VIІI Международная научно-практическая конференция

«Научная мысль информационного века – 2012»

Экономические науки/ 2.Внешнеэкономическая деятельность.

Dinara Aitkazy

student of Master EUCAIS program

Free trade: the arguments pro and cons

Free trade is a system of international trade policy, which allows traders to act without interference from government. Under a free trade policy, prices are a reflection of true supply and demand, and are the sole determinant of resource allocation.

Several different models have been proposed to predict patterns of trade. One of the first adherents of free trade was famous David Ricardo (1772-1823). David Ricardo made a case for free trade by presenting a specialized economic proof featuring a single factor of production with constant productivity of labor in two goods, but with relative productivity between the goods different across two countries. Ricardo's model demonstrated the benefits of trading via specialization—states could acquire more than their labor alone would permit them to produce. This basic model ultimately led to the formation of one of the fundamental laws of economics: The Law of Comparative Advantage [1].

The Law states that each member in a group of trading partners should specialize in and produce the goods in which they possess lowest opportunity costs relative to other trading partners. In other words, countries specialize in producing what they produce best instead of producing a broad array of goods. According to the law of comparative advantage the policy permits trading partners mutual gains from trade of goods and services. This specialization permits trading partners to then exchange their goods produced as a function of specialization. Under a policy of free trade, trade via specialization maximizes labor, wealth and quantity of produced goods, exceeding what an equal number of autarkic states could produce.

Eli Heckscher and Bertil Ohlin produced as an alternative to the Ricardian model Heckscher-Ohlin model.

This theory stresses that countries should produce and export goods that require resources (factors) that are abundant and import goods that require resources in short supply. This theory differs from the theories of comparative advantage since this theory focused on the productivity of the production process for a particular good. On the contrary, the Heckscher-Ohlin theory states that a country should specialize production and export using the factors that are most abundant, and thus the cheapest. Not to produce, as earlier theories stated, the goods it produces most efficiently.

The theory argues that the pattern of international trade is determined by differences in factor endowments. It predicts that countries will export those goods that make intensive use of locally abundant factors and will import goods that make intensive use of factors that are locally scarce. In an idealized model international trade would actually lead to equalization of the prices of factors such as labor and capital between countries. In reality, compete factor-price equalization is not observed because of wide differences in resources, barriers to trade, and international differences in technology.

Despite the model greater complexity it did not prove much more accurate in its predictions. However, from a theoretical point of view it did provide an elegant solution by incorporating the neoclassical price mechanism into international trade theory.

Free trade is composed of the following features:

§ trade of goods and services without taxes (inc. tariffs) or other trade barriers (e.g., quotas on imports or subsidies for producers);

§ the absence of "trade-distorting" policies (such as taxes, subsidies, regulations, or laws) that give some firms, households, or factors of production an advantage over others;

§ free access to markets;

§ inability of firms to distort markets through government-imposed monopoly or oligopoly power;

§ free movement of labor between and within countries;

§ free movement of capital between and within countries.

What arguments are there in favor of free trade?

There is no country in the world approached to completely free trade. The city of Hong Kong (which is legally part of China but has a separate economic policy) may be the only modern economy with no tariffs or import quotas, but is expected to lose this feature once integrated into mainland economy. As we see theoretical models suggest that free trade will avoid the efficiency losses associated with protection. Many economists believe that free trade produces additional gains beyond the elimination of production and consumption distortions. Moreover, even among the economists who believe free trade is a less than perfect policy, many believe free trade is usually better than any other policy a government is likely to follow [2].

The arguments in favor of free trade are as following:

First fundamental reason is efficiency of free trade. As we know, trade potentially benefits a country through expansion economy’s choices, which means that it is always possible to redistribute income in such a way that everyone gains from trade.

The idea that everyone could gain from trade unfortunatly does not mean that everyone actually does. The presence of loosers as well as winners from trade is one of the most important reasons why trade is not free [3].

One of the ways to understand the potential benefits of free trade is through analyzing the impact of a tariff or import quota.

Figure 1. The efficiency case for free tradeSource: Krugman, Obsfeld, 2009, p. 214.

According to P. Krugman and M. Obsfeld [4], the efficiency case for free trade is simply the reverse of the cost-benefit analysis of a tariff. Figure 1 shows the case of a small country which cannot influence foreign export prices.

As shown on the figure above, the effect of the imposition of an import tariff on some imaginary good increases the domestic price from P^world to P^tariff. The higher price causes domestic production to increase from Q^S1 to Q^S2 and causes domestic consumption to decline from Q^C1 to Q^C2. At the same time, the pink triangles are the net loss to the economy caused by the existence of the tariff and it does so by distorting the economic incentives of producers and consumers.

This has three main effects on national welfare:

· Consumers are made worse off because the consumer surplus (green region) becomes smaller.

· Producers are better off because the producer surplus (yellow region) is made larger.

· The government also has additional tax revenue (blue region).

However, the loss to consumers is greater than the gains by producers and the government. But by having free trade (and removing the tariffs) would be a net gain for society.

Recent estimates show the gains from a move to worldwide free trade, measured as a percentage of GDP. However for advanced economics the gains from free trade are somewhat smaller (0.57% of GDP for US, 0.61% of GDP for EU and 0.85% of GDP for Japan), while for poorer “developing countries” (including Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries) the gains are somewhat larger (1.4% of GDP of developing countries) [5].

An almost identical analysis of this tariff from the perspective of a net producing country yields parallel results. From that country's perspective, the tariff leaves producers worse off and consumers better off, but the net loss to producers is larger than the benefit to consumers (there is no tax revenue in this case because the country being analyzed is not collecting the tariff). Under similar analysis, export tariffs, import quotas, and export quotas all yield nearly identical results. Sometimes consumers are better off and producers worse off, and sometimes consumers are worse off and producers are better off, but the imposition of trade restrictions causes a net loss to society because the losses from trade restrictions are larger than the gains (on the graph in this case distortions areas reflect the societal loss). Free trade creates winners and losers, but theory and empirical evidence show that the sizes of the winnings from free trade are larger than the losses [6].

Second argument in favor of free trade is a dynamic gain from free trade. There is a widespread belief among that calculations, even though they report substantial gains from free trade in some cases, do not represent the whole story. In small countries in general and developing countries in particular, many economists would argue that there are important gains from free trade not accounted for in conventional cost-benefit analysis [7].

One of them involves economies of scale. Protected markets not only fragment production internationally, but by reducing competition and raising profits, they also led too many firms to enter the protected industry. With a proliferation of firms in narrow domestic markets, the scale of production of each firm becomes inefficient.

Third argument for free trade is that by providing entrepreneurs with an incentive to seek new ways to export or compete with imports, free trade offers more opportunities for learning and innovation than are provided by a system of “managed” trade, where the government largely dictates the pattern of imports and exports. According to the P. Krugman and M. Obsfeld [8] the experiences of less-developed countries that discover unexpected export opportunities when they shifted from system of import quotas and tariffs to more open trade policies.

Fourth is political arguments reflects the fact that a political commitment to free trade may be a good idea in practice even though there may be better policies in principle. Economists often argue that trade policies in practice are dominated by special –interest politics rather than consideration of national costs and benefits. Economists can sometimes show that in theory a selective set of tariffs and export subsidies could increase national welfare, but in reality any government agency attempting to pursue a sophisticated program of intervention in trade would probably be captured by interest groups and converted into a device for redistributing income to politically influential sectors. If this argument is correct, it may be better to advocate free trade without exceptions, even though in purely economic grounds free trade may not always be the best conceivable policy [9].

Another political reason as a function of economic interdependence can be the prediction that states who share strong mutually-beneficial trading relationships will be far less likely to start a war with one another.

Fifth argument in favor of free trade is negotiations for tariff reductions (Free trade agreements). It is economically efficient for a good to be produced by the country which is the lowest cost producer, but this will not always take place if a high cost producer has a free trade agreement while the low cost producer faces a high tariff. Applying free trade to the high cost producer (and not the low cost producer as well) can lead to trade diversion and a net economic loss [10].

What arguments are there to support the contrary?

As I mentioned before, free trade differs from other forms of trade policy where the allocation of goods and services among trading countries are determined by artificial prices that may or may not reflect the true nature of supply and demand. These artificial prices are the result of protectionist trade policies, whereby governments intervene in the market through price adjustments and supply restrictions. Such government interventions can increase as well as decrease the cost of goods and services to both consumers and producers.

Protectionism – is the economic policy contrary to free trade policy which directed to:

§ prevent foreign take-over of domestic markets and companies;

§ protection from foreign competition in strategic important industries of the national economy;

§ temporary protection of the newly established branches of the national economy;

§ broadening foreign markets.

Protectionism is a policy where the government restricts trade with other countries through a series of measures:

1. tariffs – taxes on imported goods. They make foreign products more expensive than similar domestic, thus, increase competitiveness of the domestic product.

2. quotas – restrictions on the number of imported goods of a certain name and type.

3. export subsidies – payments, allowing domestic producers to sell their products abroad at lower (so-called dumping) prices.

The arguments to support the contrary of free trade are as following:

First argument is a protection of industries related to national defense. If in those industries would dominate foreign competitors, then these industries may find themselves in a difficult position in war situation.

Second is infant industry argument - many countries use protectionist barriers to protect their still underdeveloped industries. Protectionists believe that infant industries must be protected in order to allow them to grow to a point where they can fairly compete with the larger mature industries established in foreign countries. Otherwise, they will die before they reach a size and age where economies of scale, industrial infrastructure, and skill in manufacturing will be progressed enough to allow the industry to compete in the global market.

Third argument is a protection of the more developed countries from competition of cheaper foreign labor. Since free trade promotes equal access to domestic resources (including human) for domestic and foreign participants as well. Visa entrance policies tend to discourage free reallocation between many countries, and encourage it with others. High freedom and mobility has been shown to lead to far greater development than aid programs in many cases, for example eastern European countries in the European Union. In other words visa entrance requirements are a form of local protectionism.

Fourth is that countries can improve their terms of trade through optimal tariffs and export taxes. This argument is not too important in practice, however. Small countries cannot have much influence on their import or export prices, so they cannot use tariffs or other policies to raise their terms of trade. On the other hand, large countries can influence their terms of trade, but in imposing tariffs they run the risk of disrupting trade agreements and provoking retaliation [11].

Fifth argument rests on domestic market failures. If some domestic market, such as labor market, fails to function properly, deviating from free trade can sometimes help reduce the consequences of this malfunctioning. The theory of the second best choice that if one market fails to work properly it is no longer optimal for government to abstain from intervention in other markets. A tariff may raise welfare if there is a marginal social benefit to production of a good that I not captured by producer surplus measures [12].

It is worth noting that free trade is often opposed by domestic industries that would have their profits and market share reduced by lower prices for imported goods [13]. For example, if a country will reduce tariffs on imported sugar, sugar producers would receive lower prices and profits, while sugar consumers would spend less for the same amount of sugar because of those same lower prices. The economic theory of David Ricardo holds that consumers would necessarily gain more than producers would lose [14]. Since each of domestic sugar producers would lose a lot while each of a great number of consumers would gain only a little, domestic producers are more likely to mobilize against the lifting of tariffs [15]. More generally, producers often favor domestic subsidies and tariffs on imports in their home countries, while objecting to subsidies and tariffs in their export markets.

Even though inadequacy of most of the arguments in favor of protectionism is proved both in theory and in practice, some degree of Protectionism is nevertheless the norm throughout the world.

My own view on the benefits of free trade, example Kazakhstan and its trade partners.

Kazakhstan: attempt to combine pros of the trade and protectionism through regional integration.

Kazakhstan is a member of several regional integration processes. Most important of which are the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC), Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), the Common Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) and the Customs Union (CU) of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. The CU is announced to be a first step towards creation of the Single Economic Area (SEA) in 2012. The three countries constitute the integration core of the post-Soviet space according to the comprehensive System of Indicators of Eurasian Integration, of the Eurasian Development Bank [16].

Kazakhstan is a country with highly-opened economy with foreign trade amount equaling its GDP. Though the country is more integrated on the global scale rather than regional, it is developing its ties with neighboring countries through both developing its comparative advantages and establishing closer bilateral and multilateral connections.

Figure 2. Consolidated indices of integration of FSU countries (2002 vs 2008)

Source: Vinokurov, Libman 2010, p. 142.

Figure above shows the consolidated indices of integration of individual countries with CIS- countries. The indices are calculated for 2008 and 2002, for ten post-Soviet countries (Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan were excluded due to a lack of data). Higher value of the index corresponds to higher level of integration. The values vary within a range of –1 to 1. The scale is calibrated so that the mean value corresponds to zero: accordingly, countries with a low level of integration have negative indices and highly integrated countries have positive indices. As we see, Kazakhstan within the period turned from positive to negative, which means lower integration level within CIS region. However this is attributed to the fact that Kazakhstan is considered to be a large economy with a diverse structure of foreign trade, in which economic ties with the post-Soviet space tend to become less important. This trend is in line with other fairly rich and large countries (Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Russia, whereas Georgia’s trend is mostly driven by political reasons). Within the group only Kazakhstan and Russia play active roles in formal integration initiatives.

Table 1. The dynamics of integration of markets in the FSU

Source: Vinokurov, Libman 2010, p. 141-150.

As shown in the table Kazakhstan has the highest level of integration in the two country comparison for such sectors as labor migration (with Kyrgyz) and agriculture (with Azerbaijan). Moreover Kazakhstan shows high dynamics in developing trade ties (with Ukraine), labor migration (with Kyrgyz) and agriculture (with Turkmenistan).

Kazakhstan is reported to be a leader in agriculture integration (based on data on cross-border trade in cereals) in the post-Soviet space. The country is present in all three leading country pairs: Kazakhstan-Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan-Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan-Kyrgyzstan. In this case, integration of neighboring Central Asian and Caspian states is presumably based on the export of cereals from Kazakhstan. This is the example of the comparative advantage theory working on practice on the regional level.

Customs Union

The most important development within the Former Soviet Union (FSU) region is undoubtedly, the formation and launch of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia. The Customs Union started operating on January 1, 2010. A unified Customs Code of the Customs Union was put in force starting July 1, 2010. Thus with the single tariff in effect and a single territory “inspections and duty free” mode in force, the operation of the Customs Union has started. It was declared that all procedures necessary for shaping the single customs territory will be completed by summer 2011.

The creation of the CU is expected to promote free trade within the region. Due to the Customs Union, the average non-weighted customs tariff will increase by 3.9 percentage points, weighted by countries, the tariff increases by 1.2 percentage points. The average customs rate is expected to decrease for some goods where the share of Russia in imports is high [17].

Figure 3. Expected changes in the customs tariffs for CU-member countries

Source: Holzacker H. (2010) Presentation given on 25 January 2010 in Brussels ‘Custom Union: no big inflation shock, but efforts needed to offset impact on non-resources sectors’ An analysis by ATF Bank Research. Available at official web-site of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia: http://tsouz.ru/news/Documents/Custom_Union _Glaziev1.pdf (accessed 26 November 2010).

From the figure above we see that almost half of the tariffs in Kazakhstan will see a reduction due to CU regulation. This is the lowest proportion compared with Russia (reduction for 82% of the tariffs) and Belarus (75%). However around 10% of the tariffs in Kazakhstan will increase on the back of the tariff unification requirement.

The most notable increase in tariffs takes place for the next goods:

§ group for means of transport (including vehicles)

§ wood

§ refrigerating equipment

§ pharmaceutical preparations

§ electro-mechanical domestic appliances

§ footwear and the articles of apparel

The decrease in tariffs is attributable to the next products:

· several agricultural products

· hides and skins

· optical medical or surgical instruments and appliances [18].

Table below shows that though the increase in the tariffs is declared for 10% of the tariffs the amount of the increase is expected to be considerable. For a large number of items, rates were hiked more than twofold (medicines, beverages, perfume, clothes). Additionally, under the new customs regime rates of 75-100% re-appeared, whereas in recent years Kazakhstan’s maximum rate was 30%. The number of combined percentage and flat fee tariffs (for example for cars 30%, but not less than 1.45 euros per cubic cm of the engine) has increased considerably. Previously such duties were applied to about 1,500 items, now to about 2,000. Combined customs duties serve, first of all, for the protection of the domestic market from very cheap (most commonly low-quality) goods and against false declaration of the customs value.

Table 2. Average customs rates in Kazakhstan for some commodity groups, %

Source: Holzacker H. (2010) ‘Custom Union: no big inflation shock, but efforts needed to offset impact on non-resources sectors’ An analysis by ATF Bank Research. Available at: www.atfbank.kz (accessed 26 November 2010)

The CU is still in the process of fine tuning. On October 27, 2009 the customs services of the three countries coordinated the terms of transfer to the unified procedures within the framework of the Customs Union. A single customs tariff was established and sent to all participants of the foreign economic activity for examination. It was estimated that the overall import tariff will rise slightly for Belarus and Kazakhstan and decrease for Russia by an average of 1%.

However, there are still significant challenges in the way of establishing the Customs Union. Firstly, it was not easy for the parties to agree upon one of the key issues – a mechanism of administering the customs payments and their distribution among the budgets of member states.

Another issue is the uniting of the customs services of the three states. The process is still at the stage of adjustment, unification and a more detailed study of the customs procedures. The major complications are connected with the diversity of the regulatory frameworks of each of the countries. Currently the member states need to adjust the basic customs procedures, such as advanced notice and electronic customs entry form, as well as uniting the procedures of customs clearance.

As of Fall 2010, a number of important issues are showing their first results, including the procedure of distributing customs duty revenue among the member countries, and adjustment of the Single Customs Tariff rates. Importers are reporting the first problems they have begun to encounter with the new rules and standards of the Customs Union.

Pros and cons of the CU to Kazakhstan.

Despite all the difficulties of its inception period, the Customs Union is a huge step towards optimizing the conditions for the economic development of its member states. The total integration benefit from the establishment of the Customs Union is estimated to reach about $400 billion by 2015. The experts believe that the dissolution of customs barriers to mutual trade between the three countries will ensure the growth of their mutual GDP by 15-20% by 2015 [19].

With the Customs Union in effect Kazakhstan raised customs duties on imports of goods from other countries; however the VAT rate remained unchanged (at 12% compared with 18% in Russia and Belarus). Being a member of the Customs Union Kazakhstan will discover not only new possibilities but new challenges as well. The higher import duties will lead to a slight increase in domestic prices, and inflation will rise by 0.5-0.7%. However, the rise in the inflation is expected to level out if Kazakhstan reduces imports, replacing them with domestic products.

Despite the general perception of Customs Union as a treaty to promote free trade it also has features to protect the internal market from foreign influence. As we see on the graph 4 below the decision-making process within the Union is highly-dependent on the position of Russia, which enjoys the effective veto right within the union. Therefore the possible worsening of the stance of Kazakhstan and Belarus towards promoting free trade is now a function of Russia external affairs and political decisions.

Figure 4. Decision making process in the Commission of the Customs Union

Source: Holzacker H. (2010) Presentation given on 25 January 2010 in Brussels ‘Custom Union: no big inflation shock, but efforts needed to offset impact on non-resources sectors’ An analysis by ATF Bank Research. Available at official web-site of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia: http://tsouz.ru/news/Documents/Custom_Union _Glaziev1.pdf (accessed 26 November 2010).

Today, the prospects of expanding the membership of CU are already being discussed, as Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine all announced their intention to join. Finally, the Presidents of the three Customs Union countries adopted a decision to create a single economic space – a task that is expected to take two years to complete. The intention to join the WTO as a single regional grouping that was announced by Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia provoked wide international response. Eventually the three countries settled on joining the WTO individually, but in a coordinated manner.

In conclusion we can say that there are some widely-known benefits of the free trade:

· First is the efficiency of free trade. Trade potentially benefits a country through expansion economy’s choices, thus, it is always possible to redistribute income in such a way which would be beneficial for everyone.

· Second is economy of scale. Protected markets reduce competition and led too many domestic firms to enter the protected industry. Because of the proliferation of firms in narrow domestic markets, the scale of production of each firm becomes inefficient.

· Third is providing entrepreneurs with new ways to export or compete with imports, thus, free trade offer more opportunities for learning and innovation.

· Fourth, the strong mutually-beneficial trading relationships are a bail to have a war with trade-partner.

· Fifth is a free trade agreement. It is economically efficient for a good to be produced by the country which is the lowest cost producer, but this will not always take place if a high cost producer has a free trade agreement while the low cost producer faces a high tariff. Applying free trade to the high cost producer can lead to trade diversion and a net economic loss.

As we see from upper mentioned arguments global free trade is a net benefit to society. However, there are also some disadvantages that could be avoided.

· First is a necessary protection of industries related to national defense. If in those industries would dominate foreign competitors, then these industries may find themselves in a difficult position in war situation.

· Second is infant industry argument. Protectionists believe that infant industries must be protected in order to allow them to grow to a point where they can compete in the global market.

· Third is a protection of the more developed countries from competition of cheaper foreign labor. Since the foreign labor is much cheaper than domestic, domestic labor is forced to gradually decrease their income in order to be competitive.

· Fourth are possible improvement countries terms of trade through optimal tariffs and export taxes. However, this argument is not too important in practice. Small countries cannot have much influence on their import or export prices, so they cannot use tariffs or other policies to raise their terms of trade. On the other hand, large countries can influence their terms of trade, but in imposing tariffs they run the risk of disrupting trade agreements and provoking retaliation.

· Fifth are domestic market failures. If some domestic market, such as labor market, fails to function properly, deviating from free trade can sometimes help reduce the consequences of this malfunctioning. The theory of the second best choice that if one market fails to work properly it is no longer optimal for government to abstain from intervention in other markets. A tariff may raise welfare if there is a marginal social benefit to production of a good that I not captured by producer surplus measures.

Even though inadequacy of most of the arguments in favor of protectionism is proved both in theory and in practice, some degree of protectionism is nevertheless the norm throughout the world.

In case of Kazakhstan we see clear trend towards developing free trade, both globally and regionally with WTO accession and CU formation being the main current developments and milestones for shaping the future state of being.

Being a member of the CU will provide Kazakhstan with the following benefits…:

- help to optimize the conditions for the economic development with CU member states;

- the promotion of mutual trade between the CU countries will ensure the growth of their mutual GDP by 15-20% and secure the integration benefit of $400bn by 2015.

… and additional challenges:

- increased import duties will drive domestic prices, and inflation will rise by 0.5-0.7%.

- the tariff policy will now be highly dependent on the external trade policy of Russia, which means lower flexibility for Kazakhstan in adapting its economic policy to external shocks.

References:

1. Library of economics and liberty (2008) Available at: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ bios/Ricardo.html (accessed 23 November 2010)

2. Krugman P. and Obsfeld M., (2009), International economics: Theory and Policy, p. 213

3. Krugman P. and Obsfeld M., (2009), International economics: Theory and Policy, p. 73

4. Krugman P. and Obsfeld M., (2009), International economics: Theory and Policy, p. 213

5. Cline cited in Krugman P. and Obsfeld M., (2009), International economics: Theory and Policy, p. 214, table 9-1

6. Steven, p 235-245

7. Krugman P. and Obsfeld M., (2009), International economics: Theory and Policy, p. 214

8. Krugman P. and Obsfeld M., (2009), International economics: Theory and Policy, p. 214

9. Krugman P. and Obsfeld M., (2009), International economics: Theory and Policy, p. 215

10. Steven, p 235-245

11. Krugman P. and Obsfeld M., (2009), International economics: Theory and Policy, p. 243

12. Krugman P. and Obsfeld M., (2009), International economics: Theory and Policy, p. 243

13. Chipman (1965), p.477-519; Shiozawa (2007), p. 141-187

14. Mankiw (2007), Shiozawa (2009), p.19-37

15. Shiozawa (2007), p. 141-187

16. Vinokurov, Libman (2010), p. 141-150

17. Holzacker H. (2010) ‘Custom Union: no big inflation shock, but efforts needed to offset impact on non-resources sectors’ An analysis by ATF Bank Research. Available at: www.atfbank.kz (accessed 26 November 2010)

18. Holzacker H. (2010) Presentation given on 25 January 2010 in Brussels ‘Custom Union: no big inflation shock, but efforts needed to offset impact on non-resources sectors’ an analysis by ATF Bank Research. Available at official web-site of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia: http://tsouz.ru/news/Documents/Custom_Union _Glaziev1.pdf (accessed 26 November 2010).

19. Vinokurov E., Libman A. (2010) ‘The EDB System of indicators of Eurasian Integration: General Findings’, Yearbook 2010, p.136-154