Consequences of External Macroeconomic Shocks Transmission Through International Trade Channel: The Case of the Central and Eastern European Countries

Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

The Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) have undergone different types of shocks and structural changes during the last two decades. Firstly, the CEECs had moved from a state-planned to a market-based economic system, with private ownership of assets and market-supporting institutions. These changes were exacerbated by the collapse of historic trading relationships and fiscal shocks to state budgets. Secondly, in European Union (EU) enlargement process, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, and the Baltic countries Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania joined the European Union in 2004, Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, and Croatia in 2013. Thirdly, some of the CEECs (Slovenia, Slovakia, and the Baltic countries) have recently adopted the euro and joined to the euro zone. Fourthly, the global financial crisis (GFC) that started in 2007–2008 played a significant role in a downturn in economic activity leading to the 2008–2012 global (including the EU) economic recession. The main research questions are how these external shocks and structural changes affected foreign trading relationships of the CEECs and economic integration of this group of countries at the regional and global level and which type of external macroeconomic shocks causes the spillover effect transmission through international trade channel? The main findings of this study are as follows:
  1. 1.

    The shocks from the EU countries can be directly transmitted to the CEECs due to the intense international trade relations.

     
  2. 2.

    The shocks originated in the United States, China (except Hong Kong), Switzerland, Russia, and Turkey could be indirectly transmitted to the CEECs through international trade relations with the EU.

     
  3. 3.

    The results of the Johansen cointegration test suggest that the long-run relationship among the CEECs and EU exists.

     

In addition, the empirical results suggest that the exchange rate shock positively affects the real GDP growth in the CEECs; however, depreciation of the currencies of the main export partners decreases the export flows to these countries. The economic growth in the main export countries positively affects the real GDP growth and real export flows in CEECs. An increase in consumption in the main export countries positively affects the real GDP growth in the CEECs; however, a negative impact of consumption on the real export flows to the main export countries is observed. In addition, the effect of macroeconomic shocks is more significant on real export flows.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This research was funded by a grant (No. MIP-016/2015) from the Research Council of Lithuania.

References

  1. Albulescu, C. T. (2011). Economic and financial integration of CEECs: The impact of financial instability. AUCO Czech Economic Review, 5, 27–45.Google Scholar
  2. Clemente, J., Pueyo, F., & Sanz, F. (2009). Market potential, European union and growth. Journal of Policy Modeling, 31(5), 719–730.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2009.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Corsetti, G., Pesenti, P., Roubini, N., & Tille, C. (1998). Competitive devaluation: A welfare based approach. NBER WP No 6889, 1998. doi:  https://doi.org/10.3386/w6889.
  4. De Santis, R. (2004). Trade as international transmission mechanism of shocks: The case of central Eastern European Countries. Doctoral dissertation. doi:  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.602341.
  5. Elliott, G., & Fatás, A. (1996). International business cycles and the dynamics of the current account. European Economic Review, 40(2), 361–387.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(95)00123-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Engle, R. F., & Granger, C. W. J. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica, 55, 251–276.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1913236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ezcurra, R., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2013). Does economic globalization affect regional inequality? A cross-country analysis. World Development, 52, 92–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feldkircher, M. (2015). A global macro model for emerging Europe. Journal of Comparative Economics, 43((3) (8)), 706–726.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2014.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fetahi-Vehapi, M., Sadiku, L., & Petkovski, M. (2015). Empirical analysis of the effects of trade openness on economic growth: An evidence for South East European Countries. Procedia Economics and Finance, 19, 17–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(15)00004-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grubel, H. G., & Lloyd, P. J. (1975). Intra-industry trade: the theory and measurement of international trade in differentiated products. New York: Wiley. ISBN 0-470-33000-7.Google Scholar
  11. Johansen, S. (1991). Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica, 59, 1551–1580.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2938278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johansen, S. (1995). Likelihood-based inference in cointegrated vector autoregressive models. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/0198774508.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martínez-Zarzoso, I., Voicu, A. M., & Vidovic, M. (2011). CEECs integration into regional and global production networks. Discussion papers number 125. doi:  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1850623.
  14. Michaely, M. (1996). Trade preferential agreements in Latin America: An ex-ante assessment. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper.Google Scholar
  15. Monfort, M., Cuestas, J. C., & Ordóñez, J. (2013). Real convergence in Europe: A cluster analysis. Economic Modelling, 33, 689–694.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2013.05.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rozmahel, P., Kouba, L., Grochová, L., & Najman, N. (2013). Integration of central and Eastern European Countries: Increasing EU heterogeneity? Working paper no. 9.Google Scholar
  17. Tajoli, L., & De Benedictis, L. (2006). Economic integration and similarity in trade structures. Working paper 54. doi:  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.896669.
  18. Van Ewijk, S. E., & Arnold, I. J. M. (2015). Financial integration in the Euro area: Pro-cyclical effects and economic convergence. Economic Modelling, 44, 335–342.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.05.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zoltán, J. M., Kovács, M. A., & Oszlay, A. (2001). How far has trade integration advanced? An analysis of the actual and potential trade of three central and Eastern European Countries. Journal of Comparative Economics, 29(2), 276–292. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1006/jcec.2001.1709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kaunas University of TechnologyKaunasLithuania

Personalised recommendations