espEconomy: strategy and practiceEconomy: strategy and practice1997-99672663-550XИнститут экономики10.51176/1997-9967-2021-2-62-70esp-277Research ArticleСтатьиВлияние снижения нетарифных барьеров на торговлю КазахстанаThe effect of non-tariff barriers reduction on trade of KazakhstanАйтуарA.AituarA.

Айтуар Азат - корреспондирующий автор, PhD, старший научный сотрудник в Центре развития экономического моделирования, NACAnalytica

г. Нур-Султан, 010000

+7 7172 69 45 05 

Azat Aituar, PhD - сorresponding author, PhD, Senior Researcher at Economic Modelling Development Centre, NAC Analytica

Nur-Sultan city, 010000

Tel.: +7 7172 69 45 05 

azat.aituar@nu.edu.kzАхмедьяроваА.AkhmedyarovaA.

Ахмедьярова Акбобек - магистр экономики, исследователь-аналитик в Центре развития экономического моделирования, NAC Analytica

г. Нур-Султан, 010000

Akbobek Akhmedyarova - Master of Arts in Economics, researcher at Economic Modelling Development Centre, NAC Analytica

Nur-Sultan city, 010000

akbobek.akhmedyarova@nu.edu.kzНазарбаев университетКазахстанNazarbayev UniversityKazakhstan2021300620211626270Copyright © Айтуар A., Ахмедьярова А., 20212021Айтуар A., Ахмедьярова А.Aituar A., Akhmedyarova A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://esp.ieconom.kz/jour/article/view/277

В статье исследуется влияние сокращения нетарифных барьеров (НТБ) на торговлю Казахстана в результате создания Евразийского Таможенного Союза (ЕАТС) в 2010 году. Оценка эффекта снижения НТБ была проведена с использованием динамической гравитационной модели и эконометрического метода PMG. Синхронизация системы фитосанитарных норм и утверждение единой системы таможенного регулирования сократили расходы на торговлю. Эти нововведения снизили НТБ между странами ЕАТС, что должно увеличить торговые потоки между странами.По оценкам модели, снижение НТБ увеличило импорт Казахстана из стран ЕАТС на 33%, но не оказало существенного влияния на экспорт в эти страны. То есть, в среднем производители Казахстана выиграли меньше от вступления в ЕАТС, чем производители в других странах ТС. Данные результаты подтверждают выводы отчетов международных организаций о том, что в результате создания ЕАТС нетарифные барьеры между странами значительно снизились. К сожалению, казахстанские производители не в полной мере сумели воспользоваться преимуществами вступления в ЕАТС и несмотря на то, что НТБ между странами уменьшились, общий экспорт в страны ЕАТС не увеличился. Тогда как уменьшение барьеров между странами позволил предпринимателям других стран увеличить свой экспорт в Казахстан (импорт Казахстана) на 33%.

This article examines the impact of non-tariff barriers (NTBs) reduction on Kazakhstan’s trade due to the creation of the Eurasian Customs Union (ECU) in 2010. The assessment of the effect of NTBs reduction was carried out using a dynamic gravity model and econometric PMG method. The synchronization of the system of phytosanitary norms and the approval of a unified system of customs regulation have reduced the cost of trade. These innovations have reduced NTBs between ECU countries, which should increase trade flows between countries.According to the model’s estimates, the reduction in NTBs increased Kazakhstan’s imports from the ECU countries by 33% but did not have a significant impact on exports to these countries. That is, on average, Kazakhstani producers benefited less from joining the ECU than producers in other CU countries. These results confirm the findings of reports of international organizations that because of the creation of the ECU, non-tariff barriers between countries have significantly decreased. Unfortunately, Kazakh producers have not been able to take full advantage of the benefits of joining the ECU, and although NTBs between countries have decreased, total exports to ECU countries have not increased. At the same time, the reduction of barriers between countries allowed entrepreneurs from other countries to increase their exports to Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan’s imports) by 33 percent.

нетарифные барьерыметод Объединенной Групповой Средней (PMG)гравитационная модельNon-tariff barriersPooled Mean Group (PMG) methodgravity modelReferencesAnderson J.E. and Yotov Y.V. (2012). Gold standard gravity (No. w17835). National Bureau of Economic Research.Anderson J.E. and Yotov Y.V. (2012). Gold standard gravity (No. w17835). National Bureau of Economic Research.Asian Development Bank. (2012). GCARECCPMM corridor performance management and monitoring report. Asian Development Bank Study.Asian Development Bank. (2012). GCARECCPMM corridor performance management and monitoring report. Asian Development Bank Study.Baldwin R., and Taglioni D. (2006). Gravity for dummies and dummies for gravity equations (No. w12516). National bureau of economic research.Baldwin R., and Taglioni D. (2006). Gravity for dummies and dummies for gravity equations (No. w12516). National bureau of economic research.Baltagi B. H. (2008). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. Fourth Edition. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester.Baltagi B. H. (2008). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. Fourth Edition. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester.Costinot A., & Rodríguez-Clare A. (2014).Trade theory with numbers: Quantifying the consequences of globalization. In Handbook of international economics (Vol. 4, pp. 197-261). Elsevier.Costinot A., & Rodríguez-Clare A. (2014).Trade theory with numbers: Quantifying the consequences of globalization. In Handbook of international economics (Vol. 4, pp. 197-261). Elsevier.Dragneva R. Kort J. (2012). Legal regime for free trade in the commonwealth of independent states. University of Manchester and University of LeidenDragneva R. Kort J. (2012). Legal regime for free trade in the commonwealth of independent states. University of Manchester and University of LeidenEaton J. Engers M. (1999). Sanctions: Some Simple Analytics. American Economic Review, 89(2), 409-414.Eaton J. Engers M. (1999). Sanctions: Some Simple Analytics. American Economic Review, 89(2), 409-414.Eurasian Bank of Reconstruction and Development. (2012). Transition Report 2012. Eurasian Bank of Reconstruction and Development, Chapter 4, pp.62-79.Eurasian Bank of Reconstruction and Development. (2012). Transition Report 2012. Eurasian Bank of Reconstruction and Development, Chapter 4, pp.62-79.Eurasian Development Bank, Centre for Integration Studies. (2015). An Assessment of the Impact of Non-Tariff Barriers in the EAEU: The Results of the Survey of Exporters. Eurasian Development Bank study.Eurasian Development Bank, Centre for Integration Studies. (2015). An Assessment of the Impact of Non-Tariff Barriers in the EAEU: The Results of the Survey of Exporters. Eurasian Development Bank study.Fidrmuc J. (2009). Gravity models in integrated panels. Empir Econ 37: 435-446.Fidrmuc J. (2009). Gravity models in integrated panels. Empir Econ 37: 435-446.Head K. and Mayer T. (2014). Gravity equations: Workhorse, toolkit, and cookbook. In Handbook of international economics (Vol. 4, pp. 131- 195). Elsevier.Head K. and Mayer T. (2014). Gravity equations: Workhorse, toolkit, and cookbook. In Handbook of international economics (Vol. 4, pp. 131- 195). Elsevier.Im K., Pesaran M. Shin Y. (2003) Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53–74.Im K., Pesaran M. Shin Y. (2003) Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53–74.Krueger A. (1997). Free trade agreements versus CUs. Journal of Development Economics. 53, 717--25.Krueger A. (1997). Free trade agreements versus CUs. Journal of Development Economics. 53, 717--25.Levin A., Lin C., Chu C. (2002). Unit Root Test in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite Sample Properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1–25.Levin A., Lin C., Chu C. (2002). Unit Root Test in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite Sample Properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1–25.Pedroni P. (1999). Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels with Multiple Regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 61. 653–678.Pedroni P. (1999). Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels with Multiple Regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 61. 653–678.Pesaran H., Smith R. (1995). Estimating longrun relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 79–113.Pesaran H., Smith R. (1995). Estimating longrun relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 79–113.Pesaran M., Shin Y., Smith R. (1999). Pooled Mean Group Estimation of Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 94. 621- 634.Pesaran M., Shin Y., Smith R. (1999). Pooled Mean Group Estimation of Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 94. 621- 634.Roodman D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: An Introduction to “Difference” and “System” GMM in Stata. Stata JournalRoodman D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: An Introduction to “Difference” and “System” GMM in Stata. Stata JournalViner J. (1950). The CU issue, New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Viner J. (1950). The CU issue, New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Yotov Y. V., Piermartini R., Monteiro J. A., & Larch M. (2016). An advanced guide to trade policy analysis: The structural gravity model. Geneva: World Trade Organization.Yotov Y. V., Piermartini R., Monteiro J. A., & Larch M. (2016). An advanced guide to trade policy analysis: The structural gravity model. Geneva: World Trade Organization.Vinokurov E., Demidenko M., Korshunov D., Pereboev V., Tsukarev T., Gubenko R. and Khmarenko E. (2017). Eurasian economic integration. EDB Centre for Integration Studies. Report no. 43. St Petersburg: Eurasian Development Bank.Vinokurov E., Demidenko M., Korshunov D., Pereboev V., Tsukarev T., Gubenko R. and Khmarenko E. (2017). Eurasian economic integration. EDB Centre for Integration Studies. Report no. 43. St Petersburg: Eurasian Development Bank.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.