Download Sectoral analysis of the Russian economy

Sectoral analysis of
the Russian economy
Svetlana Ledyaeva
Aalto University
School of Business
What we have learned from previous
lecture
• Decline of the price of oil at the world market and the role of
Mikhail Gorbachev`s reforms were important in the collapse of
Soviet Union.
• Transition reforms were quick, rather spontaneous and have led to
a rather deep crisis in the Russian economy.
• However, in the period 1999-2013 due to the rise of oil price in the
international market and “not bad” macroeconomic policy, Russian
economy started to grow.
Learning outcomes of this lecture
• Transformation of Russian industrial structure in recent two
decades.
• Industrial aspects of privatization and ownership in Russia.
• Concept of Dutch disease – fundamental theoretical concept
of Russian economic development.
• Dutch disease in Russia.
Role of industries in Soviet Economy (4)
• Soviet times: one of the world's three top manufacturers of heavy
industrial products (including aviation and arms) + richness in
natural resources.
• Unbalanced economic structure (agriculture, light industries and
services were neglected).
• Plan allocation of industries. 5 year central plans: First plan 19281933; Last plan (12th) 1986-1990.
• Prices were determined by government: Soviet enterprises
obtained raw materials such as oil, gas, and coal at prices below
world market levels, encouraging waste.
• Transportation costs were heavily subsidised, so it encouraged
inefficient allocation of some industries.
Industrial structure of Soviet Russia (5)
Russia’s deviations from “normal” structures of market
economies were substantial:
•
•
•
•
the greater shares of heavy industry,
the low shares of services,
the high shares of food, consumption,
the underutilization of foreign trade.
• These structural distortions contributed to the
stagnation and decline of the planned economies.
Restructuring process of the Russian
economy (Yasin 1996) (6)
Volume
of GDP
Stabilization
Passive phase
Active phase
Equillibrium in the low
point of crisis
Time
Restructuring process and dynamics of output of main
idustrial sectors in Russia (Yasin 2013) (7)
Fuel and
energy
Level of output
Metallurgy
Food
Chemistry&petrochemistry
Met.
Food
Forestry
Chem.
Machine and
metal
processing
Forest
processing
Construction
materials
Mach.
Constr.mat.
Consumer
goods
Years
Passive phase
Active phase
Changes in industrial structure during
transition: Summary (8)
•
The output of natural resource-based sectors fell by about 30-40% during
1992–1994, other industrial sectors declined by roughly 50-60%. As a result
the weight of natural resources- based sectors in the
economy increased.
• A significant shift from goods production towards the service
sector, usually neglected by Soviet planners. In 2003 for Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS) service sector accounted for about 46% of GDP (in
1991 - around 30%), and share of industrial production in GDP has fallen from
around 54% to about 41%.
• The share of raw-materials-producing sectors in industrial
output and exports has risen sharply, while the share of
processing industries has contracted.
Indices of industrial production, % to
previous year (9)
120.0
100.0
80.0
Industrial production
60.0
Extraction of natural resources
40.0
Processing industries
20.0
Gas, electricity and water distribution
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
0.0
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
Extraction of natural resources
60.0
Extraction of fuel and energy resources
40.0
Extraction of other resources
20.0
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
0.0
Indices of industrial production, processing
industries; % to previous year (10)
160.0
Processing industries
Including
140.0
Food, tabacco and beverages
Textile and garment manufacturing
120.0
Leather, leather goods and shoes manufacturing
Wood processing and manufacturing goods from wood
100.0
Pulp and paper manufacturing; publishing and polygraphic
activities
80.0
Coke and petrochemicals manufacturing
Chemical manufacturing
60.0
Rubber and plastic goods manufacturing
Other non-metallic mineral goods manufacturing
40.0
Metallurgy and ready metal goods manufacturing
Machine and equipment manufacturing
20.0
Electrical, electronic and optical equipment manufacturing
Transport vehicles and equipment manufacturing
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
0.0
Other manufacturing
Indices of industrial production, % to
1991 (11)
120
100
80
Industrial production
60
Extraction of natural resources
40
Processing industries
20
Gas, electricity and water distribution
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
0
140
120
100
Extraction of natural resources
80
60
Extraction of fuel and energy
resources
40
Extraction of other resources
20
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
0
Indices of industrial production,
processing industries; % to 1991 (12)
250
Processing industries
Food, tabacco and beverages
200
Textile and garment manufacturing
Leather, leather goods and shoes manufacturing
Wood processing and manufacturing goods from wood
Pulp and paper manufacturing; publishing and polygraphic
activities
150
Coke and petrochemicals manufacturing
Chemical manufacturing
Rubber and plastic goods manufacturing
100
Other non-metallic mineral goods manufacturing
Metallurgy and ready metal goods manufacturing
Machine and equipment manufacturing
50
Electrical, electronic and optical equipment manufacturing
Transport vehicles and equipment manufacturing
Other manufacturing
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
0
Indices of industrial production, % of 2007, 2009,
2010, 2013 and 2015 to 1991 (13)
Industry
%,
2007
to
1991
%,
2009
to
1991
%,
2010
to
1991
%,
2013
to
1991
%,
2015
to
1991
85
76
82
89
88
Extraction of natural resources; including:
105
103
107
111
113
Extraction of fuel and energy resources
117
116
120
124
126
Extraction of other resources
67
57
60
68
70
Processing industries; including:
83
70
78
89
86
Food, tobacco and beverages
87
89
91
99
104
Textile and garment manufacturing
28
22
24
25
22
Leather, leather goods and shoes manufacturing
27
26
32
31
27
Wood processing and manufacturing goods from wood
54
42
47
54
50
126
106
109
117
110
Coke and petrochemicals manufacturing
78
79
84
92
97
Chemical manufacturing
91
82
91
110
117
Rubber and plastic goods manufacturing
113
121
151
200
207
Other non-metallic mineral goods manufacturing
64
41
47
55
52
Metallurgy and ready metal goods manufacturing
100
82
92
103
97
64
42
49
54
44
148
94
112
131
120
59
41
52
69
68
104
83
100
103
100
89
87
89
88
86
Industrial production (total)
Pulp and paper manufacturing; publishing and polygraphic activities
Machine and equipment manufacturing
Electrical, electronic and optical equipment manufacturing
Transport vehicles and equipment manufacturing
Other manufacturing
Gas, electricity and water distribution
Industrial structure of GDP in 1960 for Soviet Russia, %
(Shumkov 2010) (14)
2.02
2.97
5.4
17.86
3.8
15.31
1.3
0
0.25
5.1
6.03
0.85
18.12
11.7
6.88
2.4
Net taxes
Agriculture and forestry
Fisheries
Mining
Manufacturing
Electricity and water
Construction
Trade and repair
Hotel and restaurants
Transport and communications
Finance
Leasing property
State governance, military security
Education
Healthcare
Other public utilities, social services
Industrial structure of GDP in 2010 for modern Russia, %
(Shumkov 2010) (15)
2.06
4.11
2.52 1.53
14.88
3.87
0.19
9.4
3.87
7.87
7.99
15.08
0.87
17.88
5.46
2.41
Net taxes
Agriculture and forestry
Fisheries
Mining
Manufacturing
Electricity and water
Construction
Trade and repair
Hotel and restaurants
Transport and communications
Finance
Leasing property
State governance, military security
Education
Healthcare
Other public utilities, social services
100%
90%
80%
70%
Industrial structure of Russian GDP,
2002-2014 (Rosstat data) (16)
12
13
2
3
3
5
2
3
2
5
2
3
2
5
9
3
60%
Net taxes
12
9
1
14
15
14
15
9
8
3
3
9
10
1
1
2
3
2
4
2
3
2
4
2
3
2
4
2
3
2
5
8
8
9
10
3
4
4
9
8
8
1
1
1
10%
15
15
14
14
2
3
3
6
5
19
18
17
17
17
5
5
5
3
3
3
15
5
3
16
15
14
6
6
8
10
5
5
5
4
4
3
5
3
1
3
2
5
1
3
2
2
3
3
2
4
3
5
6
6
provision of other municipal, social and personal services
Health and social services
Education
4
11
4
8
1
17
40%
20%
2
4
3
8
1
20
14
Households activities
50%
30%
13
5
3
16
5
4
11
10
4
3
8
7
1
1
17
6
3
16
10
10
10
4
4
5
Real estate operations, leasehold and service provisioning
8
8
7
Financial activities
1
1
1
16
15
15
6
7
6
6
3
3
3
3
State administration, defence and social insuarance
Transport and communications
Hotels and restaurants
Whole sale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles, motor-cycles,
household goods and personal demand items
Construction
Distribution of electricity, gas and water
15
15
15
13
13
13
13
9
9
13
13
Processing manufacturing
Extraction of minerals
9
9
8
7
4
4
8
9
9
Fishery
0%
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
Agriculture, hunt anf forestry
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Industrial changes in employment
structure, %; 1980-2007 (17)
Sector
1980
1990
1997
2007
Production sector (manufacturing industries)
Agriculture and forestry
Construction
Service sector
Including:
32,5
15
9,6
41,6
30,3
13,2
12
42,1
23,7
14,2
8,5
49,6
24
9,4
7,5
56,4
Transport and communication
9,6
7,7
7,8
8,1
Wholesale and retail trade, catering
8,3
7,8
10,6
15,6
Housing maintenance and utilities
3,9
4,3
5,2
4,8
Public health service, physical culture and social
security
Education, culture and art
4,8
8,2
5,6
9,6
7
11,3
7,3
10,8
Science and science services
4,5
4,2
2,2
1,2
Finance, credit, insurance, pension security
Management services
Others
0,5
1,8
1,3
0,5
2,4
2,4
1,2
4,3
4
1,5
7,1
2,6
Industrial changes in employment
structure, %; 2005-2014 (18)
100%
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
6.8
6.9
6.8
6.8
7
7
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.6
8.9
8.7
8.8
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.2
8.1
90%
Provision of other municipal, social and personal services
9
80%
70%
9
Health and social services
5.2
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.5
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.8
7.8
8.1
8.3
8.5
8.7
8
8.1
8
7.9
Education
State administration, defence and social insuarance
Real estate operations, leasehold and service provisioning
60%
8
7.9
7.9
7.9
8
8
Financial activities
Transport and communications
50%
16.6
16.9
17.2
17.7
Hotels and restaurants
17.8
18.1
18
18.2
18.3
18.4
Whole sale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles, motor-cycles, household goods
and personal demand items
40%
30%
20%
Construction
7.4
7.6
7.8
8.1
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.8
17.2
16.8
16.7
16.5
7.8
7.8
8.1
8.2
8.4
8.5
Distribution of electricity, gas and water
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
Processing manufacturing
15.4
15.4
15.2
15.1
14.8
14.6
Extraction of minerals
Fishery
10%
Agriculture, hunt anf forestry
11.1
10.6
10.2
9.8
9.8
9.6
9.7
9.5
9.4
9.2
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
0%
Time dynamics of employment shares
by industry, %; 2005-2014 (19)
20
18
16
14
12
10
2005
2006
2007
8
2008
6
2009
2010
4
2
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
Russia (2011) and the World
(2002-2010): Sectoral structure of GDP (20)
Total
Agriculture, forestry,
fishery, hunting
Industry
Construction
Transport
and
communica
tions
Country
Financial
activities,
real estate
Trade,
hotels and
restaurants
Education,
health care,
social
services
Other
services
Russia
100
4,2
30,5
6,5
8,9
20
15,9
6,6
7,4
Belorussia
100
9,6
35,2
7,5
8
14,6
11,5
7,9
5,7
Ukraine
100
9,2
27
3,5
11,1
17,1*
15,5
9
7,6
Estonia
100
3,1
20,6
7,9
11,7
16,7
23,8
7,5
8,8
Azerbajdzhan
100
5,7
58
8,8
7
8,1
4
5
3,4
Armenia
100
22,1
17,7
13,9
6,9
15,4
10
7,9
6,1
Kazakhstan
100
5,5
33,8
7,1
10,2
15,8
18,3
5,3
4
5)
...
India
100
22,8
20,3
6,2
8
14,9
13,5
14,3
China
100
10,3
39,7
6,6
4,9
10,6
12,5
4,6
10,9
Brazil
100
5,6
22,6
5
8,9
20
16,5
8,4
13
Germany
100
0,9
25,6
4,3
5,7
12
29,4
11,5
10,6
Finland
100
2,7
21,2
7
7,9
11,5
25
15,1
9,6
France
100
1,7
12,4
6,4
6,6
12,4
33,7
14,6
12,1
USA
100
1,3
17,1
4,7
...
19,0*
33
24,9*
...
Russia and the World : Sectoral
structure of employment (21)
Agricultur Industry
e, forestry,
fishery,
hunting
Country Year
Russia
Belorussia
Ukraine
Estonia
Azerbajdzh
an
Armenia
Kazakhstan
Brazil
Germany
Finland
USA
Constructi Transport
on
and
communic
ation
Total
Financial
activities,
real estate
Trade,
hotels and
restaurant
s
Education,
health
Other
care,
services
social
services
2011
2011
2011
2010
100
100
100
100
7,9
10,4
16,8
4,2
20,2*
25,5
16,5
21,7
7,2
8,6
4,6
8,4
9,4
7,4
6,8
9,8
18
15,5
23,9
17,4
8,6
8,4
7,5
10,4
17
16,7
14,8
15,9
11,7
7,5
9,1
11,6
2011
100
37,9
7
7,1
5,5
15,6
4,4
11,7
10,8
2011
2011
2007
2010
2010
2008
100
100
100
100
100
100
38,9
26,4
18,3
1,6
4,4
1,5
11
11,6
15,3
21,7
16,2
12,3
5,7
7,4
6,7
6,7
7
7,5
5,6
8,1
4,8
7,9
10,3
4,5
10,5
16,3
21,7
17,4
15,6
20,9
3,5
7,3
7,4
14,3
13,1
17,7
14,1
15
9,2
18,2
22,6
21,6
10,7
7,9
16,7*
11,6
10,1
13,9*
Open questions
Were these structural changes inevitable in
Russia during transition?
If no, what went wrong in your opinion?
What factors determine successful development
of a sector in transition? (23)
•
Sector’s position before transition
•
Size of enterprises in the industry: transition road very different in big companies and
SME –consolidation of ownership
•
Favorable world prices
•
Domestic demand
•
Productivity (change), reorganization in companies /industry
•
Type of privatization and ownership (who owns which industries)
•
Ability to attract the funding
•
Whether a sector is a strategic sector (determines allowed ownership and investments)
Effect of different types of
privatization/ownership (24)
• Nominal, insiders’ privatization didn’t mean much changes in
the way the company was run, and in the industry (i.e.
forestry)
• State control meant not so much changes in efficiency/
productivity/ investments (i.e. gas)
• New private owners who got their shares through
vouchers/loans for shares/auctions made changes in
management, investments, markets (i.e. oil, machinery,
metals)
• Foreign/mixed ownership is likely to affect industry in
successful way (FDI, management practices, corporate
governance , e.g. in food industry).
Industrial aspects of privatization (25)
Mandatory privatization (light, food industries)
Privatization with the permission of the privatization ministry (larger
firms, yet not operating in any of the important strategic
industries)
Requiring government approval for privatization (natural resources
and defense) – in fact could not be privatized.
Prohibited privatization
education)
(space
exploration,
health,
and
Industrial aspects of ownership in transition
Russia (Dolgopyatova 2010) (26)
High level of concentration of ownership irrespective sector or size of company.
From mid 1990s – rapid growth of concentration of ownership in Russia.
Corporate governance: main player – a majority (dominant) shareholder.
Growth of ownership concentration: Share of dominant shareholder in the beginning of 21 st
century - 25-40%; in the end of 2000s – higher than 60%.
High ownership concentration – not only a Russian phenomena. The same – in some
developed countries; in all transition economies.
Why? Bad institutions and availability of highly profitable assets for which businessmen are
ready to fight.
Shleifer and Vishny (1997) argue that ownership concentration can serve as a substitute for
weak investor protection rights. Therefore ownership concentration should be positively
related to corporate performance especially in environments of weak legal systems.
Industrial patterns of ownership distribution and
concentration in the 90`s (27)
• 23 largest private owners control at least 36-38% of output and
employment (Guriev and Rachinsky, 2004).
• The largest owners are much more strongly represented in energy,
natural resources and the automotive industry.
• The sectors that produce consumer goods are mostly controlled by other
private domestic owners and foreigners.
• Smaller domestic owners also tend to dominate manufacturing sectors.
• Mid 90s: trend for industry consolidation -expansion of financial-industrial
groups. These groups built mostly around natural resource industries.
Ownership distribution and concentration (28)
Concentration of ownership in the hands of a
few major players:
“+” Can reduce inefficiencies due to suboptimal firm size
and cost duplication.
“—”Can also result in collusion, create barriers to entry and
eliminate healthy competition.
Shares of different categories of owners in sales of
respective sectors, beginning of 21st century (29)
(data from
Guriev
and
Rachinsky , 2004;
for the sample that
covers 60% of Russian
industry)
Breakdown of Russian industry by ownership categories in
the beginning of 21st century (Guriev and Rachinsky, 2004/2005)
(30)
Annual sales
39
13
8 6
26
8
Oligarchs
Other private domestic
Foreign owners
Regional Governments
Russian federal government
Employment
42
0%
20%
22
40%
3 6
60%
15
80%
12
100%
No data
Video: Russian oligarhcs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiWxxMEq
KCE
Current tendencies of ownership
concentration in industries (32)
• Intensifying state ownership and control over the key industrial sectors
and strategic industries in particular.
• Leading vehicle for the consolidation of state ownership in Russia’s
industry is a giant industrial holding Russian Technologies
(Rostechnologies), which is set to acquire and control nearly 400 Russian
enterprises by a presidential degree of late 2007.
• Oil and gas are dominant and big: containing no more than 12 of the 100
largest companies, the oil and gas sector is responsible for almost 40% of
the aggregate turnover of the top-100 Russian enterprises (many already
state owned, Gasprom and Rosneft).
Ability to get funding/strategic industries (33)
• Development of financial institutions.
• Large number of banks, but credibility was questionable,
pocket banks.
• State is trying to get back control over strategic industries
using different strategies (i.e. oil –Yukos), limiting foreign
investors etc.
• Foreign investments –most reliable, but available only for
certain sectors (not strategic).
Limitations for foreign investors in strategic
sectors – Russian Federal Law 7 May 2008 (34)
• National defence sector: working with nuclear materials, activities related to
weapons and other military equipment, aviation and space, coding and
encryption equipment;
• Natural resources sector: including exploitation of subsoil areas of federal
importance, fishing;
• Activity of natural monopolies (including energy sector);
• Mass media sector, including television, radio broadcast and printed media
covering a significant share of Russia's audience;
• Telecommunications, including activities of the major telecom providers.
Part 2: Dutch disease and Russia
Dutch disease (36)
Is the apparent relationship between the increase in
exploitation of natural resources and a decline in
the manufacturing sector (or agriculture).
The term was coined in 1977 by The Economist :
the
decline
of
the
manufacturing
sector
in
the Netherlands after the discovery of a large natural gas
field in 1959.
Bad institutions: prerequisite for Dutch disease.
Dutch disease vs. resource curse (37)
are often used interchangeable,
But:
Resource curse refers to the political and social
consequences of country`s high dependence on
resources` export.
Dutch disease refers only to the effects of the
resulting currency appreciation and changes in
the cost of factors of production.
Dutch disease (38)
(Bruno and Sachs (1982); Corden and Neary (1982))
Spending effect
Tradable resource
(oil) sector
Tradable
(manufacturing) sector
The resource movement
effect
What happens when world oil price goes up?
1. The spending effect;
2. The resource movement effect.
Non-traded sector
(services)
Dutch disease (39)
A result:
A fall in the output share of non-natural
resource tradables (manufacturing sector)
relative to non-tradables (mostly service sector)
and resource tradables (e.g. oil industry).
Is there any empirical evidence of
Dutch Disease? (40)
Relatively robust evidence that terms of trade increases cause real exchange
rate appreciation in natural-resource-rich countries (for example Spatafora
and Warner 1995).
Vostroknutova, Brahmbhatt, Canuto, VoxEU 2010.
Is there any empirical evidence of
Dutch Disease? (41)
The shrinking of the manufacturing sector in response to terms
of trade: mixed evidence (Sala-i-Martin and Subramanian 2003).
Ismail (2010) finds strong evidence for Dutch Disease effects,
with a 10% increase in an oil windfall/income associated with a
3.4% fall in value added across manufacturing sectors.
On average in resource rich countries the tradables sector
(manufacturing plus agriculture) is around 15% of GDP lower
than the norm (Vostroknutova, Brahmbhatt, Canuto, VoxEU
2010).
Dutch Disease is good or bad for
growth? (42)
Positive:
-higher incomes and allowing more consumption of both non-tradables and
tradables;
-increased resources for investment in public goods.
Negative: For Manufacturing
-possess specific long-term, growth-enhancing qualities: positive
technological spillovers, learning by doing effects, or increasing returns to
scale in production.
-more labour intensive than natural resource industries: implications for
employment.
The effect for economic growth is inconlslusive. Negative: bad institutions.
Dutch disease in Russia (42)
Victoria Dobrynskaya & Edouard Turkisch (2009)
1999-2007
For Dutch disease:
1) The appreciation of the rouble in real terms in 1997-2007;
2) The decrease in employment in manufacturing;
3) The rise in services sector.
Against Dutch disease:
1) Manufacturing production also increased.
Dutch disease in Russia (43)
Mironov and Petronevich, 2015, BOFIT discussing paper
Russian economy reflects a combination of “Soviet” and
“Dutch” diseases
Main arguments:
1) Eruptive flows of export revenues have resulted in
significant appreciation of the real effective exchange
rate.
2) The manufacturing sector tends to shrink and is relatively
small.
3) The mining and service sectors have expanded.
4) Positive significant impact of the real effective exchange
rate on employment rates in the services sector.
Dutch disease in Russia (44)
Another opinion: FORBES`12:
At the present time, one of the very few
economic risks that Russia doesn’t face is Dutch
Disease: its currency isn’t overvalued and, if
anything, is actually trending lower against the
main reserve currencies.
Total natural resources rents (% of GDP) (45)
Total natural resources rents are the sum of oil rents, natural gas rents, coal rents (hard and soft), mineral
rents, and forest rents.
Country
Name
1970
Arab World
Belarus
Brazil
Canada
China
Germany
Euro area
Estonia
European
Union
Finland
France
United
Kingdom
India
High income:
OECD
OECD
members
1980
1989
13,5
58,3
21,0
3,1
4,7
1,7
0,4
0,6
4,5
11,7
22,6
0,7
0,9
3,3
3,1
7,9
0,2
0,4
0,6
7,3
0,5
1,5
5,0
0,5
0,1
2,3
2002
2007
2012
2014
21,6
4,2
2,2
3,3
4,3
0,1
0,2
4,9
22,6
3,4
5,1
3,6
2,3
0,2
0,3
5,3
39,0
2,6
7,6
6,6
7,5
0,3
0,4
1,2
32,4
2,5
6,3
4,5
5,8
0,2
0,3
2,6
28,5
1,9
5,0
4,6
4,0
0,1
0,2
2,7
0,6
1,7
0,3
0,5
1,6
0,2
0,6
1,5
0,2
0,7
1,1
0,1
0,6
1,4
0,2
0,4
1,5
0,1
4,6
6,3
1,2
4,8
1,3
4,3
1,5
2,8
1,7
6,0
1,2
5,6
0,7
4,9
1,3
3,5
0,8
0,6
0,7
1,6
1,4
1,3
3,7
0,9
0,7
0,8
1,8
1,5
1,3
13,9
3,5
15,3
4,5
27,1
5,8
28,3
6,3
18,7
4,6
16,2
8,1
1,0
0,8
0,6
1,6
1,3
1,1
Russian
Federation
Ukraine
United States
1995
1,5
6,1
Time dynamics of Russian export by
industry, billion USD (46)
400.0
368.9
350.0
346.5
346.1
Food and live animals
Beverages and tobacco
307.4
300.0
372.0
Crude materials, inedible, except fuels
260.7
250.0
Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials
216.5
200.0
189.6
Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes
190.2
Chemicals and related products, n.e.s.
150.0
149.2
100.0
99.3
72.9
50.0
0.0
52.2 51.7 56.0
38.3 40.0
28.2 31.2
Manufactured goods classified chiefly by
material
Machinery and transport equipment
Miscellaneous manufactured articles
Commodities and transactions not classified
elsewhere in the SITC
Growth rates of Russian export by
industry between 1996 and 2013 (47)
Mineral
Crude fuels, Animal
material lubrican and
s,
ts and vegetab
Food
Beverag inedible related le oils,
and live es and , except material fats and
animals tobacco fuels
s
waxes
Chemic
als and
related
product
s, n.e.s.
Manufa
ctured Machin
goods ery and
classifie transpo
d chiefly rt
by
equipm
material ent
Commo
dities
and
transact
ions not
Miscella classifie
neous d
manufa elsewhe
ctured re in the
articles SITC
1996
0,9
0,2
4,8
38,3
0,0
5,3
17,7
6,2
1,3
14,0
2013
12,5
1,3
16,2
372,0
2,0
23,5
53,8
21,4
5,8
18,8
1290,2
551,8
234,1
872,6 5131,2
347,3
204,5
243,4
346,1
34,0
% growth
Change in industrial structure of
Russian export bw 1996 and 2014 (48)
100%
90%
15.8
3.0
1.3
4.0
10.6
Commodities and transactions not classified
elsewhere in the SITC
4.7
Miscellaneous manufactured articles
1.5
80%
7.0
Machinery and transport equipment
70%
19.9
Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material
60%
50%
Chemicals and related products, n.e.s.
5.9
Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes
69.5
40%
Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials
30%
Crude materials, inedible, except fuels
43.1
Beverages and tobacco
20%
Food and live animals
10%
0%
5.5
1.0
1996
3.2
3.0
2014