IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/eurrev/v30y2022i5p657-685_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Empirical Evidence of the EU–Russia Failed Strategic Partnership: Did it have a Positive Impact on Bilateral Trade?

Author

Listed:
  • Garashchuk, Anna
  • Isla Castillo, Fernando
  • Podadera Rivera, Pablo

Abstract

Many observers were casting doubts about the existence of a strategic partnership between Russia and the European Union long before the annexation of Crimea and the subsequent strained relations between the two blocs. Nevertheless, the main challenge of this article is to prove that there was indeed a positive effect regarding the strategic partnership on bilateral trading – together with such factors as the growth of the Russian and EU GDPs per capita, the devaluation of the Russian currency and the oil price increase – by applying the Gravity Model. Based on this model, it was also confirmed that there was a negative effect of the geographical distance and sanctions between parties on the EU–Russia trade flow. Moreover, we tried to predict by means of the Error Correction Models how EU–Russia bilateral trade would have changed according to a scenario wherein the parties continued being strategic partners, and had the sanctions not been imposed. As such, and by the method described, not only was it empirically confirmed that the major partners would have received the most benefit from the strategic partnership with Russia but even Russia’s smaller trading partners are incurring significant welfare losses from sanctions, along with Russia itself.

Suggested Citation

  • Garashchuk, Anna & Isla Castillo, Fernando & Podadera Rivera, Pablo, 2022. "The Empirical Evidence of the EU–Russia Failed Strategic Partnership: Did it have a Positive Impact on Bilateral Trade?," European Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(5), pages 657-685, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:eurrev:v:30:y:2022:i:5:p:657-685_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1062798721000090/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:eurrev:v:30:y:2022:i:5:p:657-685_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/erw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.