Journal of Applied Economic Research
ISSN 2712-7435
Comparison of Market Openness of China, Russia and Italy
Nigrinova L.
Abstract
The paper compares the market openness of China, Russia and Italy. The comparison is performed in relative terms in the form of openness to foreign trade and investment, trade policy comparisons and tariffs. The paper shows that all selected states are less open economies. China and Russia have increased their openness in the context of economic transformation and WTO accession. If we compare the openness of China, Russia and Italy in recent years, Italy is the most open economy, given the size of the economy and its EU membership. When we compare the openness of China and Russia, according to the indicators of openness and according to the analysis of tariffs, it follows that Russia is a more open economy compared to China. Exploration of openness requires a more dimensional approach, so far there is no unambiguous indicator that would allow the openness to be determined. Monitoring the openness of the economy is important because openness affects allocation of resources and labor, income distribution, possibility of increase in efficiency, market size growth, transfer of skills and technology, increase in productivity and economic growth. From the methodological point of view, general methods of socio-economic research (description, analysis, systematization, abstraction and synthesis) were used. Comparison of openness was performed with the help of statistical data and their analytical processing in tables and graphs. The aim of this paper was to contribute to the debate related to market openness. There is no indicator to determine the openness of an economy. The indicators used have some weaknesses; to determine business openness, it is necessary to consider more factors and only by their comprehensive evaluation can we assess the market openness.
Keywords
market openness; indicators of openness; export, import; GDP; China; Russia; Italy; foreign trade; foreign direct investment; trade policy; tariffs
References
1. Dollar, D., Kraay, A. (2003). Institutions, Trade and Growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 50, 133–162.
2. Lee, H.Y., Ricci, L.A. (2004). Once again, Is Openness good for Growth? NBER Working Papers, No. w10749. Cambridge, NBER, 29 p.
3. Sachs, J. Werner, A (1995). Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 1995, No. 1, 1–118.
4. Frankel, J. Romer, P. (1999). Does Trade Cause Growth? American Economic Review, Vol. 89, Issue 3, 379–399.
5. Štěrbová, L. (2013). Mezinárodní obchod ve světové krizi 21. století. Praha, Grada Publishing, 364 p.
6. Krugman, P.R., Melitz, M.J., Obstfeld, M. (2015). International Economics: Theory and Policy. Boston, Pearson Education.
7. Giavazzi, F., Tabellini, G. (2004). Economic and political Liberalizations. NBER Working Papers, No. 10657. Cambridge, NBER, 44 p.
8. Yanikkaya, H. (2003). Trade Opnenness and Economic Growth: A Cross-country Empirical Investigation. Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 72, Issue 1, 57–89.
9. Wacziag, R., Welch, K.H. (2003). Trade Liberalization and Growth: New Evidence. NBER Working Papers, No. 10152, Cambridge, NBER.
10. Frankel, J., Rose, A. (2002). An Estimate of the Effect of Common Currencies on Trade and Income. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 117, Issue 2, 437–466.
11. Irwin, D., Tervio, M. (2002). Does Trade Raise Income? Evidence from the 20 th Century. Journal of International Economics, Vol. 58, Issue 1, 1–18.
12. Squalli, J., Wilson, K. (2011). A new measure of Trade Openness. The World Economy, Vol. 34, Issue 10, 1745–1770.
13. Clemens, M., Williamson, J. (2001). A Tariff-Growth Paradox? Protection's Impact the World Around 1875-1997. NBER Working Papers, No. 8459, Cambridge, NBER.
14. Tsai, P., Huang, Ch. (2007). Openness, Growth and Poverty: The Case of Taiwan. World Development, Vol. 35, Issue 11, 1858–1871.
15. Dowrick, S., Golley, J. (2004). Trade Openness and Growth: Who Benefits? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 20, Issue 1, 38–56.
16. Guttmann, S., Richards, A. (2006). Trade Openness: An Australian Perspective. Australian Economic Papers, Vol. 45, No. 3, 188–203.
17. Sereghyová, J. (2003). Vybrané Institucionální Otázky a Strukturální Aspekty Otevírání Cínské Ekonomiky. Vyd. 1. Praha, Professional Publishing, 72 s.
18. Samsonyan, F. (2009). Rusko jako strategický trh pro české exportéry a investory. Současná Evropa, Vol. 14, Issue 2, 85–111.
19. Manole, V., Martin, W. (2005). Keeping the Devil in the Details: A Feasible Approach to Aggregating Trade Distortions. European Trade Study Group Conference. Dublin. Available at: citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download.
About Authors
Nigrinova Lenka – Magistr Engineer, Philosophiae Doctor, University Teacher, University College of Business Prague, Prague, Czech Republic (Spálená 76/14, Nové Město, 110 00 Prague); e-mail: L_NIGRINOVA@CENTRUM.CZ.
For citation
Nigrinova L. Comparison of Market Openness of China, Russia and Italy. Bulletin of Ural Federal University. Series Economics and Management, 2019, Vol. 18, No. 2, 232-248. DOI: 10.15826/vestnik.2019.18.2.012.
Article info
Received April 1, 2019; Accepted April 12, 2019
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/vestnik.2019.18.2.012
Download full text article:
~605 KB, *.pdf
(Uploaded
13.05.2019)
Created / Updated: 2 September 2015 / 20 September 2021
© Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education «Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N.Yeltsin»
Remarks?
select the text and press:
Ctrl + Enter
Portal design: Artsofte
Contact us
Rector's Office
Rector, Dr. Victor Koksharov
Tel. +7 (343) 375-45-03, e-mail: rector@urfu.ru
Vice-Rector for International Relations, Dr. Maxim Khomyakov
Tel. +7 (343) 375-46-27, e-mail: Maksim.Khomyakov@urfu.ru