Autocratic and Democratic External Influences in Post-Soviet Eurasia by Anastassia Obydenkova & Alexander Libman

Author:Anastassia Obydenkova & Alexander Libman [Obydenkova, Anastassia & Libman, Alexander]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Public Policy, Communism; Post-Communism & Socialism, Intergovernmental Organizations, European, Political Ideologies, Social Policy, Political Science, NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations), World, Asian, Security (National & International)
ISBN: 9781472441256
Google: 1d4ArgEACAAJ
Publisher: Ashgate Publishing, Limited
Published: 2015-04-01T06:32:00+00:00

Three Forms of Unintended Impact

This chapter focuses on three forms of unintended impact which arguably are of key importance for the EU and its relations with neighbouring countries: effects of (economic) dependence, externalization and attraction. All three have received varying degrees of attention in literature. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to do a detailed analysis of all three forms of unintended impact. The main purpose of this section is to compare the EU’s unintended impact towards the Eastern Partnership states in perspective, comparing it to Russia’s unintended impact on former Soviet neighbours in order to get a rough idea of differences in unintended impact.

The first form of unintended impact refers to the costs generated by asymmetrical interdependence. This holds in particular in the economic field. The EU is ‘an economic giant’, on which most of its neighbours are dependent for trade and investments. This generates huge unintended impact on neighbouring economies. Drawing on Keohane and Nye, this can be seen in a transnational perspective, disconnected from interstate relations. According to them, interdependence produces ‘reciprocal (although not necessarily symmetrical) costly effects of transactions’ (Keohane and Nye 1989: 9). When this interdependence is asymmetrical, i.e. when potential costs are higher for one party than the other, this creates a potential source of influence (Keohane and Nye 1989: 10–11).

If changes in the economic activities or regulation in one country lead to short term costs in a third country, Keohane and Nye speak of dependence sensitivity. If the third country is unable to find alternatives or reduce the costs in the longer term, the authors speak of dependence vulnerability (Keohane and Nye 1989: 12–15).

Currently most ENP countries are economically highly dependent on the EU. Looking at trade figures gives a first idea of this asymmetrical interdependence. All figures mentioned are of 2012.2 The EU-28 has a considerable trade surplus with all EaP countries. With the exception of 2011, this trade surplus has been continuous from 2002 to 2012.3 Around one quarter of Ukraine’s export of goods goes to the EU; around one quarter goes to Russia. For imports the figures are 30.9 per cent and 32.4 per cent respectively.4 Moldova exports 46.9 per cent of its goods to the EU and 30.3 per cent to Russia. Of its imports the EU accounts for 44.5 per cent and Russia for 15.7 per cent.

Even more important for asymmetrical interdependence is the share of trade with the EaP countries. In the case of the EU, the share of exports to Ukraine represents only 1.4 per cent of its total exports. In the case of Moldova it is only 0.1 per cent. This implies that the EaP countries economically need the EU much more strongly than the other way around. This indicates a very strong asymmetry, which equally appears from figures about FDI flows. For Russia, Ukraine is the third trading partner. It is good for 5.2 per cent of its exports.5 This equally suggests asymmetric interdependence, but it is less outspoken than in the case of the EU.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.