

Download as PDF

APA style citation: Ganiev, J. , Nazlıoğlu, Ş. , & Baigonushova, D. (2022). Yaptırımların ve İktisadi Entegrasyonun Avrasya Ekonomik Birliği Üyeleri Arasındaki Ticarete Etkisi: Çekim Modeli Testi. Avrasya Ekonomileri Dergisi, 1(2), 13-19.

References

  • Abakumova, J., & Primierova, O. (2020). Globalization and export flows between Eurasian Economic Union countries: a gravity model approach. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 74, p. 06001). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20207406001
  • Anderson, J. E. (1979). A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. The American economic review, 69(1), 106-116.
  • Artan, S. (2012). Çekim modeli Türkiye’nin ticaret akımlarının belirleyicilerini ve ticaret potansiyelini açıklayabilir mi? Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(1), 122-145.
  • Ata, S. (2012). Türkiye’nin ihracat potansiyeli: Çekim modeli çerçevesinde bir inceleme. In International Conference on Eurasian Economies 2012, 276-282. https://doi.org/10.36880/C03.00389
  • Balıkçıoğlu N. & Gülmez A. (2019). Türkiye’nin Dış Ticaret Hacminin Çekim Modeli ile Tahmini. Kafkas Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi 10(20), 769-786.
  • Bröcker, J. (1989, December). Partial equilibrium theory of interregional trade and the gravity model. In Papers of the Regional Science Association (Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 7-18). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01954292
  • Deardorff, A. V. (2011). Determinants of bilateral trade: does gravity work in a neoclassical world? In Comparative advantage, growth, and the gains from trade and globalization, 267-293.
  • Dinç, T. (2012). Türkiye’nin dış ticaret akımlarını belirleyen etmenler: Panel çekim modeli yaklaşımı. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar Dergisi, 49(565), 5-12.
  • Doğan, B. B., & Tunç, Ş. Ö. (2016). Türkiye’nin Orta Asya Ülkeleri İle Ticaretinin Panel Çekim Modeli İle Analizi. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(11), 139-156.
  • Ekanayake, E. M., Mukherjee, A., & Veeramacheneni, B. (2010). Trade blocks and the gravity model: A study of economic integration among Asian developing countries. Journal of Economic Integration, 25(4), 627-643.
  • Golikova, V., & Kuznetsov, B. (2017). Perception of risks associated with economic sanctions: the case of Russian manufacturing. Post-Soviet Affairs, 33(1), 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2016.1195094
  • Helpman, E., & Krugman, P. (1987). Market structure and foreign trade: Increasing returns, imperfect competition, and the international economy. MIT press. 283 pp.
  • Isard, W. (1954). Location theory and trade theory: short-run analysis. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 68(2), 305-320.
  • Işık N. (2015). Avrupa Birliği – Türkiye Dış Ticaret Akımlarının Genişletilmiş Panel Çekim Modeliyle Tahmini. Marmara Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, 23(1), 49-67.
  • Karagöz, K., & Karagöz, M. (2009). Determining factors of trade flows blacksea economic cooperation (BSEC) region: A panel gravity model. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 1(1), 63-75.
  • Kazantsev S.V. (2017). Anti-Russian Sanctions. Problems of Economic Transition, 59(1-3), pp. 84-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611991.2017.1319188
  • Kien N.T. (2009). Gravity Model by Panel Data Approach. An Empirical Application with Implications for the ASEAN Free Trade Area. ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 26(3), 266-277.
  • Knobel A. (2017). The Eurasian Economic Union. Problems of Economic Transition, 59(5), 335-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611991.2017.1352335
  • Linnemann, H. (1966). An econometric study of international trade flows (No. 42). Amsterdam, North-Holland.
  • Mau, V. (2016). Between crises and sanctions: economic policy of the Russian Federation. Post-Soviet Affairs, 32(4), 350-377. https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2015.1053723
  • Mdanat, M. F., Warrad, T. A., Salhieh, L. M., & Arabiyat, T. S. (2018). A Gravity Approach to Determinants of Export in a Small Open Economy:‎ Evidence from Jordan. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 8(2), 40-46.
  • Mishina, V., & Khomiakova, L. (2016). The Integrated Foreign Exchange Market in the Eurasian Economic Space and Settlements in National Currencies: Myth or Reality? Problems of Economic Transition, 58(4), 306-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611991.2016.1222799
  • Orlova N.V. (2016). Financial Sanctions: Consequences for Russia's Economy and Economic Policy. Problems of Economic Transition 58(3), 203-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611991.2016.1200389
  • Rasoulinezhad, E. (2016). Investigation of sanctions and oil price effects on the Iran-Russia trade by using the gravity model. Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Экономика, 5(2), 68-84. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu05.2016.204
  • Rault, C., Sova, R., & Sova, A. (2007). Modeling international trade flows between Eastern European countries and OECD countries. IZA Discussion Paper No. 2851, pp. 31.
  • Roberts, S. P., & Moshes, A. (2016). The Eurasian Economic Union: a case of reproductive integration? Post-Soviet Affairs, 32(6), 542-565. https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2015.1115198
  • Tarr, D. G. (2016). The Eurasian Economic Union of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and the Kyrgyz Republic: Can It Succeed Where Its Predecessor Failed? Eastern European Economics, 54(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00128775.2015.1105672
  • Tatlıcı Ö. & Kızıltan A. (2011). Çekim Modeli: Türkiye’nin İhracatı Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi 10. Ekonometri ve İstatistik Sempozyumu Özel Sayısı, 287-299.
  • Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the world economy; suggestions for an international economic policy. New York, The Twentieth Century Fund, pp. 330.
  • Антонова Н.Л., Евтухова А.О. (2015). Влияние санкций на российскую экономику. Проблемы современной экономики 25, 23-26.
  • Бондарев, Д. Г. (2017). Влияние экономических санкций на внешнеторговый оборот России. Экономика: теория и практика, 4(48), 15-21.
  • Дробот, Е. В., Абросимова, А. С., & Савицкая, К. С. (2017). Влияние санкций на формирование Евразийского экономического союза. Экономические отношения, 7(1), 55-64.
  • Евразийская экономическая комиссия, 2020. «Взаимная торговля товарами. Статистика Евразийского экономического союза. 2019 год». Статистический сборник. Москва, ООО «Сам Полиграфист», 380.
  • Попова, Л. В., Расулинежад, Э., & Борисов, Г. В. (2017). Влияние санкций на внешнюю торговлю России: предварительные результаты. In Эволюция международной торговой системы: проблемы и перспективы (pp. 385-391).
  • Серебро, О. А. (2017). Влияние санкций и снижения мировых цен на нефть на экономику нефтяных компаний. In Экономика и управление народным хозяйством (pp. 64-67).
  • Симонян, С. М., & Шевченко, И. В. (2014). Влияние санкций, введенных странами Запада против России, на экономику страны и мира. Экономика устойчивого развития, 4(20), 207-211.
  • Соколов, Н. А., Ларин, С. Н., & Хрусталёв, Е. Ю. (2016). Количественная оценка влияния санкций на российскую экономику в краткосрочной перспективе. Национальные интересы: приоритеты и безопасность, 8(341), 44-54.
  • Уманец В.А. (2019). Анализ экономического развития ЕАЭС с использованием гравитационной модели торговли. Материалы международной научно-практической конференции «Современная архитектура мировой экономики (4I’s): инвестиции, инновации, индустрия, интеграция», 400-405.
  • Цвиль, М. М., & Кусая, А. О. (2020). Гравитационные модели импортных потоков Республики Казахстан со странами ЕАЭС. In Особенности государственного регулирования внешнеэкономической деятельности в современных условиях (pp. 108-115).
  • Шкиотов, С. В., Маркин, М. И., & Майорова, М. А. (2019). Перспективы развития ЕАЭС: предсказания частичной гравитационной модели. Теоретическая экономика, 12(60), 70-86.