The effect of non-tariff barriers reduction on trade of Kazakhstan

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.

1. Anderson J.E. and Yotov Y.V. (2012). Gold standard gravity (No. w17835). National Bureau of Economic Research.

2. Asian Development Bank. (2012). GCARECCPMM corridor performance management and monitoring report. Asian Development Bank Study.

3. Baldwin R., and Taglioni D. (2006). Gravity for dummies and dummies for gravity equations (No. w12516). National bureau of economic research.

4. Baltagi B. H. (2008). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. Fourth Edition. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester.

5. 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.

6. Dragneva R. Kort J. (2012). Legal regime for free trade in the commonwealth of independent states. University of Manchester and University of Leiden

7. Eaton J. Engers M. (1999). Sanctions: Some Simple Analytics. American Economic Review, 89(2), 409-414.

8. Eurasian Bank of Reconstruction and Development. (2012). Transition Report 2012. Eurasian Bank of Reconstruction and Development, Chapter 4, pp.62-79.

9. 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.

10. Fidrmuc J. (2009). Gravity models in integrated panels. Empir Econ 37: 435-446.

11. Head K. and Mayer T. (2014). Gravity equations: Workhorse, toolkit, and cookbook. In Handbook of international economics (Vol. 4, pp. 131- 195). Elsevier.

12. Im K., Pesaran M. Shin Y. (2003) Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53–74.

13. Krueger A. (1997). Free trade agreements versus CUs. Journal of Development Economics. 53, 717--25.

14. Levin A., Lin C., Chu C. (2002). Unit Root Test in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite Sample Properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1–25.

15. Pedroni P. (1999). Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels with Multiple Regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 61. 653–678.

16. Pesaran H., Smith R. (1995). Estimating longrun relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 79–113.

17. Pesaran M., Shin Y., Smith R. (1999). Pooled Mean Group Estimation of Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 94. 621- 634.

18. Roodman D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: An Introduction to “Difference” and “System” GMM in Stata. Stata Journal

19. Viner J. (1950). The CU issue, New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

20. 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.

21. 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.