EconStor >
Institut für Weltwirtschaft (IfW), Kiel >
Kieler Arbeitspapiere, IfW >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10419/4081
  

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLanghammer, Rolf J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-01-28T14:37:29Z-
dc.date.available2009-01-28T14:37:29Z-
dc.date.issued2007en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10419/4081-
dc.description.abstractRecent empirical research on efficiency gains for Russia from WTO membership concludes that service trade liberalization especially through allowing foreign suppliers to invest in Russian service industries promises the largest gains. This points to sizable efficiency deficits in the Russian service sector. This paper departs from the question whether both the Russian sectoral protection structure and the effective rates of protection (ERPs) differ from structures and rates in benchmark countries if tax equivalents for intermediate services are taken into account. The result is that almost all Russian service industries get effectively taxed and not protected once not only tax equivalents of intermediate goods but also those of intermediate services are included in ERP calculation. Variance among industries and peak taxes in service industries are significantly higher than in a median emerging country taken as benchmark. These findings support the key role of intermediate services liberalization for the expansion of a viable Russian service sector. Results from comparing Russian effective rates of protection with those of the EU accession countries Bulgaria and Romania are not inclusive. Tax levels of the two accession countries are also high and variant and thus cannot serve as a proxy for the ?economic distance of Russia to Brussels?. Lessons for European Neighborhood Policy point to the requirement for the EU to liberalize bilateral service trade (through mode 3 supply: commercial presence ) on a quid pro quo base: without opening EU markets for Russian companies in specific services (i.e., energy distribution), Russia will probably not open its service sector for EU suppliers more than is required in order to comply with minimum WTO accession prerequisites.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherKiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW) Kielen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesKieler Arbeitspapiere 1385en_US
dc.subject.jelF15en_US
dc.subject.jelF13en_US
dc.subject.ddc330-
dc.subject.keywordService Tradeen_US
dc.subject.keywordLiberalization-
dc.subject.keywordRussia-
dc.subject.keywordEuropean Neighborhood-
dc.subject.stwDienstleistungssektoren_US
dc.subject.stwProtektionismusen_US
dc.subject.stwInternationaler Dienstleistungsverkehren_US
dc.subject.stwAußenhandelsliberalisierungen_US
dc.subject.stwWTO-Beitritten_US
dc.subject.stwVergleichen_US
dc.subject.stwRusslanden_US
dc.subject.stwSchwellenländeren_US
dc.subject.stwBulgarienen_US
dc.subject.stwRumänienen_US
dc.titleSectoral distortions and service protection in Russia: A comparison with benchmark emerging markets and EU accession candidatesen_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US
dc.identifier.ppn54759156Xen_US
dc.rightshttp://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen-
Appears in Collections:Publikationen von Forscherinnen und Forschern des IfW
Kieler Arbeitspapiere, IfW

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
kap1385.pdf125.51 kBAdobe PDF
No. of Downloads: Counter Stats
Show simple item record
Download bibliographical data as: BibTeX

Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.