Comparative Analysis of Trade Explaining Factors:

Evidence from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan

Prepared by: Guljahon Pirmamadova

Academic Supervisor: dr. habil Lukasz Gryszczynski

December, 2016
 Structure
• Introduction
• Development of trade patterns: similarities and differences
• Theoretical framework
• Literature review
• Methodology and data description
• Discussion of results
• Conslusion
• Bilbliography
• Appendix
 Introduction
Table 1. General Information
Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan
Area 199,951 sq km (land: 143,100 sq km (land:
191,801 sq km; 141,510 sq km; water:
water: 8,150 sq km) 2,590 sq km)
Population (2015) 5,9 million 8,5 million
GDP/capita (2015) 1017,15 USD 917,08 USD
Landlocked  
Mountainous terrain 65% 93%
Size of export 148th 159th
ECI 104th 117th
Membership in CIS, WTO, CIS, EurAsEc, WTO,
economic integrations EurAsEc, EAEU, CIFTA
CISFTA
Trade balance (2015) - 2,4 bln USD -2,5 bln USD

Source: Agency of Statistics under Presidency of the Republic of Tajikistan, National Statistical Committee
of the Kyrgyz Republic, Observation of Economic Complexity, World Development Indicators.
Trend of balance of trade (in mln
USD)
Tajikistan Kyrgyzstan
500
0
95 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
-3500
-4000
-4500

Source: calculations are based on ITC, UN Comtrade, State

Statistical Agency of Tajikistan
Aim:
• To identify chief determinants of external trade;
• To estimate trade potential.

Significance of the study:

• Serves as a rationale for extracting effective policy implications for trade;
• Enables to distinguish scope for expanding trade links (within the framework regional
integration for Kyrgyzstan or on the bilateral level in case of Tajikistan).

Research questions:
• How has external trade patterns of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan changed since independence?
• What has been the driving force behind these transformations?
• Which factors influence international trade flows of the two post-Soviet states in
accordance with the gravity model of international trade?
• With which trading partners trade potential of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan remains
unrealized?

Limitations:
• Trade indicators presented in rounded form
• Reliability of the available statistics is in doubt
 Development of trade patterns:
similarities and differences
• Trade and economic indicators of the Kyrgyz Republic has been more favorable
compared to its neighbor, although the degree of divergence is not significant. Export of
natural resources still constitutes major share of export of the two countries with
weakening index of competitiveness.
• Diagram 1 and 2. Trend of trade and GDP during the period 1995-2015 in million
USD. Comparative illustration. (Kyrgyzstan on the left and Tajikistan on the right)

10000 10000
9000 9000
8000 8000
7000 7000
6000 6000
Import Import
5000 5000
Export Export
4000 GDP 4000 GDP
3000
3000
2000
2000
1000
1000
0
95 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0
95 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Source: WDI, State Statistical Agencies of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan

 Import structure and share of main import partners of Kyrgyzstan as of 2015 (in %)
Mineral,
mineral
metals, eral
products Min ts
foodstuff, 31 uc
metals prod s
4% 4% chem.prod l
foodstuffs
25
me a tuffs
t
4% Petroleum oils o d s
fo Te
4%
Motor vehic. pre xtile
ma c.mt s,
5% 17 c ls
40% Medicaments pla hine ,
sti s
6% Chocolate cs ,
12
Civ. engineering plant
8% & equipment 4
3
2 2
Wood porducts 1 1
Footwear sia in
a
Ru
s
Ch tan ey
26% hs rk SA y e
ak u U an ain n
az T rm r pa sta
n er
K G
e U
k Ja ki th
e O
zb
Source: author’s calculations based on ITC and UN ComtradeU
Share of chief import partners and import structure of Tajikistan as of 2015 (in %)
Mineral, wood, 18% Transport, machines and
Textiles, 22%
metals, equipment
machines,
foodstuff 31
footwear Mineral products
metals Veg
et
22
min able, 6% Vegetable products
foo e ra
dstu l,
met ffs, Nonprecious stones
16 als
7%
Chemical products
17%
14
Consumer goods
4 10%
4 3 Wood and wood
3 products
2
2 11%
10%
sia in
a Others
Ru
s tan key
Ch khs r Ira
n
an
Tu ist nd ni
a
Source: author’s calculations based on data of State Statistical Committee
K
az
a
k m
en
itzerla
ith ua
an
ist
an
O
th
er
 Export structure and share of main export partners of Kyrgyzstan as of 2015 (in %)
Textiles,
chem. &
24%
vegetable
products, Min Precious stones & metals
e
Gold 34 meta rals, 40% Meat products
ls,
food Electric current
s
mac tuffs,
hine Motor vehic.
s 4%
22 Vegetables
5% Fruits and nuts
Petroleum oils
9 3% Women's clothing
8
5% Other
6
5 8
4 6% 10%
2
1
2%

Source: author’s calculations based on ITC and UN Comtrade

Export structure and share of main export partners of Tajikistan as of 2015 (in %)

Raw almn &

Nonprecious stones and
4% 3%
1% metals cotton, cotton
yarn
26% Gold Mi
Precious & semiprecious 29 n
stones and metalli & eral
19% v
pro eg.
23 du
Mineral products ct
s
Textile Matrials 16

Vegetable products
7 6
Transport, machines and 6
23% 23% equipment 3 5
3
1
Others

Source: author’s calculations based on data of State Statistical Committee

Changes in share of chief import partners and import structure of Kyrgyzstan (in %)

EAEU CIS FSU Total import Petroleum oils

2015
Motor vehic.
Medicaments
2010
6000 Chocolate
5000 2005 Civ. engineering plant &
4000 equipment

3000 Wood porducts

2000
2000 Footwear

1000 Telecommunication equipment

1995
0 Wheat unmilled
95 0 1 2 Other
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 00%
11 12 13 14 15 1

Source: author’s calculations based on ITC and UN Comtrade

Changes in share of chief import partners and import structure of Tajikistan (in %)
EAEU CIS FSU Total Import
2015

2010 Petroleum products

4500
4000 Aluminium ores & metals
3500 Metallic salts
3000 2005 Clothing & footwear
2500 Wheat and flour products
2000 Electricity
1500 2000
1000 Road vehicles
500 Other
0 1995
95 0 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
11 12 13 14 15
Source: author’s calculations based on publications of State Statistical Committee
Changes in share of chief export partners and export structure of Kyrgyzstan (in %)
Gold
2015
Electricity
2000 Road vehicle
2010
1500 Vegetables
Fruits and nuts
1000 2005
Petroleum oils
500 Women's clothing
2000
Non-ferrous metals
0
95 0 1 2 Radio-actives and
3 4 5 6 1995 materials
7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14
15 Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 00%
EAEU CIS FSU Total Export 1

Source: author’s calculations based on ITC and UN Comtrade

Changes in share of chief export partners and export structure of Tajikistan (in %)

2015
1600
1400
1200 2010 Aluminium
1000 Cotton
800 Fruits and nuts
600 2005 Vegetables
400 Textile yarn
200 Electric current
2000 Cotton fabrics, woven
0
95 0 1 2 Other
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 1995
11 12 13 14
15

EAEU CIS FSU Export 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source: author’s calculations based on publications of National Statistical Committee

• Kyrgyz Republic has greater Diagram 3. Quantity of products with
number of export products with comparative advantage
revealed comparative advantage*
than Tajikistan. Such ratio Tajikistan Kyrgyzstan

indicates higher competitiveness 120 116

100 91 99
of the country’s export. Its 80 70 85

products with highest RCA are 60

48 56
55 60
textile and clothing, as well as 40
47
20
mineral and animal products. For 0
Tajikistan the list comprises 1995
2000
2005
2010
mostly food products and 2014

aluminum. Source: extracted from the ADB Report on

Tajikistan (2016), p 14
*According to Balassa (1965), revealed comparative advantage (RCA) is an indicator of intensity of export of
certain commodity by a country compared to the rest of the world.
 Theoretical Framework
• The idea of gravity model
originates from the
Newton’s law of universal
gravitation. When applied to
international trade, the
gravity model takes the
following form:
• In its classical form the
gravity model was first
applied in international
trade by Tinbergen (1962)
and Pöyhönen (1963).
• Once the results of the
empirical assessment with
respect to 42 trading
partners were successful, the
gravity model becomes
widely popular among other
researchers.
 Intuitive assumptions

Monopolistic
Utility functions & LES
competition & IRS

American economist
James E. Anderson
Dutch economist, Nobel laureate (1969) Jan Tinbergen
(April 12, 1903 – June 9, 1994) (1943)

American economist, Nobel laureate

(2008) Paul Robin Krugman
(February 28, 1953)
 Literature Review
Author(s) Estimator Dataset Results
Fidrmuc J., Fidmurc Cross sectional Bilateral trade flows of OECD countries Trade among Belarus, Ukraine and Russia follows a U
J. (2003) OLS (except Iceland, Korea and Mexico) shape form. Whilst in 1992 bilateral trade between
together with selected Central and them was 43 times bellow prediction of the model,
Eastern European countries each year already in 1998 countries traded 30 times above their
between 1990 and 1998 potential.
Babetskii I, Panel OLS Trade of 82 countries during six years South-eastern Europe and the CIS trade considerably
Koukhartch O. and (1997-2002), generating 39,852 less with the rest of the world than with the 8 transition
Raiser, M (2003) observations economies to access the EU in May 2004.
Khatibi, A. (2008) OLS and GLS 34,763 observations for Kazakhstan For Kazakhstan gains from accession to the WTO will
    covering the period 1995 to 2006 work best with complementary institutional reforms.
Kurmanalieva, E Panel OLS Bilateral trade of Kyrgyzstan with 178 Policy of trade liberalization of the Kyrgyz Republic
(2008)   countries over the period 1996-2005 has a significant positive impact on trade
Kurmanalieva E. and Fixed effects Their dataset consisted of 171 countries Despite the increasing trade with the rest of the world,
Papiev Z. (2008) OLS covering the period 1997-2004. intra-regional trade of CA countries within the CIS
manifested a falling tendency
Felipe J., Kumar U. Heckman 140 countries, 19,460 observations for Enhancing trade facilitation generates considerable
(2010) Maximum 2005 gains in trade for CA countries.
Likelihood
Guc Y, Suvankulov F. Panel OLS Trade between CA countries and their 5 Turkey and China exported to CA countries beyond
(2012) major trade partners during 1996-2009 their trade potential.
Sugaipova, M. (2015) PPML Bilateral trade of Belarus, Russia and EAEU membership boosts the countries’ trade flows by
Kazakhstan with 45 countries over 4 approximately 150percent.
years
Naktova, M (2016) Fixed effects 26 trade partners of Tajikistan during Tajikistan’s accession to the EurAsEC only led to trade
OLS 1995-2013. creation with no implications of trade diversion.
Methodology and data description
• Since
  application of traditional log-linearized
gravity equation was proven biased under the
presence of heteroscedasticity and incapable to
incorporate zero trade flows, this study relies
on the results of the Poisson Pseudo-Maximum
Likelihood estimator. Final equation,
therefore, looks as follows:
 Where..
•  
• ) – bilateral trade in USD (represents amount of export and import both
individually and combined)
• – product of GDPs of the trading partners
• PCYD – difference in income of trading partners
• – distance between trading partners
• – indicator of economic and institutional factors which potentially affect trade
(real exchange rate, corruption, cost to import/export, burden of customs
procedures)
• – stands for quantitative variables to control for adjacency, PTAs, common
language and history

Note that trade values are expressed in levels, whereas explanatory variables are
incorporated in logs.
 Description of data
• For comparative purpose bilateral trade is observed with respect to 52 (for the Kyrgyz
Republic) and 50 (in case of Tajikistan) top trading partners of the two post-Soviet
states during 21 years of independence (1995-2015). The list of countries was
afterwards Figure 8 illustrates trading partners of both countries under examination.
• Figure 8. Visual illustration of trading partners of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan included
in the analysis.

Kazakhstan Afghanistan
Kazakhstan Afghanistan
Bulgaria Denmark Georgia
Bulgaria Denmark Georgia
Australia Austria Belarus Estonia Germany Israel
Australia Austria Belarus Estonia Germany Israel
Ireland Azerbaijan Canada Finland Greece Italy Armenia
Ireland Azerbaijan Canada Finland Greece Italy Armenia
Malaysia Czech Rep China France Hungary Japan Belgium
Malaysia Czech Rep China France Hungary Japan Belgium
Mexico Pakistan Slovakia UAE India Korea Kyrgyzstan
Mexico Pakistan Slovakia UAE India Korea Kyrgyzstan
Sri Lanka Poland Slovenia UK Turkey Latvia Portugal
Sri Lanka Poland Slovenia UK Turkey Latvia Portugal
Thailand Romania Spain Ukraine Turkmenistan Lithuania Vietnam
Thailand Romania Spain Ukraine Turkmenistan Lithuania Vietnam
Tajikistan Russia Sweden USA Netherlands
Tajikistan Russia Sweden USA Netherlands
Switzerland Uzbekistan Norway
Switzerland Uzbekistan Norway
Moldova Iran Singapore
Moldova Iran Singapore
• Moreover, an additional observation was conducted for the Kyrgyz
Republic to check the validity of regression coefficients. Thanks to the
availability of trade statistics, the number of observations was increased
to 148 trading partners covering the period of 15 years (2001-2015).
• Complete list of variables incorporated in the analysis of the gravity
model of international trade is as follows:
LOG of Dummy In level
GDPs (+) REER (+/-) Adjacency (+) Common Import
language (+)
PCGDPs (+) Cost to Landlocked (-) CIS (+) Export
import/export (-)
PCGDPD (+/-) Burden of EAEU (+) Trade
customs Turnover
procedures (+)
Trade Openness (+) Corruption (+) Common
history (+)
Distance (-)
 Discussion of the results
• Having applied the gravity model of international
trade, it becomes evident that historical ties continue
remaining the main determinants of the two
countries’ import flows. The value of import from
countries which do not share common history with
the Kyrgyz Republic and Republic of Tajikistan is
up to 92 % (exp (-2.46)-1) and 82 % (exp (-2.45)-1)
less than with the post-Soviet states. Such high
coefficients are in line with findings of similar
studies.
 At the same time..
• Other variables which
positively affect import flows
of the Kyrgyz Republic are
GDP and trade openness of
its trading partners, domestic
real exchange rate,
contingency and regional
integrations. In contrast,
distance and partners’ export
costs have a negative
influence on import flow to
the Kyrgyz Republic.
• Additional determinants
which positively influence
import flows in case of
Tajikistan are trading
partner’s GDP, partner’s real
exchange rate, regional
integrations and partner’s
trade openness indicator.
Distance between trading
partners and import cost, in
turn, cause significant
negative impact on trade.
 Untapped trade potential (in mln USD)
Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan

China Uzbekistan Uzbekistan India

-135,6USA India Azerbaijan UK
Germany UK Czech Republic Germany
Turkmenistan France USA Israel
Tajikistan Azerbaijan -349,8
Japan Estonia
Italy UAE France Netherlands
-110,3
Netherlands Lithuania Romania Belgium
Switzerland Japan Singapore Vietnam
Thailand Estonia Ukraine Spain
Spain Mexico Belarus Georgia
-56,5
Australia Latvia Poland Canada
Malaysia Pakistan Bulgaria Korea
-45,2 -47,9 -49,2 Israel Denmark -42 -48,3 -78,5 Armenia Italy
Austria Czech Republic Austria Norway
Ireland Kyrgyzstan

Source: author’s calculations based on the results of the gravity model applied with the
PPML estimator
 Conclusion
The study examined changes in external trade patterns of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. In
doing so, the research identified to what degree the traditional gravity model alongside
its extended versions are able to explain bilateral trade flows of the two post-Soviet
countries. The main focus was to outline chief determinants of international trade and to
estimate trade potentials of the two countries by applying the Poisson Pseudo Maximum
Likelihood estimator.
It appears that historically established trade links and trade infrastructure alongside
similarities in customs procedures and common language continue dominating among
other trade explaining factors. Hence, further regional integration initiatives should
consider expanding the scope of integration and preferential treatment with other former-
Soviet Republics not included in the CIS.
As of 2015, top trading partners with which Kyrgyz Republic has unrealized trade
potential were China, Uzbekistan, USA, India and Germany. Tajikistan, in turn, was
expected to trade more with Uzbekistan, India, Azerbaijan, United Kingdom and Czech
Republic. No similar conclusions could be drawn on export capacity of the two countries,
since factors explaining their relatively undiversified export lie beyond the scope of the
gravity equation.
Thank you for your attention!
 Bibliography
• Anderson, James E. "A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation."The American Economic Review 69, no. 1, 106-16, 1979,
accessed August 10, 2016, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1802501.
• Asian Development Bank. “Tajikistan: Promoting Export Diversification and Growth Country Diagnostic Study,” accessed
September 5, 2016, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/189730/taj-export-diversification-growth.pdf.
• Babetskii, I., Kukharchuk, Oxana Babetskaia, and Raiser, M. "How deep is your trade? Transition and international integration in
Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union." European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, accessed September 19, 2016,
http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/research/economics/workingpapers/wp0083.pdf.
• Beshimov, A., Shinn, A., Usuballiev A. “Economic Consequences of the Customs Union for the Kyrgyz Republic.” 2011, p 14,
accessed October 5, 2016, http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnaec882.pdf.
• Bergstrand, Jeffrey H. “The Gravity Equation in International Trade: Some Microeceonomic Foundations and Empirical Evidence.”
The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 67, no. 3, August, 1965, 474-481, accessed August 20, 2016,
http://people.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/SS280/gravitytrade.pdf.
• Claire Gicquel et al., Kyrgyz Republic: Selected Issues, IMF country Report No16/56, Kyrgyzstan, November 19, 2016, accessed
November 25, 2016, https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2016/cr1656.pdf.
• Clinton, R. Shiels. “Trade and the Trade Potential of the CIS-7 Countries” December 19, 2003, accessed September 7, 2016,
http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website00504/WEB/PDF/IMF_TR-3.PDF
• Commonwealth of Independent States, “Tajikistan ratified the agreement on free trade area in the framework of the CIS,” CA-News,
December 24, 2015, accessed April 15, 2016, http://e-cis.info/news.php?id=13731.
• Deardorff, Alan V. “Determinants of Bilateral Trade: Does Gravity Work in a Neoclassical World?” In Jeffrey A. Frankel (ed.) The
Regionalization of the World Economy. NBER, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 7-28, 1998, accessed August 25, 2016,
accessed October 1, 2016, http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7818.pdf.
• Fidrmuc, Jan, Fidrmuc, Jarko. “Disintegration and Trade.” Review of International Economics, vol. 11, issue 5, pages 811-829, 2003,
accessed September 20, 2016, http://econpapers.repec.org/article/blareviec/v_3a11_3ay_3a2003_3ai_3a5_3ap_3a811-829.htm.
• Helpman, Elhanan and Krugman, R. Paul. Market Structure and Foreign Trade: Increasing Returns, Imperfect Competition, and the
International Economy, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, London, 1985, accessed August 12,
2016, https://www.scribd.com/doc/90616061/Helpman-krugman-1999-Market-Structure-and-Foreign-Trade
• International Monetary Fund. "Selected Issues Kyrgyz Republic." IMF Country Report no. 16/56, February 2016, accessed
September 15, 2016, https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2016/cr1656.pdf.
• International Trade Center. International Trade Statistics 2001-2016, accessed October 18, 2016,
http://www.intracen.org/itc/market-info-tools/trade-statistics/.
• Kurmanalieva, Elvira and Parpiev, Ziyodullo. "Geography and Trade in Central Asia", January, 2008, accessed September 12, 2016,
https://www.academia.edu/3732006/Geography_and_Trade_in_Central_Asia.
• Kurmanalieva, Elvira and Vinokurov, Eugeny. "Holding Together or Falling Apart: Results of Gravity Equation of the CIS trade" Eurasian Development
Bank, June 2011, accessed September 18, 2016, https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/32003/1/MPRA_paper_32003.pdf.
• Martínez-Zarzoso, Inmaculada. "The Log of Gravity Revisited.", accessed October 1, 2016,
http://repositori.uji.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10234/39421/49226.pdf;sequence=1.
• Nakatova, Mohbonu. "Trade Effects of Regional Economic Integration in Tajikistan: The Case of EurAsEC," August 23, 2016, accessed October 1, 2016,
https://minerva.usc.es/xmlui/handle/10347/14852.
• National Statistical Committee. “Kyrgyzstan in numbers,” Bishkek, July, 2016, p 248, accessed November 22, 2016,
http://www.stat.kg/media/publicationarchive/b40aaf45-f887-467a-8b7d-ca3943392999.pdf
• Observation of Economic Complexity. Accessed November 22, 2016, http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/rankings/country/2014/.
• Poyhonen, Pentti. “A Tentative Model for the Volume of Trade between Countries.” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 90, 93-100, 1963, accessed August 5,
2016, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40436776.
• CEPII Research and Expertise on the World Economy, accessed August 25, 2016, http://www.cepii.fr/CEPII/en/bdd_modele/bdd.asp.
• Silva, Santos J. M. C. and Tenreyro, Silvana. "The Log of Gravity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 641-658,
November 2006, accessed September 21, 2016, http://personal.lse.ac.uk/tenreyro/jensen08k.pdf
• State Statistical Agency under President of the Republic of Tajikistan. “Socio-economic conditions of the Republic of Tajikistan for the period January-
December.” January 12, 2016, p 237-245, accessed October 10, 2016, http://www.stat.tj/ru/img/3c8b737e693be8769270f0f588a0a0e5_1455852583.pdf
• State Statistical Agency under President of the Republic of Tajikistan. “Tajikistan in Figures”, 2013, p 121-124, accessed August 7, 2016,
http://istmat.info/files/uploads/53198/tadzhikistan_v_cifrah_2013.pdf.
• State Statistical Agency under President of the Republic of Tajikistan. Tajikistan: 20 years of National Independence. Statistical Collection, 2011, p 675-
686
• Sugaipova, Maryam “Eurasian Economic Union, Regional Integration and the Gravity Model,” University of Oslo, January 2015, accessed August 5,
2016, https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/43862/Maryam-Sugaipova-.pdf?sequence=1
• Swiss Cooperation Office Tajikistan. “Annual Economic Report (2015), Tajikistan“, p 6, accessed October 10, 2016,
http://www.s-ge.com/sites/default/files/WB_1605_E_Wirtschaftsbericht-Tadschikistan.pdf .
• Tinbergen, Jan. “An Analysis of Trade flows” in J. Tinbergen (ed.), Shaping the World Economy. Twentieth Century Fund, New York, 1962, accessed
September 2, 2016, http://repub.eur.nl/pub/16826.
• World Bank Group. “Doing Business in Kyrgyzstan: Going Beyond Efficiency.” A World Bank Group Flagship Report, accessed September 28, 2016,
http://bit.ly/2gjX7Hg
• World Bank. World Development Indicators, accessed October 12, 2016, http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators
• World Trade Organization. The accession process of the Republic of Tajikistan to the WTO. accessed October 15, 2016,
http://www.wto.tj/en/tj-wto/accession/process-membership/
• World Trade Organization. Trade Policy Review Report by Kyrgyz Republic. 1 October 2013, accessed October 1, 2016,
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/g288_e.pdf
 Appendix Results of the PPML Regression for
Kyrgyzstan (supplemented variable: export
cost)

Results of the PPML regression for the Kyrgyz

Republic (52 trading partners)

Results of the PPML regression for the

Kyrgyz Republic (all trading partners)
Results of the PPML regression for
Tajikistan (50 trading partners)

Results of the PPML regression for

Tajikistan (supplemented variable: cost to
export)