IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ifwkep/6.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Central Asia's comparative advantage in international trade

Author

Listed:
  • Lücke, Matthias
  • Rothert, Jacek

Abstract

This paper outlines a strategy for identifying the pattern of Central Asia’s comparative advantage in international trade, based on factor prices and transport costs, historical production patterns, and recent trends in the geographical and product composition of Central Asian trade. The paper focuses on Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, along with Azerbaijan and Mongolia. A country’s comparative advantage cannot be determined at the level of individual industries or products. At the same time, policymakers benefit from an awareness of a country’s general pattern of comparative advantage as they prioritize measures for promoting nontraditional exports or policy reforms to reduce barriers to trade, whether related to trade policy instruments, to transport and transit, or to the investment climate. A comparison of manufacturing wages in the region with key competitors shows that the resource rich countries (Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan) with monthly wages above $100 will hardly be able to compete on price in labor-intensive exports to the world market (e.g., in direct competition with China). For the remaining countries with lower wages, the viability of particular labor-intensive exports would have to be assessed from detailed estimates of cost structures, including buildings and transport. As they are geographically remote, it is very difficult for Central Asian countries to expand exports by integrating into production networks operated by European firms (a strategy employed with much success in Central and Eastern Europe). Enhanced processing of local raw materials that are already exported (such as cotton) will often be a more viable option. At present, Central Asia’s exports are dominated by unprocessed or semi processed commodities. Prominent export products vary somewhat across countries, so that export growth would not push Central Asian countries to compete in all the same products. Many trade flows are also so small in relation to potential markets (Russia, Western Europe, etc.) that ruinous export competition is unlikely. For several industrial products, Central Asian countries are significant exporters to CIS countries, but not to the rest of the world. Such products could be focal points for export diversification into nontraditional markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Lücke, Matthias & Rothert, Jacek, 2006. "Central Asia's comparative advantage in international trade," Kiel Economic Policy Papers 6, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ifwkep:6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/3799/1/kepp06.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yener Kandogan, 2004. "How Much Restructuring did the Transition Countries Experience? Evidence from Quality of their Exports," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 2004-637, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    2. Michael Funke & Ralf Ruhwedel, 2005. "Export variety and economic growth in East European transition economies," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 13(1), pages 25-50, January.
    3. David L. Hummels & Georg Schaur, 2013. "Time as a Trade Barrier," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(7), pages 2935-2959, December.
    4. Michael Fritsch & Horst Brezinski (ed.), 1999. "Innovation and Technological Change in Eastern Europe," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1937.
    5. repec:zbw:bofitp:2003_008 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Beata Smarzynska Javorcik, 2004. "Does Foreign Direct Investment Increase the Productivity of Domestic Firms? In Search of Spillovers Through Backward Linkages," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 605-627, June.
    7. Céline Carrère & Maurice Schiff, 2005. "On the Geography of Trade. Distance is Alive and Well," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 56(6), pages 1249-1274.
    8. Ms. Katrin Elborgh-Woytek, 2003. "Of Openess and Distance: Trade Developments in the Commonwealth of Independent States, 1993-2002," IMF Working Papers 2003/207, International Monetary Fund.
    9. Brown, A.N. & Ickes, B. & Ryterman, R., 1993. "The Myth of Monopoly: A New View of Industrial Structure in Russia," Papers 10-93-5, Pennsylvania State - Department of Economics.
    10. Raballand, Gael & Kunth, Antoine & Auty, Richard, 2005. "Central Asia's transport cost burden and its impact on trade," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 6-31, March.
    11. Clague, Christopher, 1991. "Relative Efficiency, Self-Containment, and Comparative Costs of Less Developed Countries," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(3), pages 507-530, April.
    12. Hummels, David, 2001. "Time As A Trade Barrier," Working papers 28701, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander Libman & Evgeny Vinokurov, 2011. "Is it really different? Patterns of regionalisation in post-Soviet Central Asia," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 469-492, June.
    2. repec:got:cegedp:74 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Langhammer, Rolf J., 2007. "The Asian way of regional integration: Are there lessons from Europe?," Kiel Economic Policy Papers 7, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. Immaculada Martínez-Zarzoso & Felicitas Nowak-Lehmann D. & Sebastian Vollmer, 2007. "Competitiveness – A Comparison of China and Mexico," CESifo Working Paper Series 2111, CESifo.
    5. Nowak-Lehmann D., Felicitas & Vollmer, Sebastian & Martínez-Zarzoso, Inmaculada, 2008. "Does comparative advantage make countries competitive? A comparison of China and Mexico," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 74, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    6. Klueh, Ulrich H. & Pastor, Gonzalo & Segura, Alonso, 2009. "Policies to improve the local impact from hydrocarbon extraction: Observations on West Africa and possible lessons for Central Asia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1128-1144, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guillaume Daudin, 2005. "Les transactions de la mondialisation," Revue de l'OFCE, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 92(1), pages 221-262.
    2. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/686 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Ducruet, César & Itoh, Hidekazu & Berli, Justin, 2020. "Urban gravity in the global container shipping network," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    4. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/686 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Lars Håkanson & Douglas Dow, 2012. "Markets and Networks in International Trade: On the Role of Distances in Globalization," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 52(6), pages 761-789, December.
    6. Fetzer, James J. & Rivera, Sandra A., 2005. "Modeling Modifications in Rules of Origin: A Partial Equilibrium Approach," Conference papers 331372, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    7. Christian Volpe Martincus, 2016. "Out of the Border Labyrinth: An Assessment of Trade Facilitation Initiatives in Latin America and the Caribbean," IDB Publications (Books), Inter-American Development Bank, number 96856, February.
    8. Miren Lafourcade & Jacques-François Thisse, 2011. "New Economic Geography: The Role of Transport Costs," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Pedro Albarran & Raquel Carrasco & Adelheid Holl, 2013. "Domestic transport infrastructure and firms’ export market participation," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 879-898, May.
    10. de Soyres, François & Mulabdic, Alen & Ruta, Michele, 2020. "Common transport infrastructure: A quantitative model and estimates from the Belt and Road Initiative," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    11. Chen, Natalie & Novy, Dennis, 2008. "International Trade Integration: A Disaggregated Approach," CEPR Discussion Papers 7103, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Martina Lawless, 2010. "Deconstructing gravity: trade costs and extensive and intensive margins," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1149-1172, November.
    13. Michael J. Ferrantino, 2006. "Quantifying the Trade and Economic Effects of Non-Tariff Measures," OECD Trade Policy Papers 28, OECD Publishing.
    14. Magnus Lodefalk, 2014. "The role of services for manufacturing firm exports," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 150(1), pages 59-82, February.
    15. Díaz-Bonilla, Carolina, 2007. "Poverty and Income Distribution Under Different Factor Market Assumptions: A Macro-Micro Model," Conference papers 331625, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    16. Amador, João & Cabral, Sónia & Ramos Maria, José, 2007. "International Trade Patterns over the Last Four Decades: How does Portugal Compare with other Cohesion Countries?," MPRA Paper 5996, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Mr. Rikhil Bhavnani & Ms. Natalia T. Tamirisa & Mr. Arvind Subramanian & Mr. David T. Coe, 2002. "The Missing Globalization Puzzle," IMF Working Papers 2002/171, International Monetary Fund.
    18. Thomas Gries & Wim Naudé & Marianne Matthee, 2009. "The Optimal Distance To Port For Exporting Firms," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 513-528, August.
    19. Cecília Hornok, 2011. "Need for Speed: Is Faster Trade in the EU Trade-Creating?," wiiw Working Papers 75, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    20. Peter Walkenhorst & Tadashi Yasui, 2004. "Quantitative Assessment of the Benefits of Trade Facilitation," International Trade 0401008, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2004. "Trade Costs," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(3), pages 691-751, September.
    22. Popov, Sergey V. & Wiczer, David G., 2009. "Equilibrium sovereign default with endogenous exchange rate depreciation," MPRA Paper 18854, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:zbw:ifwkep:6. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iwkiede.html .

    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.