2011年-世界发展银行全球_An_Initial_Estimation_of_the_Economic_Effects_of_the_Creation_of_the_EurAsEC_Customs_Union_on_Its_Members_7页_911kb

Summary of the Economic Effects of the EurAsEC Customs Union

Core Content

This document presents an initial estimation of the economic effects of the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) Customs Union (CU) using the GTAP computable general equilibrium (CGE) model. The analysis covers GDP changes, sectoral output, and trade flows for the member countries and their trade partners.

Key Points

Background and Formation of the EurAsEC Customs Union

• The EurAsEC CU was established in 2006, comprising Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia.
• The original framework was based on the 1996 treaty, and the main goal is the creation of a "single economic space" among former Soviet Union countries.
• Ukraine, though part of the EurAsEC, has limited involvement due to political developments and its WTO accession in 2008.
• The CU aims to introduce a common external tariff (CET) and eliminate non-tariff barriers, with the CET based on the 2007 Harmonized System nomenclature.

Tariff Changes and Harmonization

• The introduction of the CET led to changes in tariff lines for all three countries, with some increasing and others decreasing.
• Belarus had 7% of its tariff lines increased and 18% decreased.
• Kazakhstan had 10% of its tariff lines increased and 45% decreased.
• Russia had 14% of its tariff lines increased and 4% decreased.
• The energy sector was only partially integrated into the CET framework, with some tariff lines left unharmonized for a transition period until 2015.

Modeling and Data

• The analysis used the GTAP 7 database and RunGTAP version 3.53, aggregating 57 sectors into 15.
• The model considered the trade relationships between the CU members and other regions, including the EU, China, and the Rest of the World.

Simulation Results

Scenario 1: No Harmonization of Energy Sectors

• GDP Changes: Negative for Belarus and Russia, with Belarus experiencing the largest decline (-3.20%), and Kazakhstan showing a minimal change (0.04%).
• Sectoral Output Changes:
  • Petrol: +0.66% in Belarus, -1.45% in Kazakhstan.
  • GasOil: -44.97% in Belarus, -1.94% in Kazakhstan.
  • Auto: -24.61% in Kazakhstan, +1.16% in Russia.
  • TextWapp: +7.10% in Kazakhstan, -3.69% in Belarus.
• Trade Balance: Russia's trade balance worsens by ~US$4 billion, Belarus by ~US$800 million, and Kazakhstan by ~US$350 million.

Scenario 2: Partial Harmonization of Energy Sectors

• GDP Changes: Negative across all CU members, with Belarus (-6.26%) and Russia (-1.25%) suffering the most.
• Sectoral Output Changes:
  • Petrol: +210.78% in Belarus, +75.94% in Kazakhstan.
  • GasOil: -44.97% in Belarus, -2.17% in Kazakhstan.
  • Auto: -8.24% in Belarus, -23.33% in Kazakhstan.
  • TextWapp: -26.60% in Belarus, +2.92% in Kazakhstan.
• Trade Balance: Russia's trade balance worsens by ~US$11 billion, Belarus by ~US$800 million, and Kazakhstan by ~US$800 million.

Scenario 3: Full Harmonization of Energy Sectors

• GDP Changes: Negative for all CU members, with Belarus (-2.77%) and Russia (-0.66%) having the largest GDP losses.
• Sectoral Output Changes:
  • Petrol: +34.63% in Belarus, +26.76% in Kazakhstan.
  • GasOil: -39.31% in Belarus, -2.17% in Kazakhstan.
  • Auto: -3.83% in Belarus, -22.96% in Kazakhstan.
  • TextWapp: -19.49% in Belarus, +3.61% in Kazakhstan.
• Trade Balance: Russia's trade balance worsens by ~US$11 billion, Belarus by ~US$600 million, and Kazakhstan by ~US$800 million.

Main Findings

• The simulations consistently show that the EurAsEC CU is a GDP-reducing framework.
• Trade-diversion effects outweigh trade-creation benefits, leading to overall economic losses.
• Belarus experiences the most significant negative impacts in all scenarios.
• The energy sector plays a crucial role in trade flows, with its integration affecting the economic outcomes of the member states.
• Kazakhstan and Russia are also significantly affected, with their trade balances worsening.
• The external positions of the CU members deteriorate, indicating a negative impact on their trade and current account balances.
• The results are indicative, as the model has limitations and the actual implementation may differ due to incomplete harmonization and national-level management of some tariff quotas.

Conclusion

• The creation of the EurAsEC CU is found to be detrimental to the GDP of its member countries.
• The trade-diversion effects are more pronounced than the trade-creation benefits, resulting in a net negative impact.
• The energy sector remains a key area of partial harmonization, with its integration significantly influencing the outcomes.
• The results suggest that the EurAsEC CU is less beneficial compared to broader multilateral trade agreements such as WTO accession or EU free trade areas.