Науковий вісник НГУ

Identification of globalization threats to the economic sovereignty of countries with transition economies

• 
• 

User Rating:  / 0

PoorBest 

Details

Category: Content №1 2021

Last Updated on 05 March 2021

Published on 30 November -0001

Hits: 3075

Authors:

N.Kalyuzhna, orcid.org/0000-0003-0513-705X, Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics, Kyiv, Ukraine, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

A.Khodzhaian, orcid.org/0000-0002-3015-1016, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine, e-mail: Alina_ This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

I.Baron, orcid.org/0000-0003-4841-5152, State Research Institute of Informatization and Modeling of Economics, Kyiv, Ukraine, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

повний текст / full article

Naukovyi Visnyk Natsionalnoho Hirnychoho Universytetu. 2021, (1): 154 - 164

https://doi.org/10.33271/nvngu/2021-1/154

Abstract:

Purpose. To determine globalization threats to the economic sovereignty of transition economy countries based on the analysis and systematization of patterns in dynamics of subindices of the KOF Globalization Index.

Methodology. The methods of analysis and synthesis are used to systematize data on the structure and dynamics of the KOF Globalization Index. The method of correlation-regression analysis is used to assess statistical significance of the relation between the KOF Globalization subindices and economic development indicators of the countries of the statistical sample.

Findings. It is shown that wide rating opportunities to assess the level of the countrys involvement in the world economic processes are created by index rating systems, one of which is the KOF Globalization Index. The dynamics and structure of de jure and de facto KOF Globalization Index are analyzed. A statistical sampling of the countries has been formed according to the criterion of the level of economic development; the value of the subindices of political and economic globalization of the KOF within the period of 20032017 has been analyzed. It is shown that for all groups of countries in the statistical sampling, the hypothesis of no direct statistically significant relationship between the value of the sub-index of economic globalization KOF and indicators of their economic development can be accepted. At the same time, a direct, mostly strong and statistically significant correlation between the values of the KOF subindex of political globalization and economic development indicators has been confirmed, which proves the importance of choosing a rational vector of foreign policy integration to provide economic development.

Originality. Confirmation of the hypothesis of no direct correlation between the level of state involvement in the world economy and the level of its economic development shows the transformation of the idea of openness of the national economy as a prerequisite for its successful development. On the contrary, it allows considering globalization as a source of additional globalization risks for the economic sovereignty of countries with weak economies.

Practical value. The obtained results create a basis to develop approaches for assessing vulnerability of the economic sovereignty of countries, which will take into account the determinants of economic globalization and specify the ways to minimize their destructive impact on national economic systems in neo-protectionism.

Keywords: globalization, economic sovereignty, neo-protectionism, transition economy, KOF Globalization Index, indicator of economic development, foreign policy integration

References.

1. Amburn, B. (2009). How the Index is Calculated. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/29/how-the-index-is-calculated/.

2. KOF Globalisation Index (n.d.). Retrieved from https://kof.ethz.ch/en/forecasts-and-indicators/indicators/kof-globalisation-index.html.

3. Figge, L., & Martens, P. (2014). Globalisation Continues: The Maastricht Globalisation Index Revisited and Updated. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2014.887389.

4. Huh, H.-S., & Park, C.-Y. (2019). A New Index of Globalization: Measuring Impacts of Integration on Economic Growth and Income Inequality. ADB Economics Working Paper Series, 587. https://doi.org/10.22617/WPS190245-2.

5. The CSGR Globalisation Index (n.d.). Retrieved from https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/research/researchcentres/csgr/index.

6. Dreher, A. (n.d.). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/000368 40500392078?scroll=top&needAccess=true.

7. Potrafke, N. (2015). The Evidence on Globalization. The World Economy, 38(3), 509-552. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12174.

8. Gygli, S., Haelg, F., Potrafke, N., & Sturm, J.-E. (2019). The KOF Globalisation Index Revisited. Review of International Organizations, 14(3), 543-574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-019-09344-2.

9. Tiutiunnykova, S.V., & Mykytas, V.V. (2016). Economic sovereignty in the conditions of globalization: maintenance and features of modification. Efektyvna ekonomika, (5). Retrieved from http://www.economy.nayka.com.ua/?op=1&z=4947.

10. Stuchynska, N.P. (2017). Level of globalization: quantitative grounds of quality transformations. Investytsiyi: praktyka ta dosvid, (10), 100-105.

11. Khodzhaian, .A. (2017). Strategic partnership as a form of innerstate cooperation. Scientific bulletin of Polissia, 3(11), 1, 48-53. https://doi.org/10.25140/2410-9576-2017-1-3(11)-48-53.

12. Human Development Reports. United Nations Development Program (n.d.). Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en.

13. Caplan, B. (2009). Against the Human Development Index. Retrieved from https://www.econlib.org/archives/2009/05/against_the_hum.html.

14. Hou, J., Walsh, P., & Zhang, J. (2015). The dynamics of Human Development Index. The Social Science Journal, 52(3), 331-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2014.07.003.

15. World Economic Situation and Prospects 2019 (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp$ontent/uploads/sites/45/WESP2019_BOOK$web.pdf.

16. International Monetary Fund (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/index.htm.

17. Demir, M.A., & Sepli, A. (2017). The Effects of Protectionist Policies on International Trade. People: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 136-158. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2017.32.136158.

18. Park, S.-C. (2018). U.S. Protectionism and Trade Imbalance between the U.S. and Northeast Asian Countries. International Organisations Research Journal, 13(2), 76-100. https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2018-02-05.

19. Kalyuzhna, N. (2019). Interstate trade conflicts as impersonation of neo-protectionism policy. Problems of Systemic Approach in the Economy, 1(69), Part I, 30-35. https://doi.org/10.32782/2520-2200/2019-1-5.

20. Seliutina, A. (2019). The modern concept of transition and financial markets: the experience of European countries. Ekonomika ta derzhava, (9), 103-108. https://doi.org/10.32702/2306-6806.2019.9.103.

21. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ebrd.com/home.

• < Prev
• Next >