China's interests in the industrialization of the South Caucasus: comparative analysis of labor productivity in the manufacturing sector

Автор: Niftiyev Ibrahim

Журнал: Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast @volnc-esc-en

Рубрика: Global experience

Статья в выпуске: 2 т.15, 2022 года.

Бесплатный доступ

Due to their strategic location and relatively developed economies, the three countries of the South Caucasus, namely Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia, have cooperated with China since 2015 to leverage their economic growth. China has significantly invested in these countries to boost their productive capacity and integrate them into China-centered global value chains. However, are these countries ready to launch into cooperation with advanced economic powers such as China? To address this question, the current paper integrates overall trends in aggregate and sectoral productivity to evaluate the readiness of the South Caucasus for a new phase of industrialization using Chinese investments and projects as new and important developments in the region’s economic life. Overall, the results indicate a downward trend in manufacturing value added in the South Caucasian economies. While lagging trends raise concerns, Chinese foreign directed investment may resolve issues related to incomplete capacity utilization in the South Caucasus through infrastructure investments. In contrast to the existing literature on China’s economic presence in the South Caucasus, this paper examines Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia in both intraregional and interregional terms by comparing them to the Visegrad and Baltic countries, respectively. This approach enables the South Caucasian countries to be situated in the context of Chinese foreign direct investments influx, as the South Caucasus shares a similar history and prospects with the Baltic countries and the Visegrad countries, respectively. The results of a one-sample t-test indicate that, on average, capital deepening and aggregate labor productivity are higher in the South Caucasus than in the Visegrad and Baltic regions. However, manufacturing labor productivity was significantly lower in the South Caucasus than in the benchmark regions. Moreover, the estimated effect sizes at the sectoral level - as measured through eta squared - illustrated the strength of the obtained differences. These findings document the need for improved economic reforms and policies to keep pace with the regions that are driven by foreign direct investments and that have successfully integrated into global value chains. Otherwise, China-led economic development may fail to industrialize the South Caucasus, misguiding the respective parties’ beliefs and expectations. Thus, further research is needed alongside specific sectoral policy strategies to document country- or region-specific challenges related to the increase in Chinese projects and foreign direct investments in the South Caucasus.

Еще

South caucasus, azerbaijani economy, armenian economy, georgian economy, manufacturing labor productivity, south caucasian industrialization, belt and road initiative

Короткий адрес: https://sciup.org/147238040

IDR: 147238040   |   DOI: 10.15838/esc.2022.2.80.13

Список литературы China's interests in the industrialization of the South Caucasus: comparative analysis of labor productivity in the manufacturing sector

  • Ahmadova E., Hamidova L., Hajiyeva L. (2021). Diversification of the economy in the context of globalization (Case of Azerbaijan). Proceedings of Globalization and its Socio-Economic Consequences, 92(07002) 1–9. DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20219207002
  • Aristei D., Perugini C. (2012). Inequality and reforms in transition countries. Economic Systems, 36(1), 2–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecosys.2011.09.001
  • Athukorala P. (2017). China’s evolving role in global production networks: Implications for Trump’s trade war. In: Song L., Garnaut R., Fang C., Johnston L. (Eds.). China’s New Sources of Economic Growth: Human Capital, Innovation and Technological Change. Volume 2. China Update Book Series, Australian National University Press. DOI: 10.22459/CNSEG.07.2017.16
  • Babayev B., Ismailzade F. (2020). Azerbaijan’s contribution to the Chinese Belt & Road Initiative. In: Policy Outputs, University of Kent No. 100415 GCRF COMPASS Policy Brief. Available at: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/100415/ (accessed: June 17, 2021).
  • Blanchard J.M.F. (2021). Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) blues: Powering BRI research back on track to avoid choppy seas. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 26, 235–255. DOI: 10.1007/s11366-020-09717-0
  • Cheng L.K., Ma Z. (2010). China’s outward foreign direct investment. In: Feenstra R.C., Wei S.J. (Eds.). China’s Growing Role in World Trade. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI: 10.7208/9780226239729
  • Cornell S.E., Ismailzade F. (2005). The Baku – Tbilisi – Ceyhan pipeline: Implications for Azerbaijan. In: Starr S.F., Cornell S.E. (Eds.). The Baku – Tbilisi – Ceyhan Pipeline: Oil Window to the West. Uppsala: The Silk Road Studies Program, Uppsala University.
  • Diakonidze A. (2016). Superficial institutions and challenges of re-regulation in the republic of Georgia. Caucasus Survey, 4(2), 149–164. DOI: 10.1080/23761199.2016.1188489
  • Dieppe A., Kilic Celik S., Kindberg-Hanlon G. (2020). Global productivity trends. In: Dieppe A. (Ed.). Global Productivity: Trends, Drivers, and Policies. Washington, DC: World Bank. DOI: 10.1596/978-1-4648-1608-6
  • Éltető A., Antalóczy K. (2017). FDI promotion of the Visegrád countries in the era of Global Value Chains. Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, HAS Institute of World Economics. Working paper, 229, 1–37. Available at: http://real.mtak.hu/54728/1/WP_229_Elteto_Antaloczy_u.pdf (accessed: July 10, 2021)
  • Field A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 4th edition. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  • Gambino E. (2019). Georgia, the South Caucasus and the BRI: A situated view. China’s “Belt and Road” Initiative and the South Caucasus. Caucasus Analytical Digest, 111, 10–13. DOI: 10.3929/ethz-b-000368298
  • Ge S. (2016). The Belt and Road Initiative in global perspectives. China Int’l Stud, 57(5), 5–27.
  • Gerald B. (2018). A brief review of independent, dependent and one sample t-test. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, 4(50), 50–54. DOI: 10.11648/j.ijamtp.20180402.13
  • Gigauri I., Damenia N. (2019). Economic expectations of the Belt and Road Initiative for the South Caucasus, with emphasis on Georgia. Business and Economic Research, 9(1), 173–199. DOI: 10.5296/ber.v9i1.14438
  • Guliyev M. (2020). Accelerating economic diversification in Azerbaijan: Challenges, shaping prospects. In: Ribeiro H.N.R., Costa M.A. da S., Cehok I. (Eds.) Proceedings of 56th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development.
  • Hakobjanyan A., Yeghiazaryan M. (2016). Interrelations between structural changes of economy and labor market developments in the republic of Armenia. In: Proceedings of aktualnie problemi obespecheniya ustoychivogo i socialnogo razvitiya regionov [Actual Problems of Ensuring Sustainable Development of the Regions].
  • Hasanli Y., Musayev T., Rahimli G., Ismayilova S. (2021). Assessment of CES function parameters in oil-rich CIS countries. Universal Journal of Accounting and Finance, 9, 262–266. DOI: 10.13189/ujaf.2021.090216
  • He W., Lyles M.A. (2008). China’s outward foreign direct investment. Business Horizons, 51(6), 485–491. DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor.2008.06.006
  • Ismailov E., Papava V. (2018). Caucasian tandem and The Belt and Road Initiative. Central Asia and Caucasus, 19(11), 7–17.
  • Jain R. (2020). Pitfalls or windfalls in China’s Belt and Road economic outreach? Asian Survey, 60, 685–709. DOI: 10.1525/as.2020.60.4.685
  • Kharaishvili E., Gechbaia B., Erkomaishvili G. et al. (2021). Shipping policy of agri-food products and the formation of food markets in Georgia. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Sustainable Transport System and Maritime Logistics (ISTSML 2021), 339(01001), 1–14. DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/202133901001
  • Maksimtsev I., Mezhevich N., Koroleva A. (2017). Economic development of the Baltic and Nordic countries: Characteristics of economic models. Baltic Region, 9(1), 41–54. DOI: 10.5922/2079-8555-2017-1-4
  • Nixey J. (2010). The South Caucasus: Drama on three stages. In: Niblett R. (Ed.). America and a Changed World. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781444391565.ch7
  • Onder H. (2013). Azerbaijan: Inclusive Growth in a Resource-Rich Economy. Washington D.C.: World Bank Publications. DOI: 10.1596/978-0-8213-9759-6
  • Pallant J. (2010). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS. 4th edition. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill. DOI: 10.4324/9781003117407
  • Rolland N. (2018). China’s ambitions in Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus, Russie.Nei.Visions, 112, Ifri, 1–26.
  • Schneider F. (2021). Actors and agency in china’s belt and road initiative: An introduction. In: Schneider F. (Ed.). Global Perspectives on China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Asserting Agency through Regional Connectivity. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  • Valerio A., Herrera-Sosa K., Monroy-Taborda S., Chen D. (2015). Armenia skills toward employment and productivity, Survey Findings (Urban Area), 1–22. DOI: 10.1596/25199
  • Van Dijk M.P., Martens P. (2016). The silk road and Chinese interests in Central Asia and the Caucasus: the case of Georgia. Working Paper No. 12, Maastricht School of Management, 1–13.
  • Waal T.D. (2012). A broken region: The persistent failure of integration projects in the South Caucasus. Europe-Asia Studies, 64(9), 1709–1723. DOI: 10.1080/09668136.2012.718416
  • Weber I.M. (2021). How China Escaped Shock Therapy: The Market Reform Debate. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780429490125
  • Zhai F. (2018). China’s Belt and Road Initiative: A preliminary quantitative assessment. Journal of Asian Economics, 55, 84–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.asieco.2017.12.006
Еще
Статья научная