Technological Proximity and Macro-Regions: Russia and China in the Structure of the Eurasian Economy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17059/ekon.reg.2026-3-10Keywords:
технологическая близость, макрорегионы, геоэкономическая фрагментация, таблицы «затраты–выпуск», национальная сила, экономическая интеграция, Россия, Китай, Большая ЕвразияAbstract
Amid tightening trade restrictions and increasing geoeconomic fragmentation, the global economic structure is transforming, while the role of macro-regional blocs is growing in prominence. The resilience of these blocs hinges on trade volumes, the compatibility of production systems, resource availability, and the existence of an independent financial infrastructure. This study aims to shed light on the structural foundations necessary to form a Eurasian macro-region and to clarify how Russia and China fit into this framework. Technological proximity among 80 countries was evaluated using the OECD’s unified input–output tables, which cover 55 industries. In the assessment, normalized intermediate input profiles were compared. The indicator’s dynamics were traced over 1995–2022. The resulting estimates were cross-referenced with a national power index for 193 states, derived through multivariate statistical analysis. From 1995 to 2020, the median technological proximity coefficient remained largely stable, fluctuating within the 0.619–0.641 range. In 2022, it rose
to 0.715. This increase likely reflects the structural adjustments that the global economy has been undergoing in response to crises, rather than a durable trend toward global convergence. The analysis revealed a European industrial core, an Asian production network centred on China (with particularly strong linkages to the Republic of Korea and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam), and the structurally autonomous position of the United States. Russia has the highest level of technological compatibility with industrial Europe and occupies an intermediate position between the emerging economic poles. According to the national power index, China ranks first, the United States second, and Russia third. To advance Russian–Chinese cooperation in Greater Eurasia most effectively, it is essential to strengthen industrial collaboration, capitalize on resource complementarities, deepen investment ties, and establish independent settlement mechanisms. These findings can be used
to assess the resilience of macro-regional blocs and to identify priority areas for Russian–Chinese partnership.
References
Amiti, M., Redding, S. J., & Weinstein, D. E. (2019). The Impact of the 2018 Tariffs on Prices and Welfare. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33 (4), 187–210. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.4.187
Bakhtizin, A. R., Wu, J., Khabriev, B. R., Sidorenko, M. Yu., & Wu, Z. (2024). Hybrid Wars and National Security of Russia. Vestnik Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk [Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences], 94 (12), 1100–1114. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0869587324120043 (In Russ.)
Bonadio, B., Huo, Z., Kang, E., Levchenko, A. A., Pandalai-Nayar, N., Toma, H., & Topalova, P. (2025). Playing with Blocs: Quantifying Decoupling. IMF Working Paper (No. 2025/263). International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798229034029.001
Chenery, H. B., & Watanabe, T. (1958). International Comparisons of the Structure of Production. Econometrica, 26 (4), 487–521. https://doi.org/10.2307/1907514
Cordier, D. J. (2025). Rare Earths. In U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2025 (pp. 144–145). U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. URL: https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2025/mcs2025-rare-earths.pdf (Date of access: 05.02.2026).
De Backer, K., & Yamano, N. (2007). The Measurement of Globalisation Using International Input-Output Tables. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers (No. 2007/08). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/242020221356
Energy Institute. (2025). Statistical Review of World Energy (74th edition). URL: https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review (Date of access: 05.02.2026).
Fajgelbaum, P. D., Goldberg, P. K., Kennedy, P. J., & Khandelwal, A. K. (2020). The Return to Protectionism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135 (1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz036
Haddad, E. A., Araújo, I. F., & Perobelli, F. S. (2024). Geographical Proximity and Technological Similarity. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 70, 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2024.02.007
IEA. (2024). Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2024: Executive Summary. URL: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-critical-minerals-outlook-2024/executive-summary (Date of access: 05.02.2026).
Imam, P. A., & Poghosyan, T. (2025). Navigating the 2022 Inflation Surge: A Comparative Analysis of IT and Non-IT Central Banks. IMF Working Paper (No. 2025/212). International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798229027922.001
Institute of International Finance. (2025). Global Debt Monitor. URL: https://www.iif.com/Products/Global-Debt-Monitor (Date of access: 05.02.2026).
Koosakul, J., Zhang, L., & Zia, M. (2024). Geopolitical Proximity and the Use of Global Currencies. IMF Working Paper (No. 2024/189). International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400287763.001
Makarov, V. L., Wu, J., Wu, Z., Khabriev, B. R., & Bakhtizin, A. R. (2020). World Trade Wars: Scenario Calculations of Consequences. Vestnik Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk [Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences], 90 (2), 169–179. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0869587320020097 (In Russ.)
Napoletano, A., Tacchella, A., & Pietronero, L. (2018). A Context Similarity-Based Analysis of Countries’ Technological Performance. Entropy, 20 (11), 833. https://doi.org/10.3390/e20110833
Nordlund, C. (2023). Transformations, trajectories, and similarities of national production structures: A comparative fingerprinting approach. PLoS ONE, 18 (12), e0295568. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295568
OECD. (2025). Input-Output Tables. URL: https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/input-output-tables.html
Rotunno, L., & Ruta, M. (2025). Trade Partners’ Responses to US Tariffs. IMF Working Paper (No. 2025/147). International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798229017008.001
Sotiriou, S. A. (2024). Talking about Security in the Era of High-Tech and Green-Tech: China’s Empathy with Russia and the Rare Earths Trade with the West. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 67 (1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2024.2368160
Suphachalasai, S., Dong, X., Juarros, P., Mochizuki, J., Richmond, C. J., & von Thadden-Kostopoulos, S. (2025). Macro-Criticality of Water Resources. IMF Working Paper (No. 2025/251). International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798229033534.001
Velasquez, A. (2024). The Leisure Gains from International Trade. IMF Working Paper (No. 2024/016). International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400265082.001
World Bank Group. (2025). GDP, PPP (Current International $). URL: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD (Date of access: 05.02.2026).
World Bank Group. (2025). Renewable Internal Freshwater Resources, Total (Billion Cubic Meters). URL: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ER.H2O.INTR.K3 (Date of access: 05.02.2026).
Zhu, Z., Morrison, G., Puliga, M., Chessa, A., & Riccaboni, M. (2018). The Similarity of Global Value Chains: A Network-Based Measure. Network Science, 6 (4), 607–632. https://doi.org/10.1017/nws.2018.8
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Albert R. Bakhtizin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
