The effect of Eurasian Economic Union on trade of Kazakhstan: impact evaluation using the Synthetic Control Method

Within the framework of integration processes, the trade policies of countries significantly affect the competitiveness of both a single country and the entire integration association. The article provides the evaluation of impact of the Eurasian Economic Union on bilateral trade between Kazakhstan and other member countries of the integration bloc. The aim of the study is to analyze the trade benefits for Kazakhstan after joining the EAEU. The synthetic control method was used. The method is aimed at assessing the effects of the impact using a small number of cases as an example of modeling their quantitative indicators in a hypothetical situation where there was no impact. For modeling data from Kazakhstan and 40 donor pool countries for 1995-2018 were collected. Based on the data, a synthetic counterfactual unit, which best resembles the characteristics of the Kazakhstan, was constructed. As a result of the study, it was determined that bilateral trade flows of Kazakhstan with the EAEU countries in 2018 would have been 18.5 less if Kazakhstan had not joined the EAEU. Also, according to a similar method, an assessment of bilateral trade of Kazakhstan with each EAEU country was carried out separately.

Eurasian Economic Union, bilateral trade, integration, synthetic control method, donor pool, counterfactual unit, treatment

1. Official website of Eurasian Economic Commission. Available at: http://www.eurasiancommission.org/

2. Abadie A., Gardeazabal J. (2003) The Economic Costs of Conflict: A Case Study of the Basque Country. American Economic Review, 93 (1), 112-132.

3. Abadie A., Diamond A., Hainmueller J. (2010) Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105 (490), 493-505.

4. Demko I., Jaenicke E.C. (2018) Impact of European Union-U.S. Organic Equivalency Arrangement on U.S. Exports. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 40 (3), 482-501, doi:10.1093/aepp/ppx048

5. Saia A. (2017) Choosing the open sea: The cost to the UK of staying out of the euro. Journal of International Economics, 108, 82-98, doi: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2017.06.001

6. Addessi W., Biagi B., Brandano G. (2019) Evaluating the effect of the introduction of the euro on tourist flows: A synthetic control approach. The World Economy, 42(5), 1554-1575, doi: 10.1111/twec.12763

7. Nwe K., Kawata K., Yoshida Y. (2018) Recent Political Change in Myanmar and Its Impact on her Economic Growth. Asian Economic Journal, 32 (1), 39-54, doi: 10.1111/asej.12141

8. Campos N.F., Coricelli F., Moretti L. (2019) Institutional integration and economic growth in Europe. Journal of Monetary Economics, 103, 88-104, doi: 10.1016/j.jmoneco.2018.08.001

9. Hosny A.S. (2012) Algeria’s Trade with GAFTA Countries: A Synthetic Control Approach. Transition Studies Review, 19, 35-42, doi: 10.1007/s11300-012- 0228-4

10. Aytug H., Kutuk M.M., Oduncu A., Togan S. (2017) Twenty Years of the EU-Turkey Customs Union: A Synthetic Control Method Analysis. Journal of Common Market Studies, 55 (3), 419-431, doi: 10.1111/ jcms.12490

11. Gabrielczak P., Serwach T. (2017) Economic integration and export complexity: the case of Slovakia. Lodz Economics Working papers, 6.

12. Stojcic N., Vojinic P., Aralica Z. (2018) Trade liberalization and export transformation in new EU member states. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 47, 114-126, doi: 10.1016/j.strueco. 2018.08.004

13. Baier S., Bergstrand J. (2009) Estimating the effects of free trade agreements on international trade flows using matching econometrics. Journal of International Economics, 77(1), 63-76, doi: 10.1016/j. jinteco.2008.09.006

14. Montalbano P., Nenci S. (2014) The Trade Competitiveness of Southern Emerging Economies: A Multidimensional Approach Through Cluster Analysis. The World Economy, 37(6), 783-810, doi: 10.111/ twec.12195.

15. Gertler P.J., Martinez S., Premand P., Rawlings L.B., Vermeersch C.M.J. (2016) Impact Evaluation in Practice. Second Edition. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank.

16. Gardeazabal J., Vega-Bayo A. (2017) An empirical comparison between the synthetic control method and hsiao et al.’s panel data approach to program evaluation. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 32, 983- 1002, doi: 10.1002/jae.2557

17. International Monetary Fund Direction of Trade Statistics (IMF DOTS). Available at: https://data.imf. org/regular.aspx?key=61013712

18. World Development Indicators of World Bank. Available at: http://datatopics.worldbank.org/world- development-indicators/themes/economy.html

19. CEPII Gravity Database. Available at: http://www. cepii.fr/CEPII/en/bdd_modele/download.asp?id=8

20. Barone G., David F., de Blasio G. (2016) Boulevard of broken dreams. The end of EU funding (1997: Abruzzi, Italy). Regional Science and Urban Economics, 60, 31-38, doi: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2016.06.001