Conceptual framework for the development of a regional integration economic block (EAEU case)

Many studies have been devoted to issues of integration cooperation within the framework of regional integration economic blocks (hereinafter referred to as the RIEB), including the EAEU. They focus on various aspects, including governance institutions (Perskaya, 2015; Perskaya, Eskindarov, 2016), uneven integration of the RIEB countries (Borko, 2006), leveling the development levels of the RIEB countries (Chupina, 2015), and the creation of a single internal market (Glazyev, Tkachuk, 2023; Kondratieva, 2016). At the same time, among the key problems hindering the successful functioning of integration blocks, there is an increase in the “polarization” of the countries of the region, “the presence of a hegemon country that is fighting for dominance with other Eurasian countries” (Chupina, 2015, p. 17). Scientists cite the inefficiency of the existing model of intercountry economic relations as one of the reasons for this problem. The accumulated shortcomings of the RIEB, as well as the active formation of a new multipolar world order, lead scientists to search for a new model of integration interaction, push for a revision of the paradigm of regional economic integration development, and the need to transform the very form of economic integration proposed by B. Balassa toward protecting the national and economic interests of peripheral countries (Malakhova, 2018b, p. 5).

The aim of the research is to identify and reveal the essence of the principles of integration interaction between countries in the model of the new world order, based on current ideas about the multipolar world order, as well as on the basis of a reproductive approach that takes into account the contribution of types of cooperation to the creation of added value, to assess the ability of the RIEB (using the example of the EAEU) to act as one of the poles of the world, the center of economic attraction.

Updating the conceptual foundations of the development of the RIEB in the context of the formation of a multipolar world order

Despite the generally accepted and well-established classical theories, in particular, the study of the development of the RIEB through the prism of the successive passage of the stages of the increasingly complex relations between the member countries of the Balassa integration block (free trade area, customs union, common market, etc.), many points of view have emerged regarding international economic integration. We have grouped them into several groups, which are represented by the following most common approaches (in addition to the above-mentioned so-called the “stadium” approach), reflecting various aspects of this complex phenomenon:

• 1)    the institutional approach (Delyagin, 2003; Ratner, 2013) explores the institutions of block functioning, such as foundations, governing bodies, statutory documents, or new criteria for grouping countries; integration processes are based on the interrelation of two components – the cross-border movement of goods and factors of production (foreign trade, foreign investment, migration, exchange technologies) and their

institutionalization (industrial cooperation, cooperation in science and education, economic policy);

• 2)    the subordination approach (Baldwin, 1993; Frolova et al., 2011), the meaning of which is that countries interact with each other under pressure from stronger RIEB participants, thus some countries prevail in the integration block and infringe on the interests of others; it is noted that less developed countries are forced to join the integration block due to the risk of declining competitiveness;

• 3)    the redistributive approach (Chupina, 2015; Stiglitz, 2019), which provides for the formation of financial mechanisms for pulling weak countries toward strong ones, in particular, the creation of redistributive funds; it is argued that existing financial assistance programs to independent states from international organizations have the opposite effect to the stated goals, therefore, to reduce inequality and maintain economic growth in the integration block, it is necessary to create new support mechanisms.

In turn, the last of the presented approaches is based on the “world-system” paradigm of the world order by I. Wallerstein (cit. ex: Ishukov, 2020). The essence of this paradigm, as it is known, is the grouping of countries into the “center” (“core”, “vanguard”), “semi-periphery” and “periphery”, where the former group respectively holds a dominant position over the latter within the framework of the aging world economic order (Glazyev, 2016; Arrighi et al., 1989; Raagmaa, 2003). In our opinion, the adoption of such a paradigm on a non-alternative basis initially provides for the subordination of one group of countries to another, the dominance of strong countries over less powerful ones. Scientists believe that this is one of the reasons for the failure to fulfill the originally stated goals and objectives of the formation of the RIEB (Malakhova, 2018b). The partial decrease in the effectiveness of the RIEB, the increasing inequality between the countries of the avant-garde and the periphery in recent decades can be also explained by the fact that existing theoretical approaches are based on classical theories of international trade, which became the basis for the establishment of a unipolar (American) liberal world order, and the case of comparative advantage is more appropriately interpreted as the theory of arbitration (purchase and sale transaction with the purpose of making a profit). Such a model of the world is collapsing today, and among modern publications there are more and more suggestions about the need to focus on “non-Western” theories of international relations. The need to rethink the conceptual foundations of international economic integration (IEI) is also indicated by the theory of regionalism, since the “old” regionalism existed in conditions of bipolarity1 (Mikhailenko, 2014; Cihelkova, Frolova, 2014). In particular, the emergence of geopolitical regionalism, aimed at positioning itself in the global space, taking into account national interests and the interests of allies (Kheifets, 2024), testifies to the rethinking, which is becoming more relevant every year.

The accumulated shortcomings of the RIEB, as well as the active formation of multipolar world, suggest a revision of the paradigm of the development of regional economic integration. As an alternative, scientists propose a design approach. For example, V.I. Mikhailenko sees the development of regional integration by overlapping integration projects on top of each other2. In particular, the overlap of the SCO, the EAEU, and the CIS is due to the fact that Russia is a member of each of them. But, in our opinion, T.S. Malakhova’s proposal on the development of the RIEB as a “geostrategic economic block” deserves the most attention, especially in the context of the formation of a multipolar world. Based on the works of G. Myrdal and B. Balassa, the author takes into account “the interests of peripheral countries operating in integration groups” (Malakhova, 2018b, p. 5).

When discussing the essence of the new (multipolar) model of the organization of the world order, scientists and practitioners try not so much to identify new leaders among countries as to formulate principles of interaction. The world is going through the most global transformations in recent times regarding the organization of the world order. The 2020 Global Crisis has mercilessly criticized the fundamental paradigms of globalization that seemed unshakable thirty years ago3. The modern world order is in an unstable transitional state, and a new model of the world is just being formed, so there is no unity in terminology yet – someone uses the term “multipolarity”, some scientists talk about multilateralism. For instance, A. Acharia defines the modern world as a “multiplex world”, calling it “multi-component” (Acharia, 2014), J. Mearsheimer understands the “global distribution of power” by the world order4.

In understanding multipolarity, a political approach prevails in the research of domestic and foreign scientists, in which two world orders are distinguished: the hegemonic one, which presupposes the dominance of one power (the unipolar world), and the balance of power order5 (Acharia, 2014). Summarizing the available relevant points of view, including those expressed at the 15th BRICS summit6, we can conclude that the dominant principle of economic cooperation between countries in the new model of the world is the principle of equal and equitable partnership (hereinafter referred to as the EEP), the essence of which is to build relationships between countries with different levels of development as equal partners. On the one hand, international cooperation is considered as a mechanism for the development of the global economy, on the other hand, it is not always fair and mutually beneficial.

As a result, with the introduction of the EEP principle in a multipolar world, well-being, primarily financial, is transferred from the countries of the so-called “Golden Billion” to all countries (in accordance with the resource contribution to the reproductive process, estimated at fair market prices).

Based on the key words that reveal the meaning of the new model of interaction between the countries, we will call this approach to the functioning of the RIEB as a “partnership” as opposed to the “subordination” mentioned above.

The question immediately arises concerning how this fundamental principle can be put into practice. Scientists agree that the RIEB can act as a center in a multipolar, polycentric world, citing the following arguments. J. Knight believes that in the absence of global governance, the security of peoples, their prosperity and well-being, and environmental protection should be taken over by responsible control and regulation by integrated regional organizations7. At the same time, the choice of order depends primarily on the (global) distribution of power between the great powers. Let us transfer this principle to the RIEB, since such a block is also a collection of countries. The view that integration blocks can contribute to the formation of a new multipolar world order is shared not only by political scientists, but also by economists (Malakhova, 2018a). In particular, the geo-economic fragmentation taking place in the global world contributes to the strengthening of regional integration economic blocks and, consequently, their strengthening as poles (Chernenko et al., 2024, p. 11).

The RIEB is a system in which there is a core leader and a set of elements, which means it has a certain order and hierarchy. For core – element and element –element relations (for example, between developing countries), we propose an expanded conceptual framework for a partnership approach to the development of the RIEB, based on the following theoretical foundations.

The first is distributed leadership. Authoritative representatives of modern management theories have proved that in the context of ongoing technological transformations, especially digitalization, the concept of distributed leadership is gaining momentum, i.e. “the totality of the independence and initiative of many individuals, ... teams” (Gitel’man, 2021, p. 136). Its essence lies in the fact that “scientific and technical knowledge is becoming more complex on the one hand, and more dispersed (i.e. distributed among groups) on the other; ... their volume exceeds the capabilities of one organization and ... ceases to be their prerogative” (Gitel’man, 2021, p. 136). In addition, digital technologies allow subjects to communicate with each other quickly. In terms of the RIEB, individual countries can be leaders in certain areas of the economy and management, thus we can talk about “industry leadership”.

The third is cooperation. We need to return to the basics of the fundamentals of industrial and economic relations, namely cooperation. The integration potential is achieved precisely through mutually beneficial cooperation. This position is confirmed by the recent revival of interest in the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), the purpose of which was to provide assistance to the countries of the socialist camp on the basis of economic, scientific and technical cooperation. We should remember that cooperation is the process of implementing joint development programs through the creation of joint companies and projects of the member countries of the integration block (within the framework of joint value chains). If we take interaction within the industrial reproduction chain as a basis for development, then we are talking about cooperation at all stages of the value chain. An example of this theoretical basis of the partnership approach is the insufficient involvement of companies in integration processes in the postSoviet space (Libman, Kheifets, 2011).

The most problematic research field in the current conditions of global economic development is technological cooperation. We propose to interpret it as a joint process of technology development, exchange of scientific research, and mobility of scientific personnel between states to strengthen mutually beneficial innovative cooperation, which results in technological sovereignty in individual sectors or the national economy of the integration block member countries as a whole. It is precisely such cooperation that should become the basis for the development of countries in the RIEB.

Thus, we imagine the multilateral (multipolar) world as a system of countries with different levels of development, but which have achieved significant success in certain (one or more) sectors of the economy and are able to act as leaders in them, as well as interacting with participants in the reproductive industry process based on a fair redistribution of global income. Theoretically, members of the regional integration block can become industry leaders within the RIEB and thereby move away from the dominance of one country in the block. The countries of the block that do not have leading positions in at least one industry can enter the integration block, but they will be able to act as a pole of growth in the system of multilateral relations only as leadership matures.

Methodological aspect of the research

Within the framework of existing approaches, the RIEB analysis takes into account the place of the integration block in the world in terms of a variety of indicators (in world trade, including digital, in global industry, etc.). Despite the fact that many such calculations have been performed9 (Glazyev, Tkachuk, 2023; Chupina, 2015), we consider them somewhat enlarged. In this article, the assessment is based on a set of indicators reflecting investment, innovation, production, trade and other cross-country relations, i.e. in the context of the GVC links. We have adopted the position of V.V. Perskaya (Perskaya, 2015) as a criterion for assessing integration cooperation, which believes that the volume of intra-block trade should outpace similar indicators in comparison with third countries (non-block trade).

Let us explain the choice of particular indicators. We analyze the “resources” link through the “trade in intermediate goods” indicator. According to the economic purpose, goods are divided into consumer, intermediate and investment. Investment goods are aimed at improving fixed assets, consumer goods are intended for personal consumption, intermediate goods are used for the subsequent production of goods and services. Thus, investment and consumer goods are final, and intermediate goods serve as resources, therefore, the growth rates of mutual and foreign trade in them are used in the methodology for calculating the “resources” link.

We will first determine the index of integration interaction (stage 1) to achieve the goals set in the study. Scientists traditionally evaluate the effectiveness of cooperation between countries within the integration block through the dynamics of foreign trade as a whole. We have attempted to carry out such an assessment in the context of the GVC links, in the context of which the integration interaction index (Formula 1) is proposed to determine the integration interaction of the RIEB countries. Considering that the types of interactions have different meanings (scientific, technological and investment cooperation are more important than simple export-import operations), the importance of the type of interactions α is introduced into the formula. We propose to evaluate it based on the level of added value created in the corresponding link of the reproduction process.

I =

^исмад

Z n        ,

(a t GR ft )

1=1

where I – index of integration interaction;

GR_mi — growth (growth rate) ( GR ) of mutual economic flows of all member countries within the RIEB ( m ) along i -th link of the GVC;

GR^ — growth (growth rate) ( GR ) of external economic flows with third countries of all RIEB member countries ( f ) according to i -th link of the GVC;

i – the GVC link (1 – R&D; 2 – investments; 3 – resources, etc.);

n – number of the GVC links;

α – significance of i-th link of the GVC according to the expert assessment method.

The significance of the links is determined in accordance with the value added distribution curve (the Stan Shih method), further refined by the

Table 1. Criteria for interpreting the calculated values of the integration interaction index

If the growth rates of mutual economic flows of all member countries within the RIEB
<1, i.e. below the growth rate of external economic flows with third countries of all member countries	=1, i.e. equal to the growth rates of external economic flows with third countries of all member countries	>1, i.e. higher rates of external economic flows with third countries of all member countries
Insufficient integration interaction	Equivalent integration interaction	Sufficient integration interaction
Source: own compilation.

9 Shkvarya L.V. (2011). International economic integration in the global economy: Studied aid. Moscow: INFRA-M.

expert assessment method and normalized to the range from 0 to 1. Stan Shih’s method is based on the “Smiling curve”, which he obtained when analyzing his company Acer, and was also developed by other authors (Kaplinsky, 2013; Lundquist, 2007).

Table 1 gives the criteria for interpreting the integration interaction of the RIEB countries through the integration interaction index.

Questionnaires were prepared and sent to the experts to obtain the results of the expert assessments. The focus group of experts was made up of scientists specializing in this field. Their task was to quantify the importance of the link in accordance with the configuration of the value added distribution, that is, with the link’s contribution to the global value chain. The following results were obtained: the importance of the “R&D” and “trade” links in the GVC was 0.93; the “investment” and “marketing” links – 0.86; the “resources” link – 0.76; the “production, assembly” link – 0.74; “logistics” link – 0.79; the “global income redistribution” link – 1.

Next, let us move on to identifying industry leaders (stage 2). Prerequisites for the formation of the RIEB model with industry leadership from different countries are the presence of activities with significant attraction of investments in fixed assets (step 2.1), pronounced product specialization within them (step 2.2), the presence of enterprises in the institutional framework of which the development of the reproductive process is possible

(2.3), as well as innovative projects (2.4). The dominant industry of the RIEB member country is recognized as the industry that has a high share among other industries of the participating country in question or has the highest share in the country under consideration among the shares of other participating countries.

Research results and discussion (the EAEU case study)

Stage 1. Table 2 presents the result of calculating the complex index of integration interaction according to formula 1 using the example of individual indicators (within the framework of a simple value chain for the links “investments”, “resources” and “trade”). The period 2016–2019 was considered intentionally, since in the specified time period the integration processes of the EAEU were implemented without taking into account global conditions, transformations, including the pandemic and sanctions pressure.

In accordance with the methodology for assessing the potential of integration interaction in the RIEB, the values obtained take into account the importance of each link of the Smiling curve according to the expert assessment. Formula 2 shows the calculations.

I =

(0.86 х 116.67) + (0.76 х 113.13) + (0.93 х ⁽¹¹³.²⁶2^{+ п3.8)} )

(0.86 х 164.38) + (0.76 х 109.95) + (о.93 х Cii^ii^+Ai ¹³) ^ (2)

100.3 + 86.0 + 105.6    291.9

⁼ 141.4 + 83.56 + 105.42 ⁼ 330.38 ^{= 0.88}

Table 2. Determination of the EAEU Integration Cooperation Index by links, 2016–2019 (fragment)

Link Investment Resources Trading Using the example of one of the indicators Mutual investments in the total volume of foreign direct investment, billion U.S. dollars Trade in intermediate goods, million U.S. dollars Exports, million U.S. dollars Import, million U.S. dollars GRmi, % 116.67 113.13 113.26 113.8 GRfi, % 164.38 109.95 115.41 111.3 According to: Eurasian Economic Commission. Available at: (accessed: 02.09.2025); OECD Data. Available at: (accessed: 25.08.2025); World Bank Open Data from The World Bank: Data. Available at: https://data.worldbank. org (accessed: 11.09.2025).

The index of integration interaction in the context of the main links of the internationalized reproductive process was 0.88, i.e. less than 1. In accordance with the accepted criterion of success of the RIEB, when the growth rate of mutual economic flows of all countries within the RIEB is lower than the growth rate of external economic flows with third countries of all member countries, we conclude that there is insufficient integration interaction in the EAEU and the need to strengthen cooperation ties and increase the economic power of the RIEB. On the one hand, there are many proposals to strengthen the EAEU, but most of them are focused on strengthening the management institutions of the integration block, including the creation of various support funds (institutional approach, redistributive approach). On the other hand, we can make suggestions for those stages of the GVC where, in our calculations, the private index of integration interaction is less than 1, for example, for the investment link. Some authors do so, suggesting that in order to raise the EAEU on the “wave” of the growth of a new technological order, either a way to upgrade fixed assets with the concentration of available resources on promising areas of modernization and economic development based on targeted credit issuance, or a way to increase the innovation activity of the private sector (Glazyev, Tkachuk, 2023).

All proposals deserve attention, but we see a development path toward the formation of specific industry leadership in each of the EAEU member states (distributed leadership).

At stage 2 (step 2.1), we will determine which industries in the EAEU countries attract the most investments in fixed assets and in which countries can take a leading position. To do this, we will calculate the share of each type of activity in the total investment volume for each category ( Tab. 3 ). For example, the data show that Belarus can become a leader in the manufacturing industry, and Kazakhstan in the mining industry.

Moving from general industry data to specific product categories (stage 2, step 2.2), we analyze the shares of the commodity nomenclature of foreign economic activity (FEA) in the context of mutual trade between the RIEB member countries ( Tab. 4 ). This analysis allows identifying the dominant types of products in each country, including in the context of leadership in its exports.

Table 4 shows that countries can become industry leaders, for example, Armenia and Belarus in the food group.

At stage 2 (steps 2.3 and 2.4), based on statistical data from the websites of companies in the EAEU countries and the statistical database of the EAEU, the leading international enterprises of the EAEU members were identified by priority industries that export their products to third countries, have foreign divisions or a foreign investor, and the largest innovative projects of the integration block were identified ( Tab. 5 ).

Table 3. Types of economic activities with significant attraction of investments in the fixed assets of the EAEU within the member states for 2015–2021

Country Type of economic activity Armenia Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning (19%), accommodation and catering services (4%) Belarus Agriculture, forestry and fisheries (12%), manufacturing (23%) Kazakhstan Mining, quarrying (35%) Kyrgyzstan Provision of other services, including housing construction (32%) Russia Professional, scientific and technical activities (4%) According to: Department of Statistics of the ECE. Investments in fixed assets. Available at: (accessed: 04.09.2025).

Table 4. Types of commodity nomenclature of foreign economic activity with significant mutual trade turnover of the EAEU within the member states for 2015–2021

Country Type of commodity nomenclature of foreign economic activity Armenia Vegetable and animal products (15%), prepared food products; alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and vinegar; tobacco and its substitutes (40%) Belarus Live animals; products of animal origin (21%); machinery, equipment and mechanisms; electrical equipment; parts thereof; sound recording and reproducing equipment, equipment for recording and reproducing television images and sound, their parts and accessories (14%) Kazakhstan Mineral products (37%), chemical and related industries (14%), base metals and products made from them (29%) Kyrgyzstan Textile materials and textile products (20%), stone, gypsum, cement, asbestos, mica or similar materials; ceramic products; glass and glass products (6%) Russia Mineral products (35%), machinery, equipment and mechanisms; electrical equipment and its parts; sound recording and reproducing equipment, equipment for recording and reproducing television images and sound, its parts and accessories (11%) According to: Department of Statistics of the ECE. Mutual trade. Available at: tradestat/tables/intra/ (accessed: 04.03.2024).

Table 5. Enterprises and the largest innovative projects of the EAEU (fragment on Kazakhstan and Russia)

Country Priority industries Industries Enterprises The largest innovative projects Kazakhstan Mineral products ТОО KAzRosGas, Karachaganak Petroleum Operating, North Caspian Operating Company First integrated gas chemical complex Mining and metallurgical industry АО TEMK, Company Stal Servis Kazakhstan, Eurasian Resources Group Production of tin concentrates, etc. Chemical products JSC Chimpharm, Abdi Ibrahim Global Pharm, JSC Nobel Pharmaceutical Almaty Factory Production of soda ash, ammonia and carbamide Russia Mineral products Lukoil, Gazprom, Rosneft Construction of a gas chemical complex, etc. Mining and metallurgical industry UGMK, RUSAL, RMK Creation of a center of technological competence for aluminum and titanium casting, etc. Chemical products Biocad, Group POLIPLASTIK Construction of a factory of active pharmaceutical substances, etc. According to: Open data from the websites of companies of the EAEU member states, the Report of the Eurasian Economic Commission “On the state of the business and investment climate in the Member States of the Eurasian Economic Union”. Available at: (accessed: 29.08.2025); EAEU Industrialization Map. Available at: accessed: 02.09.2025); Decision of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council 15, dated July 17, 2020 “On the Industrialization Map of the Eurasian Economic Union”. Available at: (accessed: 15.07.2025).

One of the indicators of strength in the context of the balance of power, considered as a criterion of multipolarity, is the ability of a country to attract and retain global (regional) industrial value chains (GVC) on its territory. At the next stage of the study, based on the results of previous stages, we will identify priority industries for the EAEU member states ( Tab. 6 ).

According to the priority sectors of the EAEU countries outlined above, as well as the RF Government resolution on the areas of technological sovereignty projects, the following sub-sectors should be supported first of all as part of strengthening the technological development of the EAEU ( Tab. 7 ).

Thus, within the framework of the polycentric structure of the EAEU, it is possible to single out the leadership of individual states in specific industries to redistribute the economic dominance of individual countries in the EAEU (the so-called “center–periphery” in the language of the world-system approach). However, as a rule, such leadership belongs to a group of countries.

Within the framework of the concept of distributed industry leadership, to strengthen the EAEU integration block, it is recommended that Russia and Kazakhstan become leaders in the following industries: mineral products, mining, metallurgy and chemical products with dominance in high-value-added sectors (R&D, trade, investment, marketing, redistribution of global income); Armenia, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan will become the leaders of the textile industry and agriculture, with dominance in high-value-added sectors.

Conclusion

We designate the following as a conclusion, within the framework of the stated aim:

– the essence of the multipolar world order is realized through the basic principle of interaction between countries – the principle of “equal and fair cooperation”, the meaning of which is revealed through the totality of the components of this concept, including the spread of financial prosperity among all countries participating in the integration process;

Table 6. Priority industries of the EAEU member states for the development of industrial internationalized reproduction process

Country	Industry
	Agriculture	Textiles and clothing	Mechanical engineering	Mineral products	Mining and metallurgy	Chemical
Armenia	+	+
Belarus	+	+	+
Kazakhstan				+	+	+
Kyrgyzstan	+	+		+
Russia				+	+	+
According to: data of Tables 3–5.

Table 7. Sub-sectors determining technological development

Countries Kazakhstan, Russia Belarus Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan Sub-industries Medical industry, oil and gas engineering, pharmaceutical industry, chemical industry Automotive industry, specialized mechanical engineering, machine tool industry and heavy machinery Agricultural engineering According to: Department of Statistics of the ECE. Mutual trade. Available at: tradestat/tables/intra/ (accessed: 04.09.2025).

– the RIEB countries can act as leaders in individual industries, thereby eliminating the dominance of one country in the context of distributed leadership and GVC;

– the calculated value of the author’s index of integration interaction of 0.88 indicates the insufficiency of integration interaction within the EAEU;

– despite Russia’s continued dominance in the EAEU (Chupina, 2015), industry leaders are emerging. This indicates the beginning of the transition of the EAEU from the “center – periphery” model of a world-system approach (Ishukov, 2020) to a more polycentric structure, which in the future will strengthen its position as one of the poles in a multipolar world. For such development, in addition to redistributive funds (Chupina, 2015), it is necessary to create targeted incentive funds, for example, for technological integration within individual industry chains, using redistributed global income for specific reproductive processes.

The novelty of the conducted research lies, first, in substantiating the principle of equal and fair cooperation, the essence of which is to form partnerships between countries regardless of their level of development; second, in testing a methodological approach to assessing the strength of integration interaction, which is determined by the dominance of intra-block interaction over interaction with third countries; third, in assessing integration cooperation, taking into account the importance of the types of cooperation (investment, resource, trade) and the contribution to the configuration of the distribution of added value.