EEU: prospects for expansion, integration from below and business interests. opinion of economist Alexander Libman

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

INTRODUCTION

Since January 1, 2015, a new interstate integration organization has emerged on the geopolitical map of the world - the Eurasian economic union(EAEU), which united the Republic of Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation. During the year, the EAEU was replenished with two new members - the republics of Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. The EAEU is a fundamentally new object of socio-economic research; for this reason, the study of the nuances of its creation and functioning, as well as its place in the global process of globalization, is of great scientific interest.

The Eurasian Economic Community is an international economic organization that is endowed with functions related to the formation of common external customs borders of its member countries (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan), the development of a common foreign economic policy, tariffs, prices and other components operation of the common market. The organization, which became the legal successor of the Customs Union, was created in full accordance with the principles of the UN and the norms of international law. This is a clearly structured system with a rather rigid mechanism for making and implementing any decision. The Union and its officials use the privileges and immunities necessary to perform the functions and achieve the tasks provided for by the agreement on the formation of the Eurasian Economic Union and treaties operating within the borders of the Union. The EAEU was created to effectively promote the processes of formation by member states of the Customs Union of the Common Economic Space, coordinating their approaches to integration into the world economy and the international trading system. One of the main vectors of the organization’s work is to ensure the dynamic development of the Community countries with the effective use of their economic potential in the interests of increasing the standard of living of the population.

The main goal of the work is to consider the prospects for the development of the Eurasian Economic Union.

This paper examines the prospects and problems of development of this Eurasian Economic Union, issues of integration within the Eurasian Economic Union, as well as its interaction with other CIS and non-CIS countries. It is shown that the main problem of integration within the Eurasian Economic Union is the dominance of redistribution over production. The scale of oil and gas transfer from the Russian Federation to partners in the EAEU and the impact of the tax maneuver on its size are considered. It is shown that the creation of mechanisms for the redistribution of profits within the Eurasian Economic Union will contribute to the implementation of favorable economic effects from the conclusion of free trade agreements with non-CIS countries. The risks for the Eurasian Economic Union in connection with the introduction by the Russian Federation of a unilateral ban on the import of food products from countries on the sanctions list are considered.

1. EURASIAN ECONOMIC UNION: HISTORY, FEATURES, PROSPECTS

Eurasian European integration sanctions

1.1 Stages of formation and development of Eurasian economic integration

The creation of the Eurasian Economic Union was the result of the Eurasian integration process, which was being prepared within the framework of the CIS, the Customs Union, and the EurAsEC. The development of Eurasian economic integration can be divided into two stages: the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space, as well as the EAEU stage. After the adoption of the Customs Code of the Customs Union in 2009, the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation functioned from 2010 to 2011. Its distinctive features were: firstly, the Unified Customs Tariff, as well as uniform measures for regulating external trade with third countries, and secondly, the free movement of products across the territory of member countries without customs declaration and state control (transport, sanitary, veterinary and sanitary , quarantine, phytosanitary), thirdly - the mechanism for crediting and distributing amounts of import duties, their transfer to the budgets of member countries (87.00% - Russian Federation, 7.25 - Kazakhstan, 4.65 - Belarus, 1.1% - Armenia).

The formation of the Customs Union made it possible for its participants to increase mutual trade turnover by 72.8% in two years, significantly reduce customs costs and form a common market for products with the exception of medicines, electricity, oil and gas. The Russian Federation accounted for more than 87% of the total customs duties determined by it. In this connection, the existing procedure for transferring customs duties replenishes the budgets of the member countries of the Customs Union, and now the Eurasian Economic Union, at the expense of customs duties collected at the borders of the Russian Federation.

The success of the Customs Union enabled its members to rise to a higher level of integration: to form a single economic space in the period from 2012 to 2014. Thanks to this, it became possible, firstly, the implementation of a coordinated macroeconomic policy to form a common market not only for products, but also a common market for services, capital and labor, secondly, the formation of the Eurasian Economic Commission as a regulatory body for the creation of a single economic space and, in -third, assigning the functions of the Eurasian Court to the EurAsEC Court in the format of judges from three countries.

Foundation legal basis about 20 interstate integration treaties and agreements have become a single economic space, covering issues of customs regulation, technical regulations, state and municipal procurement, development of competition, financial interaction, etc. As a result, in 2012 there was a positive dynamics of mutual trade turnover (Figure 1) and active development of industrial cooperation, the formation of joint ventures (in 2015 in Belarus alone there were 5,000 joint ventures with the Russian Federation, in Kazakhstan - 5800). But the reserves embedded in common market products were largely exhausted, barriers to economic cooperation remained (as of January 1, 2015, there were 300 barriers), the efficiency of the executive and judicial bodies of the common economic space was hampered by the lack of an internationally recognized integration organization. Because the Eurasian Economic Commission was no longer a body of the EurAsEC and, in legal terms, turned out to be a regulatory body without an organization. Which was probably the reason for the drop in mutual trade turnover in 2013-2014.

The adoption of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union made it possible to give Eurasian integration the proper international legal form. The Eurasian Economic Commission and the EurAsEC Court received the necessary legal personality as bodies of the Eurasian Economic Union. At this stage of Eurasian integration, 71 barriers were removed and a program was outlined for the gradual, until 2025 inclusive, removal of the remaining barriers (229). As a result, over a relatively short period of time, economic cooperation between the member countries of the Eurasian Economic Union has successively passed through four levels of integration: a free trade zone, a Customs Union, a single economic space, and an incomplete economic union, which formed the prerequisites for the creation of a full economic union, including a Monetary Union.

Figure 1. Volume of mutual trade between Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation

The basis of the Eurasian Economic Union is the principles of sovereignty, equality, voluntariness and economic interest. State powers delegated to the bodies of the Eurasian Economic Union are exercised on the principles of equality and consensus (all five countries have equal representation in the Council and Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission, as well as in the court of the Eurasian Economic Union). In addition, the action or inaction of the Eurasian Economic Commission can be challenged by states, as well as business entities in the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union.

As a result of the increase in members of the Eurasian integration, changes occurred in the standards for the deduction of customs duties: the Republic of Armenia receives 1.11% of all customs duties in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Republic of Belarus - 4.56, the Republic of Kazakhstan - 7.11, the Kyrgyz Republic - 1.9, Russian Federation - 85.32%.

At the same time, it is obvious that the absence of a parliamentary structure of the Eurasian Economic Union, firstly, complicates the work on harmonization and unification of state legislation, and secondly, increases the role of national parliaments in this activity. The Eurasian Economic Union should manifest itself in full by the beginning of 2026, when common markets for medicines and medical equipment (2016), electric power (2019), and oil and gas (2024-2025) will be gradually formed. By 2025, it is planned to form a financial center of the Eurasian Economic Union in Astana. The creation of the parliamentary structure of the Eurasian Economic Union is postponed to a later date.

Over 10 years, by 2025, the GDP of the states of the Eurasian Economic Union due to the integration effect alone should presumably increase by 20%. This will, of course, be supported by targeted development within Eurasian competition based on the formation of equal economic conditions for business structures and employees of member countries of the Eurasian Economic Union. For example, competition among customs services has significantly accelerated and simplified customs clearance cargo. Competition between jurisdictions causes the flow of capital to states with the best economic conditions. For example, VAT in Kazakhstan is approximately 12%, in the Russian Federation - 18%, in Armenia - 20%. It is likely that, over time, Eurasian tax legislation will need to be harmonized and even unified.

There are a number of problems in the customs area. They were clearly manifested in the situation with the lack of a solidary reaction of the EAEU states to anti-state sanctions. Goods prohibited in the Russian Federation began to enter our market under the guise of transit or Eurasian goods. In this case, the rule for determining the origin of the goods was violated. If there are at least 50% of own costs in the goods of a subject of Eurasian economic integration. Obviously, the packaging of Norwegian salmon is not a sufficient condition for classifying it as a Eurasian product. For this reason, the priority task is to develop and adopt by 2016 the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union instead of the Customs Code of the Customs Union in force since 2010. The new code needs to minimize references to national legislation, reflect new advanced customs technologies and provide for joint actions in the face of sanctions from third countries. In particular, to ensure the priority of electronic declaration of goods in relation to paper, the prompt re-establishment of the customs services of the three countries and the free admission of partners for control at the customs border of the EAEU.

The reserves for growth of mutual trade turnover associated with the common market for products of the Eurasian Economic Union have largely been exhausted. Seizures so far include alcohol, medicines, electricity, oil and gas. For this reason, priority must be given to the creation of a common market for services, capital, and labor. Which, in turn, presupposes mutual recognition of national licenses, convergence of investment conditions, administration methods, and business conditions in general. It is necessary to ensure a national regime of social and medical security for Eurasian workers.

1.2 EAEU and its geopolitical partners

At the end of 2011, the US government officially announced that it would oppose the formation of the EAEU, which it is implementing in practice. Consequently, the US activity in promoting the European orientation of the CIS states and all kinds of opposition to their Eurasian integration is explained by its interest in eliminating for Europe a Eurasian alternative to US resources and maintaining political tension in the world. In the events in Ukraine, the United States is fighting not for its European choice, but for the American choice of Europe. In this sense, the European orientation of Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia is actually pro-American in nature and contradicts the fundamental long-term interests of the EU and the EAEU in the formation of a common European home from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

Extra-legal economic sanctions of the European Union in relation to the Russian Federation, blocking the integration of the European Union with the EAEU determine the intensification of interaction of the Eurasian Economic Union with the states of Southeast and South Asia. Of particular importance is ensuring the confluence of the construction of the EAEU and the Silk Road Economic Belt. In this case, we are talking not only about the formation of a global transport corridor from Shanghai to the European Union through Moscow, but also about the development of cooperation with the People's Republic of China in all areas of the economy, the formation in the future of a common economic space of the Eurasian Economic Union - China. The first step towards this will be the adoption of an appropriate trade and economic agreement.

The choice of the Eurasian Economic Union as the main direction of the Silk Road economic belt is not accidental. Other options are: transit through the southern Caspian Sea, which is complicated by the fact that cargo must pass through an area of ​​instability and conflict, and transit through the Caspian Sea is complicated by the lack of infrastructure and the need to cross many borders. Railroad and road routes from China to Western Europe through Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation are the safest, since there are no customs borders between Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation.

According to some expert estimates, the implementation of the Silk Road Economic Belt project will take 30 years and $7 trillion, and 60 states should be involved in this project. High-speed highways should unite the 28 states of the Silk Road economic belt. This project is intended to redraw the map of world business and throw the United States and Europe to the impoverished outskirts of the Atlantic Ocean.

The lack of infrastructure is a significant obstacle to expanding the export of mineral raw materials and agricultural goods of the Russian Federation to Asia. Today, transporting products from China to Europe by the southern sea route takes 45 days or more, and by Trans-Siberian Railway - 18-20 days; along the Lianyungang - Hamburg highway through Kazakhstan 11-13 days Shanghai Cooperation Organization: model 2014-2015: workbook. No. 21/2015/ S. G. Luzyanin (director) and others; Ch. ed. I. S. Ivanov; Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC). M.: Spetskniga, 2015. P. 20. . China's implementation of large infrastructure projects on the territory of the states of the Eurasian Economic Union will have a stimulating effect on their economies during a period of decline. In this case, the competition of the new global transport infrastructure with the Trans-Siberian Railway and the Northern Sea Route will stimulate domestic investment in development and modernization.

Another geopolitical integration direction is the Transport Union of India, Iran and the Russian Federation, an agreement on which was signed in 2000 in St. Petersburg. After the lifting of sanctions against Iran, this project can operate at full capacity. As a result of the creation of Greater Eurasia, the EU’s interest in integration with the EAEU will increase significantly and one can predict the formation of the world’s leading association of integration unions, covering more than 54 million km with a population of about 4.5 billion people. What is significant is that the center of such a union will objectively be the EAEU itself.2 And it’s not just about geographical location Eurasian Economic Union. Even more significant is that our Union unites the cultural values ​​of Western Europe and Asia.

Protestant (predominant in Western Europe and North America) culture - the culture of work as the basis of wealth, frugality, respect for law and morality, giving independence from the country, freedom of private initiative, protection of property, played a special role in the development of industrial capitalism. But now, as noted in a number of publications by foreign sociologists and economists, Western European civilization is experiencing a deep crisis. Research from the University of Cambridge has shown that these are not only problems in the economy, but also an increase in selfishness and permissive behavior, especially among senior managers and bankers, a decrease in the self-identification of Europeans as Christians and a decrease in trust in religion in general, as well as in traditional political parties.

The crisis of Euro-Atlantic civilization and the existing system of government in many Muslim states is taken advantage of by extremism, which advocates the formation of a global caliphate with the help of jihad and forces that help the internal decay of the “civilization of infidels.” By these forces we mean Western and pro-Western “human rights activists”, essentially defending terrorists, and radical liberals, shaking the foundations of their countries, just as the Bolsheviks did in the Russian Federation during the First World War. The European bureaucracy, instead of instilling in immigrants respect for the cultural values ​​of their countries, often, with the help of subsidies, receives parasites who hate the country that sheltered them. Various views of globalization have socio-economic roots international terrorism, for this reason, without the permission of these different views, it is impossible to defeat this evil of the 21st century.

Unlike Western European practice, the Eurasian concept, Eastern European in nature, is based on the centuries-old experience of peaceful coexistence and cooperation of peoples professing Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and Jewish religions. These peoples did not come from other states and not to Lately, and lived and worked together for centuries. The two main religions of Eurasia in terms of numbers of adherents - Orthodoxy and Islam, with all theological differences, have a fundamentally common feature that distinguishes them from Western Christianity - an orientation towards collectivism rather than individualism, rejection of the desire to increase wealth by any means, respect for the role of the country in conditions of a harsh continental climate and continuous external military threats.

Consequently, the EAEU, as the embodiment of European and Asian culture, with European priority, geographically, culturally, and in the future economically, acts as a center uniting all parts of Greater Eurasia. But the success of the “integration of integrations,” as well as the success of our own Eurasian integration, is possible only under the condition of active economic growth of each state of the Eurasian Economic Union. Eurasian integration can mitigate the miscalculations of domestic economic policy, but not replace it. A productive national economy of each EAEU state is a condition for the success of their integration efforts.

1. 3 On the Eurasian and European paths of integration in the CIS

The Eurasian Economic Union is the largest integration association in terms of territory with a potential market capacity of 4-4.2% of world GDP. The formation of the Eurasian Economic Union gives rise to the possibility of a geopolitical choice among CIS states not participating in it between associated relations with the European Union or full participation in the Eurasian Economic Union. In this case, the Eurasian Economic Union was established by the most successful CIS states: the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan and Belarus, which, according to purchasing power parity, have per capita GDP of 25.6 thousand dollars, 24.2 thousand and 18.1 thousand dollars, respectively. The signatories Association agreements with the European Union of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, this figure amounted to only 8.6 thousand dollars, 7.5 and 5 thousand dollars, respectively.

The main difference between participation in the Eurasian Economic Union and association with the European Union is that in the Eurasian Economic Union the principle of equality of members prevails, and association with the European Union presupposes the dominance of the European Union. Thus, the formation in accordance with the Association Treaty of Ukraine with the European Union led the latter to the loss of its sovereignty in foreign economic activity. Now Ukraine’s decisions in this area must be approved by the Association Council, where Ukraine has only 50% of the votes, i.e. the European Union can block foreign economic decisions of the Ukrainian government. At the same time, the Association Council with Ukraine does not have any powers to influence relevant decisions of the European Union.

Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine have been members of the association with the European Union for more than a year. They took on such obligations. Initially, have free economic zone with the European Union (i.e. fully open their national markets). This forces the Russian Federation to introduce the same most favored nation treatment for members of the association as for member countries of the Eurasian Economic Union (introduction of customs duties, quotas and restrictions). At the same time, countries that are not members of the European Union and have a free trade zone with it received unilateral access for their products to Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. As a result, for example, in the markets of Chisinau, Turkish grapes began to displace local products. Also, members of the association are obliged to switch to European technical regulations and phytosanitary standards, which leads to the destruction of Russian industry, loss of markets in Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and the Russian Federation and makes production cooperation with companies of the Eurasian Economic Union impossible. Thirdly, members of the association must switch to European standards in the field of migration. This, on the one hand, makes it possible to have a visa-free tourist regime for three months in the European Union (Moldova has already received this opportunity), on the other hand, it leads to increased migration control on the part of the Russian Federation, the main importer of labor migrants from Moldova and Ukraine.

Figure 2. - GDP per capita (PPP) of countries participating in the Eurasian Economic Union and members of the association with the European Union, 2014 (in dollars, according to the World Bank)

The results of the first year of the association for Moldova are mass protests of the population against the authorities, and in Ukraine there is a drop in foreign trade turnover both with the European Union (over 7 months of 2015 by about 30%) and with the CIS (over the same period - almost 60%). In other words, as a result of association with the European Union, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine did not gain new markets, but lost old markets. For this reason, the choice of the Republic of Armenia, which abandoned the Association in favor of membership in the Eurasian Economic Union, is logical.

When determining future geographical boundaries the Eurasian economic space needs to overcome two extremes. On the one hand, the desire to expand these boundaries is unjustified without the candidate state fulfilling all the necessary conditions, the main one of which is bringing the legislation of the candidate state into line with the legal framework of the EAEU. It is necessary to take into account the experience of the EU, when, based on the principle of the priority of politics over economics, its borders expanded to include states that were not ready for European unification. This in turn sharpened the differing views between Western, Central and southern parts Europe.

On the other hand, the statement that “many Commonwealth states have already passed the “point of no return” to participation in integration processes is also unfounded.” In principle, it is wrong to deprive any CIS states and their peoples of the historical prospect of deep integration with the Russian Federation, Belarus and Kazakhstan. In this case, in practice, the connection of candidate states to Eurasian integration, as they are ready, can be multi-stage: free trade zone, Customs Union, Common Economic Space, full-fledged Eurasian Economic Union.

The “point of no return” for the integration of a number of CIS states has long been considered their entry into the World War II trade organization without agreeing in this case on customs tariffs with the main trading partner - the Russian Federation. Nevertheless, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia became full members of the Eurasian Economic Union, although their conditions for joining the WTO differed significantly from the conditions for Russia and Kazakhstan joining this international organization. "European-associated" choice political elites Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, largely imposed from outside, can radically change at the will of the people, and these states then have the right to claim full participation in the Eurasian Economic Union.

2. PROSPECTS AND PROBLEMS OF THE Eurasian Economic Union AT THE PRESENT STAGE

2.1 Different views Eurasian Economic Union and ways to resolve them

The economy of the Eurasian Economic Union has a number of significant nuances that distinguish Eurasian integration from European integration. The EAEU, initially, unites states - exporters and importers of resources. In contrast, the EU unites only resource importing states, i.e., this association of states poor in natural resources. Also, the EAEU formed states with a low level of economic monetization, and the EU united states with a significant level of monetization.

As a result, business entities in the EAEU have advantages, since they acquire inexpensive resources at domestic prices of exporting states. In the EAEU, resources are purchased at world prices. But credit resources in the EAEU are provided at higher interest rates than in the EU. This attracts some CIS states to participate in the European union, despite the obvious advantages of the Eurasian choice.

For the success of the Eurasian unification, a number of different views must be brought to consensus. Let us consider in more detail the features of the territorial, sectoral and financial contradictions of the Eurasian Union.

Territorial and sectoral features determine two groups of different views in the Eurasian Economic Union: between exporters and importers of resources and between exporters. The first group of contradictions is manifested in the interest of importers to resell resources purchased at domestic prices outside the borders of the Eurasian Economic Union at world prices.

The different views of resource importers are reflected in different export duties. Thus, in the Russian Federation, the duty on oil exports, given its significant price, was 10 times higher than the similar duty in Kazakhstan, in the Russian Federation, the duty on the export of scrap metal was 9 euros, and in Belarus there was none at all. Without the permission of these views, it is impossible to form a common market for electricity, oil and gas, that is, to ensure equal business conditions for businesses of various states of the Eurasian Economic Union in the fuel and energy complex. It is possible to bring to a consensus different views between exporters and importers of resources by crediting export duties to the budget of the states of the Eurasian Economic Union - importers of resources (this practice in a number of cases took place in 2015 when exporting oil products produced from domestic oil). To resolve different views between resource exporters, it is important to agree on convergence in the level of export duties.

But all these are half-measures, implemented at the expense of the budgets of states that export resources and are of a non-systemic nature. It would be possible to follow the path of EU practice and transfer the main part of export duties to the EAEU budget. After which these funds could be directed to integration programs approved in the budget. But in the Eurasian Economic Union, unlike the European Union, there is not yet a common budget created not only through shared contributions of participants, but also through the delegation of part of national income to the integration center. For this reason, it is possible to fundamentally solve the problems of the different views under consideration only by aligning the level of domestic prices for resources to the level of world prices, using all kinds of tax maneuvers (for example, increasing the mineral extraction tax). In this case, all economic entities in the Eurasian Economic Union will indeed be placed in the same conditions, and the national budgets of the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan will benefit. But energy costs will increase for all Eurasian companies, which will at the same time stimulate energy efficiency. This will take some time, for this reason the common electricity market is planned to be formed by 2019, and the oil and gas markets in 2024-2025.

Another problem of the Eurasian Economic Union is the reduced level of monetization of the economies of the participating countries, established as a ratio money supply M2 to GDP. It fluctuates in the Eurasian Economic Union from 11.7% in Belarus to 42.7% in the Russian Federation. The lack of finance leads, on the one hand, to significant interest rates on loans, and on the other hand, to the dollarization of the economy. All this increases the speed of money circulation and redistributes financial resources from the real economy to the trade and financial area. Even for infrastructure projects implemented by Rosatom, RusHydro, InterRao in the states of the Eurasian Economic Union, the Russian Federation allocates loans in dollars, not rubles.

Figure 3. Level of monetization in the CIS countries (M2: GDP)

The shortage of money supply causes poor development common capital market, formation of joint companies, implementation of infrastructure projects.

The accumulated direct investments of the Russian Federation at the end of 2013 amounted to 20.01 billion dollars, including in Armenia - 2.2, in Belarus - 7.9, in Kazakhstan - 9.27, in Kyrgyzstan - 0, 64 billion dollars. This, of course, is not enough for a successful large-scale Eurasian unification.

The level of monetization in the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan is 42.7 and 20%. This is significantly less than in China and Japan - 195 and 245%. For this reason, China and Japan really need to accumulate gold and foreign exchange reserves, cooling the national economy. In the Russian Federation, the existing $360 billion is quite sufficient and instead of accumulating gold and foreign exchange reserves, it is necessary to implement non-cash money emission. This conclusion, in our opinion, is also true for Kazakhstan, whose level of gold and foreign exchange reserves per capita exceeds the domestic one. Monetization of the economies of the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan will significantly intensify not only the mutual trade of the states of the Eurasian Economic Union, but also develop production cooperation and form joint companies.

The reciprocal of the level of monetization of the economy is the velocity of circulation of the money supply M2. The speed of financial turnover in an economy depends on its reproductive structure. It is normal when this value is in the amount of one revolution per year or a maximum of two. But we also do not observe such a situation in the economy of the Eurasian Economic Union, and in particular in the Russian Federation. Despite the positive trend towards a decrease in the velocity of money circulation, its level has not yet reached not only the normal, but even the threshold value.

Table 1 - Monitoring of mutual investments in the CIS countries (2014) Monitoring of mutual investments in the CIS countries 2014. EDB Center for Information Studies, 2014.

Figure 4. Level of monetization in the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, China and Japan (M2: GDP)

Figure 5. Velocity of money circulation M2 in the Russian Federation.

If the economy has a huge share of high-precision engineering and high-tech products, and there is also extensive investment support for fundamental scientific research, then the rate of financial turnover slows down, since these industries have a long production cycle. If the economy produces mainly consumer goods and services, the rate of financial turnover increases, since the production cycle in these industries is relatively short.

Laid out in the early 1990s. The model of demonetization of the Russian economy has not yet been eliminated for 25 years. Even at the moment, the velocity of circulation of the money supply is 2.34 times, and previously there were values ​​of 9, 8, 7 times. With such significant turnover, it is impossible to ensure an equilibrium state of the economy and develop its real sector, including the area of ​​high-tech and innovative goods. In such conditions, financial resources go to the financial and banking area (and then mainly to the interbank market and the currency exchange), to the area of ​​trade, and also to the area of ​​the virtual economy. “Extra” liquidity is transferred abroad. In such a situation, the market is dominated not by Russian or Eurasian goods, but by imported consumer and industrial goods. This is the paradox that when there is a shortage of funds within the state, the Russian and a number of other states of the Eurasian Economic Union, the banking system helps foreign producers of goods.

Figure 6. Dynamics of GDP growth, M2 monetary base and inflation in the Russian Federation as a percentage of the previous year

Opponents of the monetization of the Eurasian economy believe that inflation depends only on the volume of the money supply, and are confident that by reducing the volume of the money supply, they also reduce inflation, but practice does not confirm this. Of course, inflation correlates with an increase in the money supply, but, initially, it depends not only on this factor; there is also a non-monetary reason for the formation of inflation. Figure 6 clearly shows the relationship: with an increase in the level of monetization of the economy, the rate of increase in GDP increases and the rate of increase in inflation decreases.

From 1999 to 2013, an increase in monetization by 3.53 times (from 12.1 to 42.7%) determined the growth of the real volume of GDP of the Russian Federation by 2.06 times. Note that the main foreign exchange earnings due to the increase in oil prices began in 2005, when the price of oil was $54.4 per barrel, and before this period it was in the amount of $20-30. In other words, for 2000- 2004 the average annual growth rate of real GDP amounted to 107.2% and was the most significant in the history of the Russian Federation in the 21st century, despite relatively low energy prices. In 2014, the increase in monetization stopped, or rather, remained at the same level, and for this reason, the increase in GDP in 2014 was only 0.6%.

Under the conditions of Western sanctions, the policy of Import substitution makes money emission extremely popular: Import substitution should be based on the policy of replacing foreign currency loans with ruble ones. In this case, we propose to carry out the issue in a non-cash form to finance investment projects of Russian and Eurasian commodity producers, the selection of which should take place on a competitive basis, with the help of refinancing by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation of commercial banks that meet certain criteria and are capable of providing a multiplier effect from the non-cash money issue. Only this will allow you to increase the monetization coefficient to normal level, will provide a quick and reliable source of development of Russian and Eurasian production, replenishment of the federal budget revenue, resumption of financing of investment and innovation projects, develop the necessary competition that undermines the monopoly of imported products and, as a result, a decrease in prices over time, will ensure the protection and stability of the ruble and corresponding actions in Kazakhstan - tenge. If the emission for imports is carried out correctly, it can be calculated using share premiums rather than foreign exchange earnings.

Note that monetization in the Russian Federation has significant territorial features. With a shortage of money supply, it is unevenly distributed across the regions of the country and is overly concentrated in Moscow and the Moscow region (65% of the total). Consequently, if the state average level of the monetization coefficient is 42.7%, then in the capital it clearly exceeds the optimal norm (70%), and in other regions it is significantly less than this average level. Accordingly, when compared with the rest of the state, an inflated monetary demand has formed in Moscow, stimulating an increase in inflation.

For this reason, money emission should be aimed not only at additional financing of priority industries, but also at supporting the regions of the Russian Federation and joint Eurasian projects. This, in our opinion, implies, initially, an increase in the role of regional banks in the financial and credit system, as well as the orientation of capital banks towards lending to regional and Eurasian programs. As a result, inflation will decrease and the levels of wages and prices in different parts of the state will be equalized. This, in turn, will reduce internal and external migration to Moscow and St. Petersburg and ensure a more even distribution labor resources and production across the territory of the Russian Federation, will smooth out the disproportions between the standard of living of the urban and rural population. Lending to Eurasian projects will also reduce migration to the Russian Federation from other states of the Eurasian Economic Union and ensure convergence of living standards of the population different parts union.

By stimulating an increase in profits, without disturbing in this case the proportion between the increase in labor productivity and wages, we will be able to ensure internal effective demand - the main engine of economic growth. Investment through the issue of additional significant Russian funds in priority sectors, production and social infrastructure of regions and states of the Eurasian Economic Union will create incentives for foreign direct investment in the real sector of the economy and will increase the demand for Russian currency.

The advantage of the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, and other states in the Eurasian Economic Union is that if the West has already used all its “trump cards”, and the PRC and the “Asian” tigers have problems with overheating of the economy, then in the Eurasian Economic Union there are no problems associated with either with one situation or another, he still had both potential and resources. Having made the right conclusions from world practice and successfully brought the monetization of the economy to normal parameters, the states of the Eurasian Economic Union are able to take their rightful place in the international division of labor. With chronic demonetization of the economy, no other sources without monetization will be able to ensure sustainable economic growth and Eurasian integration.

Creating conditions for increasing the role of national currencies in mutual settlements, reducing the volume of dollarization, improving payment and settlement relations between states, pursuing a coordinated monetary policy, eliminating imbalances in the conduct of monetary policy are essential directions for deepening Eurasian economic integration. The result of the strengthening and development of the monetary system of the Eurasian Economic Union and, first of all, its leading national currencies - the ruble and the tenge - will be the formation of a payment and then currency union of the EAEU. This will make it possible over time to transform the future financial center of the Eurasian Economic Union into the Eurasian Central Bank, providing loans to commercial banks of the Eurasian Economic Union at low interest rates. A powerful basis for financial stability and modernization of the monetary system is formed by the colossal national wealth of the Russian Federation, which, according to the World Bank, amounts to $60 trillion (for comparison, the national wealth of the United States is estimated at $24 trillion) Statistics. Economic statistics. National wealth. www.Grandars.ru. Taking into account the national wealth of Kazakhstan, Belarus, and other member states, the EAEU will take a leading position in the world economy.

It is also necessary to take into account the fact that China, as well as other BRICS states, are forming an international financial system alternative to the Western one. The extensive use of the yuan in international payments in the future will lead to a radical weakening of the ability of the United States and the European Union to exert pressure on the Russian Federation and other countries of the world through the introduction economic sanctions. In this case, we cannot allow the “dollarization” of the economies of the Eurasian Economic Union to be replaced by their “yuanization.” For this purpose, it is necessary to speed up the work on the formation of the Eurasian Monetary Union on the basis of a common Eurasian currency.

2.2 Prospects for integration

Discussion of the likely integration of the Russian Federation as a member of the EAEU with third countries intensified in 2011-2012, when the prospects for concluding agreements on free trade zones with New Zealand, Vietnam and the ASEAN states began to be discussed. Later, negotiations began on concluding a trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association (which includes countries such as Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein), and in 2014 - with Israel. The possibility of forming free trade zones with India and the United States was discussed. Trade and economic integration with the European Union has been discussed since the Russia-EU summit in 2005. So far, none of these agreements have been signed, and some negotiations (with countries such as Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand, the USA, the EU) have been suspended, or did not even start for political reasons.

If we analyze the results of any trade agreements of the EAEU states with different partners, then, as in the case of other trade agreements, in addition to the general favorable impact on welfare due to a decrease in inefficiency due to the mutual weakening of trade restrictions, it is necessary to take into account industry effects, which, very significantly differ in the short and long term. For specificity, we will talk about lowering import duties, but the presented logic may well be applied to any type of trade restrictions, for example, to non-tariff barriers that have become increasingly significant in recent years.

In the short term, the reduction of customs duties on the import of goods within the borders of free trade zones causes four main effects:

a) increasing the real profit of the economy by lowering prices both for final-use products and for investment and intermediate products used Russian industry in production activities;

b) switching consumption from products produced in the EAEU and other countries to products of a partner in free trade zones;

c) increasing the import of goods from the state - a partner in free trade zones and crowding out Russian production, which, in turn, determines the redistribution work force and capital from less productive industries to more productive ones;

d) partial compensation for the decrease in demand for Russian goods by increasing profits.

In the long term, lowering barriers, which increases profits and welfare, ensures an increase in savings and investment, which leads to a further increase in production in any sector, which can compensate and cover the decline due to increased imports of goods. In addition, increased competition stimulates increased efficiency, which causes increased productivity and production.

The quantitative effects of one or another free trade zone for the economy and different sectors of each member of the EAEU will depend on the existing value of zero duties, the sectoral structure of production and consumption, the sectoral structure of trade with each other and with the partner in the free trade zones. It is significant that the transfer of issues of joint trade policy to the supranational level means, in particular, that a trade agreement can only be concluded with the EAEU in general, and its terms will equally apply to each member of the EAEU. This may lead to the fact that, under specific conditions, despite a favorable outcome for the entire EAEU, some of the participants may face losses from such integration. The fact is that trade flows within the EAEU for some of its members can be reoriented to states that are partners in the trade agreement.

For regions of a particular state, these losses can be compensated by internal budget transfers. In the EAEU, trade policy has been partly brought to the supranational level, but not budget policy; for this reason, for the full operation of the EAEU and the development of integration with other states, a mechanism for income redistribution is needed, which is not prescribed in the EAEU, although the redistribution of resources within the EAEU is present on a large scale (see. higher).

Today, one of the most popular and sought-after tools for analyzing the results of concluding trade agreements is a computational general equilibrium model (Computable General Equilibrium, CGE). The structural equations of this model reflect the general equilibrium in all markets, which makes it possible to analyze the impact of various foreign economic changes on the national economy. The most popular models assume perfect competition and capital accumulation.

When modeling, it is assumed that imported products are differentiated, divided by national origin and states, and elements of monopoly power are imputed, which is realized through their tariff rate. As a result of lowering tariffs, significant effects may arise from changes in the terms of trade due to the weakening of monopoly power. The differentiation of products of one industry depending on the state of origin (including Russian ones) is modeled using a function with constant elasticity of substitution (CES). With this form of aggregation of composite consumer products, Russian and imported products will not be completely either substitutes or compliments: in any equilibrium, all products are simultaneously consumed in strictly positive quantities. This property of the CES function allows us to model unequal costs for Russian and imported products and is consistent with the actual situation in which both Russian and imported substitute products are consumed in almost all countries.

Agreements on free trade zones, which imply only the mutual zeroing of import duties (the first stage of serious economic integration), provide favorable economic effects for the EAEU in general and for the Russian Federation in both the short and long term. From the point of view of the impact on the gross product, the largest income for the Russian Federation, which is quite natural, is achieved in free trade zones with the most significant trading partner - the European Union (about half of the total trade turnover) - from 15 billion (=0.8% of GDP) in short-term to $40 billion in the long term (=2.0% of GDP).

Other probable agreements give less significant results: the income of the Russian economy from free trade zones with the states of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) - from 6 billion (=0.3% of GDP) in the short term to 19 billion dollars (=0.9% of GDP) in the long term; from free trade zones with the states of the ASEAN bloc - respectively, from 1.5 billion (=0.08% of GDP) to 4.5 billion dollars (=0.25% of GDP); from free trade zones with Vietnam - respectively from 0.3 billion (=0.02% of GDP) to 0.9 billion dollars (=0.05% of GDP). Free trade zones with other countries bring in less income as a result of small trade turnover with them: in the long term, free trade zones with Israel will give the Russian Federation up to 250 million, with New Zealand - up to 50 million dollars.

Kazakhstan can also expect favorable effects in both the long and short term. But the same cannot be said about Belarus. If free trade agreements with developing countries give it favorable results, then free trade zones with developed countries mainly have a negative impact on the Belarusian economy due to the structure of the export of Belarusian goods to Russia, which will be greatly affected by the liberalization of the trade regime as a result of a shift in demand from Russian Federation from Belarusian products to products of partner states. Belarus may suffer the greatest losses from the free trade zones of the Customs Union with the European Union and the TPP states - up to $400 million; the smallest - from free trade zones with New Zealand - up to $ 4 million. It is clear that the losses of Belarus are significantly less than the income of the Russian Federation, not to mention the total income of the economies of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan, for this reason, resolving issues of income redistribution within the EAEU is necessary condition for integration with developed countries. At the same time, one must take into account the insufficiency this condition: to develop integration with non-CIS countries in the investment sphere, it is desirable to create competitive industries and improve the investment climate within the EAEU.

It is possible to compensate for potential losses to Belarus from EAEU agreements with developed countries, for example, by temporarily changing in its favor the standards for the distribution of profits from import duties. At the same time, mutual transfers within the EAEU, despite their scale, are not taken into account when making any decision on free trade zones. Belarus, along with the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan, is a full member of the EAEU and has the right of veto on any significant issue. This led, for example, to the Belarusian side blocking in 2012 the formation of free trade zones with New Zealand, losses from which would initially appear in the dairy industry, financed, among other things, from resources received from the oil and gas transfer of the Russian Federation. At the beginning of 2014, the parties envisaged concluding an agreement with New Zealand precisely through the Russian Federation’s acceptance of an obligation to purchase Belarusian oil in the volumes desired for this state. A. Knobel. Economic issues. 2015. No. 3. P. 87--108.

2.2 Problems of the EAEU under sanctions

The ideology of an integration association with integration no less than a customs union is based on such main principles as:

1) coordinated trade policy in relation to other states;

2) creation and functioning of the customs territory. The use of retaliatory sanctions by the Russian Federation since August 2014 against food producers from countries such as the USA, EU, Australia, Norway and Canada, in the absence of such decisions in Belarus and Kazakhstan, violates the first basic principle: the trade policy of the EAEU members is becoming less coordinated. In this case, questions arise about the supply of goods from the above states to our country through the territory of two other members of the EAEU.

In the general design of the EAEU, this situation contradicts the functioning of the common customs territory, since when crossing the external customs border, products must move freely within the integration association. Under the new conditions, Belarusian products can be imported into our country without restrictions from Belarus, but food products from countries on the sanctions list are not allowed. The determination for all products, whether it is Belarusian or not, in the CIS is in practice regulated by the rules according to which a product is considered manufactured in the territory of a CIS state or the Customs Union if it is sufficiently processed or the cost of materials of foreign origin does not exceed 5% of the cost of the final product.

Similar documents

Composition of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) as international organization regional economic integration. Terms of the agreement on the creation of the EAEU. The welfare of the people as the key goal of entry. Features of the activities of supranational bodies.

abstract, added 09/21/2015


History, goals and reasons for the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union, its geopolitical partners. Analysis of the main results of economic integration within the framework of the Union’s activities, problematic issues of its functioning and assessment of future prospects.

thesis, added 06/20/2017


The essence of international business, its advantages and disadvantages. The volume of mutual trade of the Eurasian Economic Union. Dynamics of exchange rates and economic growth of the EAEU member countries. Prospects for the development of cooperation between the EAEU and third countries.

course work, added 05/16/2017


Regulatory support for the activities of the Eurasian Economic Union. Organizational structure of the EAEU: main divisions, functions, powers. Organization of mutual trade and foreign trade statistics within the framework of the functioning of the EAEU.

thesis, added 10/20/2016


The main goals of creating the Eurasian Economic Union; member states, observers and free trade area. The overall macroeconomic effect of the integration of post-Soviet countries, the currency of the Union. Creation of supranational economic structures of the EAEU.

presentation, added 05/11/2017


Consideration of the prerequisites and progress of the new integration on post-Soviet space. Study of the stages of development of Eurasian integration. Study of internal and external problems and risks in the EAEU. Eurasian Economic Union and other economic blocs.

thesis, added 07/22/2016


Integration of independent states in a pragmatic and mutually beneficial manner economic basis. Stages of formation of the Eurasian Economic Union, development dynamics. Factors influencing the effectiveness of the Eurasian Union. Problems and development trends.

course work, added 01/10/2017


The objective need for Kyrgyzstan’s participation in the Eurasian Economic Union. The stage of implementation of agreements, the practical work of the Union in the new composition and the interaction of the republic with its other participants. Consequences of increasing the customs tariff.

course work, added 12/21/2015


Aspects of creating a single economic space within the Eurasian community. Free trade zone, customs union, common market. The cultural factor in justifying Russia’s political priorities in the Eurasian geopolitical space.

abstract, added 04/21/2013


Russia in the new realities of geopolitics. The essence and prospects of Chinese geopolitics. Shanghai Cooperation Organization: background, structure of the organization, role in the Eurasian space, development at the present stage. Tenth SCO summit. Results of integration.

04.08.2016

(End. Started in the previous issue)
A common strategy is necessary so that we can optimally combine competitive advantages and avoid situations where excess capacity arises. It is also needed to correctly identify breakthrough and promising areas of economic growth. In this regard, we can note the statement of Nazarbayev N.A.: “The goals of the Eurasian Economic Union put forward special requirements for its legal and organizational mechanisms. They must provide a tool that is based on solid principles, but at the same time flexible enough to respond adequately to any changes. It is obvious that the structure and methods of managing the bodies of the Eurasian Economic Union cannot be simply a copy of other integration structures. We need to look for innovative management models that meet the unique mission of our association.”

It is the transition to a common development strategy and integration that will have a tangible effect. For example, experts note that the integration effect of GDP growth will be 17-20 percent for each EAEU country, time savings on trade between countries will be 40%, trade will increase from 2 to 5 or more times, and in the future synergistic effect will increase many times over.
Further, it is appropriate to note the statement of Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Advisor to the President of the Russian Federation S.Yu. Glazyev, who writes that “for objective historical, economic and political reasons, Russia plays a key role in organizing the processes of Eurasian integration. Public opinion studies conducted by various sociological services indicate a continuing perception of Russia as a unifying center among the population of all CIS countries. They are waiting for an innovative breakthrough from Russia, they are waiting for signals to implement systemic transformations that will take into account the national interests of the states participating in the processes of Eurasian integration.” Thus, according to a sociological survey conducted by the ZIRCON center, support for the EAEU in their member states is at a high level: 73% in Kazakhstan, 67% in Russia and 65% in Belarus.
IN modern conditions achievements of science and technology largely determine the dynamics of economic growth and the level of competitiveness of states, the degree of ensuring their independence and sovereignty, national security and the effectiveness of integration into the world economy. Developed countries have moved to a qualitatively new stage of social economic development, the main content of which is the creation of a knowledge-based economy, which is based on highly effective national innovation systems.
Further, it should be noted that the level of coordination is directly related to the perception of the significance of innovations. If the citizens' way of life is truly threatened, it is expected that the innovation strategy will be controlled at the highest level, a "centralized" approach will be an important means of its implementation, and in certain cases, it will affect all sectors of the economy. At the same time, it is important to take into account and create the conditions and mechanisms for self-organization of the process of innovative development.
In the future, the macroeconomic effect of the integration of countries into the EAEU will be as follows:
increasing the efficiency of production of goods and services by reducing transportation costs;
promoting fair competition and partnership in the common market of the EAEU;
increasing household incomes by reducing costs and increasing labor productivity;
increasing production and developing the real sector of the economy by increasing demand for goods;
increasing employment of the population in the production of import-oriented/export-oriented firms, inter- and national corporations of the EAEU;
increasing the return on investment of new technologies and products by increasing market volume, etc.
As you can see, the countries of the Eurasian Union are faced with a difficult task: how to correctly determine innovation strategy in order to generate growth and, as a result, provide the resources necessary to improve public welfare, overcome market and financial instability, and transition to new ways of innovative development.
An analysis of the innovation and investment potential of the community countries shows that each of the EAEU member states has its own characteristics and national priorities. However, there are inherent in each Member State EAEU problems innovative development. All this requires coordinated work and the development of mechanisms to achieve the intended results.
Next, we should note the statement of S.Yu. Glazyev that the future budget of the Eurasian Union will be formed on initial stage development mainly at the expense of Russia up to 87%, while all EAEU countries will have equal votes in solving emerging problems.
In creating a united innovation space and improving the future of the Eurasian Union, citizens and organizations of each of these countries should also contribute. Of course, the idea of ​​creating and developing the Eurasian Union should become a common cause not only for the leaders of the integrating countries, but also for all peoples and groups who want to change the world for the better.
The Eurasian Union should be consolidated on the idea of ​​the formation and development of the Eurasian civilization. Here it is important not to contrast the Russian civilization with the Eurasian one, since the first is an integral part of the latter. The Eurasian civilization includes Russian (Slavic) and Turkic civilization, Islamic, Buddhist, etc. However, some authors want to impose Russian civilization as the main idea for all countries of the EAEU. This approach is a grave mistake, since Russian civilization covers only the Slavic world, and the culture of many peoples in Russia is very different, especially from the countries of the EAEU. Here, “it is more correct to talk about Eurasian civilization,” notes L. Savin, “however, at the top, when talking about the Eurasian project, they think more about economic integration, and not about cultural heritage, complementarity of peoples and common spiritual foundations.”
Eurasian integration should be considered only as the first step towards further integration with the need for participating countries to prepare a new governance system on a continental scale. The supranational bodies of the EAEU work according to the well-known principle of “one country, one vote.” All key decisions at the level of the Supreme Council and the Council of the EAEU are made on the basis of absolute consensus of the parties, i.e. unanimously, which excludes the possibility of dominance by any state. That is, this consensus will make decisions on the most sensitive issues, which will be approved by the heads of state, on the rest - by a qualified majority - 2/3 of the votes.
An equal number of representatives from each participating country are appointed to leadership positions in the highest bodies of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) - the Council and the EEC Board. If at least one state disagrees, then no decision is made. After the signing of the declaration on Eurasian integration on November 18, 2011 by the leaders of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, the Eurasian Economic Commission was created, which controls about 170 functions of the economic union. The Customs Union makes decisions based on the consent of the parties, and the Commission has the right to make decisions independently.
According to the first article of the draft treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union, the EAEU ensures “the freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and labor, the implementation of a coordinated, agreed or unified policy in the sectors of the economy defined by this Treaty and international treaties within the Union.”
The competence of the EAEU bodies includes only such areas as customs administration, trade policy in relation to third countries, competition policy within the EAEU, technical regulation and sanitary, veterinary, phytosanitary measures. Thus, the draft agreement completely lacks such provisions as, for example, the implementation of a unified foreign policy, information policy, regulation of the media, etc.
A coordinated foreign trade policy does not deprive Kazakhstan of the right to conclude international trade agreements. All this gives us the right to assert that the EAEU, having powers only in the economic sphere, simply, evolutionarily or secretly cannot develop into a political union without the political will of the parties. And political will has an open legal procedure; without this, any decision will become legally illegitimate. For this reason, the EAEU cannot become a threat to the sovereignty of Kazakhstan and other member countries.
The Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) consists of the Commission Council and the Commission Board, the council will include one deputy prime minister from the government of each country, and the board will include three representatives of each side. The EEC also provides for the authority to create departments that will prepare decisions and engage in monitoring in subordinate industries and advisory bodies. The authority of the department will be significantly expanded, and the number will increase from 150 to 1,200 international employees. The supranational body - the Eurasian Economic Commission will retain its current location in Moscow, and the future financial regulator of the Eurasian Economic Union will be located in Kazakhstan, in Almaty. Higher Eurasian Economic Council considers fundamental issues of the community related to the common interests of the participating states, determines strategies and prospects for the development of integration.
In Eurasian integration we see good development prospects for the Kazakh economy. We, as economists with many years of experience at universities, are convinced that our state is not losing anything, on the contrary, it is gaining. We all need to correctly assess the benefits of the EAEU. The foreign trade turnover of Kazakhstan with the CU countries has a stable growth dynamics, which at the end of 2013 amounted to 24.3 billion US dollars, which is 29 percent more than in 2010, amounting to 18.8 billion US dollars since the creation of the CU. The structure of trade turnover is dominated by imports of $18.4 billion, the largest volume of which, more than 96 percent or $17.7 billion, comes from Russia, Kazakhstan’s main trading partner. Processed goods of intermediate consumption amounting to 7.5 billion dollars are mainly imported into Kazakhstan. At the same time, the largest increase in imports of consumer goods is observed - 76.7 percent. “Since the creation of the Customs Union, the export of Kazakh goods to CU partner countries has increased by 62.7 percent, the share of processed goods in total exports has increased from 44 to 54 percent,” noted First Vice-Minister Bakytzhan Sagyntayev.
Participation in the EAEU brings benefits to its participants, primarily through the development of mutual trade in the union. The structure of exports of the Republic of Kazakhstan is dominated by mineral products (42.1% of total exports to the countries of the Customs Union), metals and products made from them (29.4%), and chemical products (15.0%). From the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, mineral products are imported to a greater extent (26.2% of the total volume of imports from the countries of the Customs Union), machinery and equipment (24.3%), metals and products made from them (15.4%), products chemical industry (11.7%).
The EAEU has the following advantages for business: free movement of labor, access to the public procurement system, equal conditions competition, reduction of investment costs through the formation of a single market, protection of intellectual property rights, absence of customs duties within the EAEU, a common system of technical regulation, unified tariffs for rail freight transportation.
Thus, for Kazakhstan to enter the top thirty developed countries The world needs an educated and healthy population with ample employment opportunities in a flexible labor market and a reliable system social protection for those in need. If these four components of the human development strategy - education, health, employment and social protection - lag behind, economic growth will remain an empty phrase for the population of our country. Since the creation of the Eurasian Union, a new era of development begins not only for our region, but also for the entire planet, and this should be confirmed in the future. Kazakhstan’s participation in the EAEU is responsible national interests of our country, providing domestic producers with additional sales markets, which in turn, firstly, contributes to the expansion of the enterprise, and therefore the creation of new jobs, and secondly, contributes to the modernization of the production cycle, which means increasing the competitiveness of Kazakhstani goods. And most importantly, a stable socio-economic situation within the country, which, in the context of global financial turmoil and the instability of the economic situation, is one of the main components of success in the development of Kazakhstan.

Kuandyk AYNABEK,
Doctor of Economic Sciences,
Bauyrzhan ZHUNUSOV,
Candidate of Economic Sciences

In the last days of February, Russian President Vladimir Putin made official visits to a number of post-Soviet Central Asian republics: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

It can be considered that the trips were made as part of further cooperation within the framework of the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), since Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan (along with Armenia and Belarus) are already members of this union, and Tajikistan is currently negotiating accession to this organization.

Thus, discussion of the problems and prospects of the EAEU was on the agenda of Putin’s meetings with the three Central Asian leaders. It should be noted that the idea of ​​creating a Eurasian Union was first voiced more than 20 years ago by Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev. Since then, several attempts have been made to form something like a single economic space within the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Since 2011, V. Putin has been involved in the implementation of the plan. On January 1, 2015, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, which were members of a pre-existing economic bloc called the Customs Union, formed the EAEU. The next day, Armenia joined the organization, and in August of the same year, Kyrgyzstan joined it.

However, the economic situation that prevailed at the time of the creation of the EAEU did not allow its members to experience the immediate results that they initially expected. This was largely predetermined by the impact of the economic crisis on Russia, as well as the deterioration of relations between Russia and the West.

However, some features within the new union turned out to be very useful for its individual members. Thus, positive changes associated with the status of labor migrants from Kyrgyzstan in Russia are obvious. They now compare favorably with the status of migrants from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. As a result, the number of labor migrants heading to Russia from Kyrgyzstan has increased, while the same figure for Tajikistan and Uzbekistan is decreasing.

If we translate the dynamics into numbers, the following picture emerges: if since 2013, the volume of remittances from Russia to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan began to fall sharply, then in the first nine months of 2016, migrant workers from Kyrgyzstan (which became a member state of the EAEU ) sent transfers in the amount of 1 billion 286 million dollars, which is 21 percent more than in 2015.

It is obvious that the example of Kyrgyzstan makes membership in the EAEU attractive for Tajikistan. Even before the creation of the EAEU, approximately every eighth citizen of Tajikistan worked in Russia.

Unfortunately, at the moment the EAEU remains a group of allies in the economic sphere. In terms of political approaches and assessments, there is no unity among the members of the organization, which distinguishes the EAEU from the EU. The EAEU cannot act on the international political arena as a single force, since its members do not have a common position on the issue of Ukraine.

There are other internal complications. Thus, the short-term disagreement between Russia and Turkey after the incident with the downing of a Russian plane by Ankara in November 2015 on the Turkish-Syrian border did not pass by the interests of the EAEU member countries.

First of all, the difficulties were caused by the fact that Russia's decision (albeit temporary) to close its borders to goods coming from or going there from Turkey complicated the situation for Central Asia as a whole, but in particular it affected the Central Asian members of the EAEU such like Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, which have strong trade ties with Turkey.

There is also a complication associated with the Chinese factor. The Central Asian countries that are members of the EAEU have relations with China, which is, in fact, the leading investment and trade partner for all Central Asian countries.

Will the EAEU be able to become economically attractive for a group of countries, against the background of the large-scale international trade project “One Belt, One Road” promoted by China, which aims to connect dozens of countries by rail, road and sea routes?

Aidar Khairutdinov

It should be noted that the changes occurring in mutual trade are due to a number of external and internal factors.

The fall in world prices for oil and other commodities largely determined the dynamics of prices for goods traded on the Union market and, accordingly, the overall reduction in the value of mutual trade between the EAEU member states in 2015-2016.

In Fig. Table 3.1 presents the comparative dynamics of mutual trade volumes of the EAEU member states and prices for Brent oil.

Rice. 3.1. Comparative dynamics of mutual trade volumes of EAEU member states and Brent oil prices

As can be seen from Fig. 3.1, the dynamics of mutual trade correlates with changes in world oil prices, and the significant share of energy goods in the structure of mutual trade (29.9% in 2015, 22.8% in 2016) makes this dependence decisive. Following changes in the global market, the average price of oil supplied to the EAEU market in 2016 dropped to $29 per barrel. In 2015, its average was $34, in 2014 - $46.

Despite the negative dynamics, the results of mutual trade between the EAEU member states turned out to be better than the results of foreign trade with third countries. The volume of foreign trade with countries outside the EAEU decreased in 2015 by 33.6%, including exports - by 32.7%, in 2016 - by 12% and 17.5%, respectively. The price factor had a stronger impact on the decline in foreign trade turnover of the EAEU due to the predominant share of energy goods in the structure of exports outside the Union (64.6% in 2015, 58.9% in 2016).

It is important to note that in 2016 there was a tendency to improve the price conditions for foreign trade activities both with third countries and between member states of the EAEU, as well as the final cost characteristics.

In addition to low prices for energy and other raw materials, the decrease in trade turnover of the EAEU countries in last years influenced by relatively weak growth in the global economy and trade. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs estimates that the global economy grew by just 2.2% in 2016, the weakest since the 2009 recession. World trade volume increased by only 1.2% compared to 2015. In the last 30 years, lower rates have only been recorded twice. Eurozone gross domestic product (GDP) growth is expected to be no more than 1.7%.

At the same time, there is a process of adaptation of the economies of the EAEU member states and, above all, Russia to the unfavorable foreign economic situation associated with economic sanctions.

The situation on the Union market was aggravated by the devaluation processes taking place in the EAEU member states. Data on changes in the exchange rates of the national currencies of the EAEU member states to the US dollar and the volume of mutual trade of the EAEU are presented in Fig. 3.2.

Rice. 3.2. Dynamics of changes in the exchange rates of the national currencies of the EAEU member states to the US dollar and the volume of mutual trade of the EAEU (in% of the fourth quarter of 2014)

As can be seen from the graph, the devaluation of national currencies occurred in all EAEU member states simultaneously, starting from the second quarter of 2015, and reached a maximum in the first quarter of 2016. The depreciation of national currencies was of a competitive nature and was accompanied by a complication of the situation in mutual trade of the EAEU.

Table 3.1

The distribution by type of currency of payments for goods in mutual trade throughout the Union as a whole is characterized by the data in the table

In the third quarter of 2016, the Russian Federation paid in Russian rubles for more than 85% of the volume of goods purchased on the Union market, the Republic of Belarus - about 85%, the Republic of Kazakhstan - more than 75%, the Kyrgyz Republic - more than 37%, the Republic of Armenia - less than 20%.

Thus, the depreciation of the main currency of settlements on the Union market became another reason for the fall in prices for goods and the reduction in the total volume of mutual trade.

A more detailed description of the state of foreign trade activities of the EAEU gives an examination of its results using the index model.

Table 3.2

Index characteristics of foreign trade activities of the EAEU

As can be seen from those presented in table. 3.2 data, the physical volume of mutual trade in 2015 decreased to the level of 2014 by 7.5%, which is significantly less than the decrease in value (by 25.5%). The reduction in value by 70% was due to a fall in prices for goods, and by 30% due to a decrease in the commodity mass.

In 2016, the situation improved somewhat. The commodity volume of mutual trade increased by 0.4%. The physical volume index exceeded the value index by 7.1 percentage points (100.4% and 93.3%, respectively). Despite the fact that the fall in prices for goods has slowed down (the average price index was 92.9% versus 80.8% in 2015), the decline in the value of mutual trade was determined solely by the price factor.

A similar situation is developing in foreign trade with countries outside the EAEU. The decrease in the value of exports to third countries in 2015 is associated solely with the fall in prices for exported goods (66.2% compared to 2014 levels). The commodity weight of exports increased by 1.7% compared to 2014. The decrease in the cost of imported goods was influenced by both factors: price and gross. The decrease in the physical volume of purchases determined 77% of the reduction in value, while the price factor accounted for 23% of the reduction. Thus, foreign trade with third countries in 2015 was characterized by an excess of demand for EAEU goods (the gross terms of trade index was 1–39.9%) under very unfavorable price conditions (the price terms of trade index was 74.4%).

In 2016, the reduction in the value of exports to third countries (by 17.5%) was also influenced only by the decrease in prices for goods (by 19.9% ​​compared to the previous year). Physical sales volume increased by 2.9%.

Based on index indicators, price terms of trade with third countries remain unfavorable (price terms of trade index amounted to 82.2%). The demand for EAEU goods slightly exceeded the demand for foreign goods from the EAEU member states (by 2.4%).

The decrease in the cost of exported goods from Belarus, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan was influenced by two factors: price and gross. The decrease in the physical volume of purchases led to a reduction in the value indicator. In other words, the EAEU’s foreign trade with third countries in 2016 was characterized by excess demand for goods produced within the Eurasian Economic Integration, under very unfavorable price conditions.

Differences in the specialization of countries in the international division of labor increase the complementary potential and enhance the benefits of integrations and their economies. Russia and Kazakhstan are large exporters of raw materials, oil and gas products and metals; the export of raw natural resources occupies a large share in the economies of these countries. In Belarus, for comparison, machinery and equipment account for a significant share of exports.

Despite the temporary decline in trade volumes of the EAEU countries on the world market, today we can talk about the unconditional positive effect of interaction between countries in international integration for each country in particular and for the entire Eurasian integration in general. For example, the creation of the EAEU, as well as the possible prospect of the accession of new members, such as Tajikistan and a number of other CIS countries, means strengthening Russia’s international political influence, as well as its economic potential.

Today, it is not possible to take into account the short-term effects of the EAEU activities due to the fact that more time must pass to conduct more in-depth studies in order to be able to judge the results of comprehensive interaction between countries. The effect suitable for in-depth study can only be considered in the long term, for example, within the framework of specific projects in technological and knowledge-intensive sectors of the economy, with positive changes in the labor and capital markets, and changes in the operating methods of enterprises that adapt to modern conditions.

For the successful development of the EAEU, it is important not so much to expand with new members, but to equalize the levels of economic development of all participants. In this case, the possibility of economic cooperation is ensured at a high scientific and technical level with the possibility of producing competitive products and expanding the possibilities of entering the foreign market for technological products. In general, taking into account the levels of economic development of countries and ensuring their consistent alignment is the basis for developing tax, customs, tariff, financial, credit and other standards of economic activity that are identical for countries, which should stimulate coordinated economic growth.

One of the main problems for most EAEU member countries, primarily for Russia, today remains dependence state economy from energy exports and a weak degree of economic diversification.

A serious obstacle to diversification is the fact that in this process states are more focused on their own models for getting out of an unfavorable economic situation. The diversity of tactics and strategic initiatives currently does not allow us to accelerate the process of increasing the competitiveness of goods produced by integration. Another factor hindering the improvement of the quality and competitiveness of goods produced in the EAEU is the current crisis of energy prices and the devaluation of national currencies. In addition, an equally important problem of Eurasian economic integration is the preservation of non-tariff barriers within a single customs territory. In other words, the EAEU member states today, in most cases, seek to use economic integration to achieve their own economic goals, and not for the simultaneous development of the economies of allied countries. If the approach of countries to integration and the interests of partners in planning their economic activity, one cannot expect a sharp improvement in the situation.

Source: M.V. Dubinin THE INFLUENCE OF THE EURASIAN ECONOMIC UNION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMY OF RUSSIA // Trends and problems in the Russian economy: theoretical and practical aspects [Electronic resource]: materials of All-Russia. scientific-practical Conf., March 23, 2017 / ed. S.A. Kurgansky. – Irkutsk: BSU Publishing House, 2017. – 293 p. Structure of mutual trade between Russia and the EAEU countries in 2013-2016. Formation of Eurasian economic integration Globalization and integration zones Types of international integration Currently, two key types of integration interaction can be distinguished: financial and production-technological. The emergence of transnational companies in Europe Share of countries in the world economy (1750-1900) Customs union: state registration and declaration of products Mercantilism and poverty of the population History of the EAEU History of the development of relations within the EAEU, current state and problems of further cooperation.