Coalition Analysis and Effects of Regional Integration
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17059/2018-4-6Keywords:
coalition analysis, interregional interactions, spatial input-output model, long-term forecast for 2030, equivalent exchange, equilibrium, Russian regions, interregional integration, own/net/gross contribution of region, own/net/gross effect of interaction, balance of interactionAbstract
The resilience of a political, economic or trade alliances of countries or regions depends significantly on to what extent parties of a union consider their membership as beneficial. Dependent on predominant assessments, there may occur a complete disintegration of multi-regional systems, an expansion or contraction in the composition of participants, and maintenance of the status quo. The intensity of interregional exchange is used as an indicator to measure the degree of the regional integration of economic system. The paper represents the capabilities of the coalition analysis method for estimating the degree of interdependence in the multi-regional economy of the Russian Federation. The authors present an analytical review of the structural and statistical models used for estimating the effects of interregional integration as well as substantiate the choice of the approach. The basis of the coalition analysis is the input-output method and the theory of cooperative games. Moreover, the spatial input-output model of the Russian economy is developed on the methodology of national accounts statistics in terms of federal districts. We use a semi-dynamic version of the optimization multi-regional input-output model (OMIOM) on the statistical database of 2013 for developing the forecast up to 2030. On this basis, a coalition analysis of interregional interaction effects is carried out. The calculations revealed a high degree of regional integration as well as of involvement of the national economy into the world one. Depending on the structure of production and consumption of the federal districts' economies, there are varying capacities to adapt to hypothetical changes in the volume of interregional links. The North-Western, Urals, Siberian and Far Eastern federal districts better adapt to the break of interregional links in comparison to the rest of the regions. The Central, North-Caucasian, Southern and Volga districts benefit more of their integration into the multiregional system and of the access to international markets. Prospects for using coalition analysis are associated with the introduction of an equilibrium condition, which will allow us to assess the degree of equivalence of interregional exchange.References
Jovanović, M. (Ed.). (2011). International Handbook on the Economics of Integration. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 3, 1672.
Felbermayr, G., Heid, B., Larch, M. & Yalcin, E. (2015). Macroeconomic potentials of transatlantic free trade: a high-resolution perspective for Europe and the world. Economic Policy, 30(83), 491–537. doi: 10.1093/epolic/eiv009.
Badinger, H. & Nitsch, V. (Eds). (2016). Routledge Handbook of the Economics of European Integration. London, New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 516.
Röpke, W. (1942). International Economic Disintegration. London: William Hodge, 283.
Alesina, A. & Spolaore, E. (1997). On the Number and Size of Nations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1027–1056. doi:10.1162/003355300555411.
Busch, B. & Matthes, J. (2016). Brexit — the economic impact: A meta-analysis. IW-Report, 10. Retrieved from: https://www.iwkoeln.de/fileadmin/publikationen/2016/277405/Brexit_meta_study_IW_report.pdf. (date of access: 28.02.2018).
European Parliament. An Assessment of Economic Impact of Brexit on the EU27. (2017). Retrieved from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/595374/IPOL_STU(2017)595374_EN.pdf. (date of access: 08.03.2018).
Koks, E. E., Carrera, L., Jonkeren, O., Aerts, J. C. J. H., Husby, T. G., Thissen, M., Standardi, G. & Mysiak, J. (2016). Regional disaster impact analysis: comparing input–output and computable general equilibrium models. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 16, 1911–1924. doi: 10.5194/nhess-16–1911–2016.
Grassini, M. (2009). Problemy primeneniya vychislimykh modeley obshchego ravnovesiya dlya prognozirovaniya ekonomicheskoy dinamiki [Issues of the use of computable general equilibrium models for forecasting economic dynamics]. Problemy prognozirovaniya [Studies on Russian Economic Development], 2, 30–48. (In Russ.)
Rojas-Romagosa, H. (2016, June). Trade effects of Brexit for the Netherlands. CPB background document. Retrieved from: https://www.cpb.nl/sites/default/files/omnidownload/CPB-Backgroud-Document-June-2016-Trade-effects-of-brexit-for-the-netherlands.pdf (date of access: 28.02.2018).
Booth, S., Howarth, C., Persson, M., Ruparel, R. & Swidlicki, P. (2015). What if …? The consequences, challenges and opportunities facing Britain outside the EU. Open Europe Report, 3. Retrieved from: http://europas-krisen.zdf.de/media/downloads/Brexit/150507-Open-Europe-What-If-Report-Final-Digital-Copy.pdf. (date of access: 09.03.2018).
Minford, P. (2017). Evaluating European Trading Arrangements. Cardiff Economics Working Paper, E2015/17. Retrieved from: http://patrickminford.net/wp/E2015_17.pdf. (date of access: 08.03.2018).
Ottaviano, G. (2016). European integration and the gains from trade. Routledge Handbook of the Economics of European Integration. In: Badinger, H., Nitsch V. (Eds). London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 173–187.
Felbermayr, G., Gröschl, J. & Heiland, I. (2018). Undoing Europe in a New Quantitative Trade Model/ ifo Working Paper, 250. Retrieved from: https://www.cesifo-group.de/DocDL/wp-2018–250-felbermayr-etal-tarde-model.pdf. (date of access: 08.03.2018).
Costinot, A. & Rodríguez-Clare, A. (2014). Trade Theory with Numbers: Quantifying the Consequences of Globalization. Handbook of International Economics, 4. In: Gopinath G., Helpman E., Rogoff K. (Eds). Amsterdam Elsevier, 197–261.
Sampson, T. (2017). Brexit: The Economics of International Disintegration. Journal of Economic perspectives, 31(4), 163–184. doi: 10.1257/jep.31.4.163.
Chen, W., Los, B., McCann, P., Ortega Argiles, R., Thissen, M. & van Oort, F. (2018). The Continental Divide? Economic Exposure to Brexit in Regions and Countries on Both Sides of The Channel. Papers in Regional Science, 97(1), 25–54. doi: 10.1111/pirs.12334.
Baier, S. & Bergstrand, J. (2009). Estimating the effects of free trade agreements on international trade flows using matching econometrics. Journal of International Economics, 77(1), 63–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2008.09.006.
Dhingra, S., Hwang, H., Ottaviano, G., Pessoa, J., Sampson, T. & Van Reenen, J. (2017). The costs and benefits of leaving the EU: Trade effects. Economic Policy, 32(92), 651–705. doi: 10.1093/epolic/eix015.
Feyrer, J. (2009). Trade and Income: Exploiting Time Series in Geography. NBER Working Paper, 14910. Retrieved from: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14910. (date of access: 14.03.2018).
Crafts, N. (2016). The Growth Effects of EU Membership for the UK: A Review of the Evidence. CAGE Online Working Paper Series, No.280. Retrieved from: http://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/SMF-CAGE-The-Growth-Effects-of-EU-Membership-for-the-UK-a-Review-of-the-Evidence-.pdf. (date of access: 11.03.2018).
Campos, N., Coricelli, F. & Moretti, L. (2014). Economic Growth and Political Integration: Estimating the Benefits from Membership in the European Union Using the Synthetic Counterfactuals Method. IZA Discussion paper, 8162. Retrieved from: http://ftp.iza.org/dp8162.pdf. (date of access: 11.03.2018).
Granberg, A. G., Suslov, V. I. & Suspitsyn, S. A. (2007). Mnogoregionalnyye sistemy. Ekonomiko-matematicheskoye issledovanie [Multiregional economic systems: economic-mathematical study]. Novosibirsk: Sib. Scient. Publ., 370. (In Russ.)
Suslov, V. I. (2011). Mnogoregionalnaya optimizatsionnaya model. Realnoye znachenie i sovremennaya spetsifikatsiya [Multiregional optimization model: actual importance and current specification]. Region. Ekonomika i sotsiologiya [Regional Research of Russia], 2, 19–45. (In Russ.)
Vasilyev, V. A. & Suslov, V. I. (2011). Edgeworth equilibrium in a model of interregional economic relations. Journal of Applied and Industrial Mathematics, 5(1), 130–143. doi:10.1134/S1990478911010145.
Ershov, Yu. S., Melnikova, L. V. & Suslov, V. I. (2009). Praktika primeneniya optimizatsionnykh multiregionalnykh mezhotraslevykh modeley v strategicheskikh prognozakh rossiyskoy ekonomiki [The practice of the use of multiregional Input-Output models in strategic forecasts of Russian economy]. Vestnik Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [World of economics and management], 9(4), 9–23. (In Russ.)
Pan, Q. & Richardson, H. (2015). Theory and Methodologies: Input-Output, SCPM and CGE. In: H. Richardson et al. (Eds). Regional Economic Impacts of Terrorist Attacks, Natural Disasters and Metropolitan Policies. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 224. doi: 10.1007/978–3-319–14322–4_2.
Ershov, Yu. S., Ibragimov, N. M. & Melnikova, L. V. (2016). Koalitsionnyy analiz. Ot respublik SSSR k regionam Rossii [Coalitional Analysis: from Republics of the USSR to Regions of Russia]. EKO [ECO], 10, 5–22. (In Russ.)
Suslov, V. I., Ershov, Yu. S. & Ibragimov, N. M. (2016). Makroekonomicheskie vzaimodeystviya v prostranstve Rossii [Macroeconomic interactions in Russia’s space]. Ekonomicheskie strategii [Economic Strategies], 5(139), 64–71. (In Russ.)
Nordhaus, W. (2015). Climate Clubs: Overcoming Free-Riding in International Climate Policy. American Economic Review, 105(4), 1339–70. doi: 10.1257/aer.15000001.
Ossa, R. (2014). Trade Wars and Trade Talks with Data. American Economic Review, 104(12), 4104–46. doi: 10.1257/aer.104.12.4104.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Viktor Ivanovich Suslov, Naimdzhon Mulaboevich Ibragimov, Larisa Viktorovna Melnikova
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
