|
on Confederation of Independent States |
| By: | Victor Krasilshchikov |
| Abstract: | Probably, the title of this paper is surprising for many specialists in various fields of economics, politics and other social sciences. Indeed, despite the financial-economic crisis of 1997-98, the newly industrialised countries (NICs) of East Asia (‘East Asia’ herein refers to East and Southeast Asia together) have been symbolised the successful development’s pattern for the non-western regions while neither Russia (and the other CIS countries, formerly republics of the USSR, as well) nor Latin American nations demonstrate fascinating achievements in development over the last fifteen-twenty years, good rates of the economic growth in some periods notwithstanding. By dynamics of the social indicators, such as a life expectancy, infants’ mortality, or human development index, the both regions lose competition to the East Asian countries, too. Therefore, it is seemingly difficult to find real foundations for a comparison of Russia and Latin American countries, on the one hand, and the East Asian NICs, on the other, if such a comparison is not used for banal conclusion about rather negative than positive results of reforms in the first case and acquired success in the second one. However, as Karl Marx once noted, “all science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided.” [Marx K., 1959, p. 797]. In the recent study, a matter of comparison can consist not only in a recognition of predominantly extensive character of the economic growth in the both groups of countries under consideration, as Paul Krugman argued in his famous paper of 1994 [Krugman P., 1994]. Also, it concerns some other invisible similarities hidden beyond the formal statistical indicators. Respectively, the object of this paper is threefold: at first, to find out such similarities; secondly, to propose the proper assessment of the Asian crisis of 1997-98 and the regional post-crisis recovery in light of Russian and Latin American experience over the last decades, and, thirdly, to stimulate discussion aimed at re-thinking widespread approaches to a complement of development studies. |
| Keywords: | East Asian ‘Tigers’, Russia, Latin America |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cis:asia00:017&r=cis |
| By: | Marina Tsygankova (Statistics Norway) |
| Abstract: | Having exports from more than one Russian gas producer has been an important issue in the Russian–EU energy dialogue during the last decade. Nevertheless, in June 2006, Russian Federal law legalized the de facto export monopoly of Gazprom. Political and commercial interests have regularly explained the Russian strategy for the European gas market. However, it is important that economic efficiency is also taken into account. Economists often evaluate the efficiency of a policy through its effect on national welfare. In this paper, I examine both theoretically and numerically whether a liberalization of Russian gas exports would increase Russian national welfare, given that the Russian domestic market is already deregulated. The results of the paper show that the dominant position of Gazprom in the Russian gas industry might stimulate the government to support Gazprom's export monopoly. The market share of independent producers in the Russian gas market would have to be significantly increased for Russian export liberalization to be welfare enhancing. |
| Keywords: | Russia; Natural gas; export; monopoly; national welfare |
| JEL: | D43 D60 L13 Q38 |
| Date: | 2007–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ssb:dispap:494&r=cis |
| By: | Böhringer, Christoph; Moslener, Ulf; Sturm, Bodo |
| Abstract: | Since January 1st the European Union has launched an EU-internal emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) for emission-intensive installations as the central pillar to comply with the Kyoto Protocol. The EU ETS may be linked at some time to a Kyoto emissions market where greenhouse gas emission allowances of signatory Kyoto countries can be traded. In this paper we investigate the implications of Russian market power for environmental effectiveness and regional compliance costs to the Kyoto Protocol taking into account potential linkages between the Kyoto emissions market and the EU ETS. We find that Russia may have incentives to join the EU ETS as long as the latter remains separated from the Kyoto international emissions market. In this case, Russia can exert monopolistic price discrimination between two separated markets thereby maximizing revenues from hot air sales. The EU will be able to substantially reduce compliance costs when it does not restrain itself to EU-internal emission regulation schemes. However, part of the gains from extra-EU emissions trading will come at the expense of environmental effectiveness as (more) hot air will be drawn in. |
| Keywords: | market power, hot air, climate policy |
| JEL: | D42 Q25 |
| Date: | 2006 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:zewdip:4595&r=cis |