| In the section | Articles |
| Title of the article | Russia’s Trade with East Asian Countries: Comparative Costs and Potential |
| Pages | 17-41 |
| Author |
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Izotov Doctor of Economics, Leading Research Fellow Economic Research Institute FEB RAS 153 Tikhookeanskaya St., Khabarovsk, 680042, Russian Federation This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ORCID: 0000-0001-9199-6226 |
| Abstract | In this paper it’s demonstrated that over the past decade Russia has sought to diversify its economic ties in favour of East Asian countries as part of the strategy on ‘turning to the East’. Such ties accounted for almost one third of Russia’s foreign trade turnover by 2020. According to the estimates presented in the article, the negative impact of geopolitical factors on Russian foreign trade has affected most countries that border Russia. At the same time, proximity and the presence of a land border have generally had a positive effect on Russian foreign trade, which indicates the opportunity to redistribute the foreign trade flows towards Asia. An assessment of the intensity of Russia’s foreign trade with East Asian countries demonstrates the redundancy of barriers in bilateral interactions. These estimates indicate a greater intensity of trade between the Russian economy and China, as well as the presence of Russia’s significant potential for expanding trade in the case of ‘deep’ integration with East Asian countries by levelling excess costs: with China – by 84%; with Taiwan – by 86%; with the Republic of Korea – by 102%; with ASEAN countries – by 113%; with Japan – by 122%. Due to the higher share of the trade with China in Russia’s foreign trade, rapprochement with the Chinese economy will contribute to generating large volumes of trade turnover between Russia and the outside world. It has been shown in the paper that as Russia approaches the economies of East Asia, reciprocity should be taken into account when reducing bilateral barriers as it may directly affect the choice of Russian strategy for purposes related to increasing mutual trade |
| Code | 339+338 |
| JEL | F17, F51, F63 |
| DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2022.3.017-041 |
| Keywords | trade ♦ trade barriers ♦ border effect ♦ elasticity of substitution ♦ trade potential ♦ integration ♦ East Asia ♦ China ♦ Republic of Korea ♦ Japan ♦ Taiwan ♦ ASEAN ♦ Eurasian Economic Union ♦ Russia |
| Download | |
| For citation | Izotov D.A. Russia’s Trade with East Asian Countries: Comparative Costs and PotentialProstranstvennaya Ekonomika = Spatial Economics, 2022, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 17–41. https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2022.3.017-041 (In Russian) |
| References | 1. Agnosteva D., Anderson J.E., Yotov Y.V. Intra-National Trade Costs: Measures and Aggregation. NBER. Working Paper. No. 19872, 2014, 49 p. Available at: (accessed May 2022). 2. Anderson J.E., Milot C.A., Yotov Y.V. How Much Does Geography Deflect Services Trade? Canadian Answers. International Economic Review, 2014, vol. 55, issue 3, pp. 791–818. 3. Anderson J.E., van Wincoop E. Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle. American Economic Review, 2003, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 170–192. 4. Armington P. A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production. Internationally Monetary Fund Staff Paper, 1969, vol. 16, pp. 159–176. 5. Bajzik J., Havranek T., Irsova Z., Schwarz J. The Elasticity of Substitution between Domestic and Foreign Goods: A Quantitative Survey. Czech National Bank. Working Papers. 2019/12, 2019. Available at: publications/cnb_wp/cnbwp_2019 _12.pdf (accessed May 2022). 6. Balistreri E.J., Al-Qahtani A., Dahl C.A. Oil and Petroleum Product Armington Elasticities: A New-Geography-of-Trade Approach to Estimation. The Energy Journal, 2010, vol. 31, issue 3, pp. 167–179. 7. Compliance with OKPD 2 and HS Codes. 2022. Available at: (accessed May 2022). (In Russian). 8. Feenstra R.C., Luck P., Obstfeld M., Russ K.N. In Search of the Armington Elasticity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2018, vol. 100, issue 1, pp. 135–150. 9. Gallaway M.P., McDaniel C.A., Rivera S.A. Short-Run and Long-Run Industry-Level Estimates of U.S. Armington Elasticities. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 2003, vol. 14, issue 1, pp. 49–68. 10. Head K., Mayer T. Illusory Border Effects: Distance Mismeasurement Inflates Estimates of Home Bias in Trade. CEPII. Working Paper. No. 2002-01, 2002, 32 p. Available at: (accessed May 2022). 11. Hillberry R.H., Hummels D. Trade Elasticity Parameters for a Computable General Equilibrium Model. Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, 2013, vol. 1, pp. 1213–1269. 12. International Merchandise Trade. UNCTADStat, 2022. Available at: (accessed May 2022). 13. Izotov D.A. Trade Liberalization between Russia and East Asian Countries. Prostranstven-naya Ekonomika = Spatial Economics, 2015, no. 4, pp. 75–97. https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2015.4.075-097 (In Russian). 14. Izotov D.A. Costs and Potential of Trade Between Russia and Countries of Asia-Pacific Mega-Regional Trade Agreements. Regionalistica [Regionalistics], 2022, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 5–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.14530/reg.2022.3.5 (In Russian). 15. Izotov D.A. Trade Barriers between Chinese Provinces and Russia. Regional Research of Russia, 2021, vol. 11, issue 2, pp. 230–243. https://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S2079970521020052 16. Knobel A.Yu., Chokaev B.V. Assessment of the Consequences of the Creation of a Free Trade Zone of Russia with Asian Countries. SSRN, 2013, 89 p. (In Russian). 17. Lee W., Bae C. Regional Borders and Trade in Asia. KIEP Research Paper. Working Papers 13-03, 2013, 48 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2335905 18. Mayer T., Zignago S. Market Access in Global and Regional Trade. CEPII. Working Paper. No. 2005-02, 2005, 42 p. Available at: (accessed May 2022). 19. Mayer T., Zignago S. Notes on CEPII’s Distances Measures: The GeoDist Database. CEPII. Working Paper. No. 2011-25, 2011, 12 p. 20. McCallum J. National Borders Matter: Canada-U.S. Regional Trade Patterns. American Economic Review, 1995, vol. 85, issue 3, pp. 615–623. 21. Minakir P.A. ‘Turn to the East’ Policy: Expectations and Reality. Ekonomika Regiona = Economy of Region, 2017, vol. 13, issue 4, pp. 1016–1029. https://dx.doi.org/10.17059/2017-4-4 (In Russian). 22. Nimenya N., Ndimira P.-F., de Frahan B.H. Tariff Equivalents of Nontariff Measures: The Case of European Horticultural and Fish Imports from African Countries. Agricultural Economics, 2012, vol. 43, issue 6, pp. 635–653. 23. Olivero M.P., Yotov Y.V. Dynamic Gravity: Endogenous Country Size and Asset Accumulation. Canadian Journal of Economics, 2012, vol. 45, issue 1, pp. 64–92. 24. Petri P.A., Plummer M.G., Zhai F. The TPP, China and the FTAAP: The Case for Convergence. New Directions in Asia-Pacific Economic Integration. Edited by G. Tang, P.A. Petri. Honolulu: East-West Center, 2014, pp. 78–92. 25. Rasoulinezhad E., Taghizadeh-Hesary F., Yoshino N. Assessment of Trade Integration Patterns between the Russian Federation and East Asian Economies Using Panel-Gravity Framework. ADBI. Working Paper. No. 1044, 2019, 13 p. Available at: (accessed May 2022). 26. Santos Silva J., Tenreyro S. The Log of Gravity. Review of Economics and Statistics, 2006, vol. 88, issue 4, pp. 641–658. 27. Welsch H. Armington Elasticities for Energy Policy Modeling: Evidence from Four European Countries. Energy Economics, 2008, vol. 30, issue 5, pp. 2252–2264. 28. Yotov Y.V., Piermartini R., Monteiro J.-A., Larch M. An Advanced Guide to Trade Policy Analysis: The Structural Gravity Model. United Nations; World Trade Organization, 2016, 142 p. |
| Submitted | 04.07.2022 |
| Approved after reviewing | 25.07.2022 |
| Accepted for publication | 12.08.2022 |
| Available online | 30.09.2022 |