K. Yu. Voloshenko, T. E. Drok. Econometric Analysis of the Impact of the Intensity of Transboundary Activities on the Level of Economic Complexity: The Case Study of European Countries

UDK 330.43(4)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15507/2413-1407.109.027.201904.602-632

Introduction. Development of countries, regions and individual ecosystems occurs in the paradigm of innovative and technological change, the crucial element being the production knowledge and competencies. Their ranging in terms of transforming the complexity of the products that the country exports has been embodied and developed in the approach of economic complexity. However, insufficient attention is paid to the study of economic complexity in the context of transboundary processes that impact the development of territories. The objective of this study is to measure the impact of the intensity of transboundary relations on the change in economic complexity through the case study of European countries using the indicators of transboundary specialization of foreign trade turnover.

Materials and Methods. The study employed the methods of econometric analysis. Information from the UN Comtrade database, as well as from the special resources for analyzing the economic complexity of countries, the Atlas of Economic Complexity and the Observatory of Economic Complexity, was used as the source data for calculations and measurements.

Results. European countries have been classified into 3 subpanels based on Gaussian mixture distributions. The intensity of the impact of the transboundary activities on the complexity of the economy has been identified employing the panel cointegration method based on the constructed models (the combined model and models with fixed and random effects), which were supplemented by data analysis using the fully modified least squares method and the dynamic least squares method. Long-term interdependence between economic complexity and the intensity of transboundary activities has been identified.

Discussion and Conclusion. It has been established that the influence of the transboundary interaction factor weakens as the economic complexity increases and under certain conditions it has a negative impact. The revealed dependence is due to the increasing role of global processes rather than the transboundary ones as the economy becomes more complex and more oriented towards the global market. The research findings contribute to further development of the Theory of Economic Complexity; they significantly expand the practical scope of its application, play an important role in understanding and further research on the opportunities and limitations for the development of territories differing in the transboundary cooperation intensity.

Keywords: typology, European countries, transboundary activities, economic complexity, productive capacity (competencies), heterogeneous panel analysis, world trade, cross-border specialization of foreign trade turnover

Funding. The study was carried out with the financial support from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Government of the Kaliningrad Region as part of the scientific project No. 19-410-390002.


1. Hausmann R., Hidalgo C.A., Bustos S., Coscia M., Simoes, A., Yildirim M.A. The Atlas of Economic Complexity: Mapping Paths to Prosperity. MIT Press; 2011. Available at: https://growthlab.cid.harvard.edu/files/growthlab/files/atlas_2013_part1... (accessed 28.06.2019). (In Eng.)

2. Roos G. Technology-Driven Productivity Improvements and the Future of Work: Emerging Research and Opportunities. Hershey, PA: IGI Global; 2017. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2179-2

3. Hidalgo C.A., Hausmann R. The Building Blocks of Economic Complexity. PNAS. 2009; 106(26):10570-10575. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900943106

4. Hidalgo C.A., Klinger B., Barabási A.-L., Hausmann R. The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations. Science. 2007; 317(5837):482-487. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144581

5. Hausmann R., Hidalgo C.A. How Will the Netherlands Earn its Income 20 Years from Now? A Growth Ventures Analysis for the Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR). 2013. Available at: https://www.wrr.nl/binaries/wrr/documenten/publicaties/2013/11/04/how-wi... (accessed 28.06.2019). (In Eng.)

6. Hidalgo C.A. From Useless to Keystone. Nature Physics. 2018; 14:9-10. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys4337

7. Hidalgo C.A., et al. The Principle of Relatedness. In: Unifying Themes in Complex Systems IX. ICCS 2018. Springer Proceedings in Complexity. Springer, Cham; 2018. p. 451-457. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96661-8_46

8. Zhu S., Li R. Economic Complexity, Human Capital and Economic Growth: Empirical Research Based on Cross-Country Panel Data. Applied Economics. 2017; 49(38):3815-3828. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2016.1270413

9. Hartmann D., Guevara M.R., Jara-Figueroa C., Aristara N.M., Hidalgo C.A. Linking Economic Complexity, Institutions, and Income Inequality. World Development. 2017; 93:75-93. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.020

10. Roos G., Kennedy N. Global Perspectives on Achieving Success in High and Low Cost Operating Environments. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, USA; 2014. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-5828-8

11. Sweet C., Eterovic D. Do Patent Rights Matter? 40 Years of Innovation, Complexity and Productivity. World Development. 2019; 115(C):78-93. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.10.009

12. Javorcik B., Lo Turco A., Maggioni D. New and Improved: Does FDI Boost Production Complexity in Host Countries? Economic Journal. 2017; 128(614):2507-2537. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12530

13. Neagu O., Teodoru M.C. The Relationship between Economic Complexity, Energy Consumption Structure and Greenhouse Gas Emission: Heterogeneous Panel Evidence from the EU Countries. Sustainability. 2019; 11(2):1-29. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020497

14. Boschma R. Relatedness as Driver of Regional Diversification: A Research Agenda. Regional Studies. 2017; 51(3):351-364. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1254767

15. Alshamsi A., Pinheiro F.L., Hidalgo C.A. Optimal Diversification Strategies in the Networks of Related Products and of Related Research Areas. Nature Communications. 2018; 9. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03740-9

16. Utkovski Z., Pradier M.F., Stojkoski V., Perez-Cruz F., Kocarev L. Economic Complexity Unfolded: Interpretable Model for the Productive Structure of Economies. PloS ONE. 2018; 13(8). (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200822

17. Hartmann D., Bezerra M., Lodolo B., Pinheiro F.L. International Trade, Development Traps, and the Core-Periphery Structure of Income Inequality. 2019. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3312097

18. Roos G. Cheshire A., Nayar S., Clarke S. M., Zhang W. Harnessing Marine Macroalgae for Industrial Purposes in an Australian Context: Emerging Research and Opportunities. Hershey, PA: IGI Global; 2019. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5577-3

19. Radosevic S. Assessing EU Smart Specialization Policy in a Comparative Perspective. In: Advances in the Theory and Practice of Smart Specialization. Academic Press; 2017. p. 1-36. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804137-6.00001-2

20. Druzhinin A.G., Gorochnaya V.V., Gontar N.V., et al. Transboundary Clusters in the Coastal Cones of the European Part of Russia: Inventory, Typology, Factors, and Prospects. Baltijskij region = Baltic Region. 2017; 9(4):29-44. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.5922/2074-9848-2017-4-2

21. Mezhevich N.M., Zhuk N.P. Cross-Border Specialization of Interregional Interaction: Applying New Assessment Methods. Baltijskij region = Baltic Region. 2013; 1(15):38-52. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.5922/2074-9848-2013-1-3

22. Baltagi B.H. Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. John Wiley & Sons; 2005. Available at: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Econometric+Analysis+of+Panel+Data%2C+5th+Ed... (accessed 28.06.2019). (In Eng.)

23. Brillet J.L. Structural Econometric Modelling: Methodology and Tools with Applications under EViews. 2011. Available at: http://www.eviews.com/StructModel/structmodel.pdf (accessed 28.06.2019). (In Eng.)

24. Wooldridge J.M. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT Press; 2007. Available at: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/econometric-analysis-cross-section-and-pa... (accessed 28.06.2019). (In Eng.)

25. Aprausheva N.N., Sorokin S.V. Notes on Gaussian Mixtures. Moscow, VC RAN; 2015. (In Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33609.34404

26. Reynolds D. Gaussian Mixture Models. In: Encyclopedia of Biometrics. Springer, Boston, MA; 2009. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73003-5_196

27. Ratnikova T.A. Introduction to Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. Ehkonomicheskij zhurnal VShEh = HSE Economic Journal. 2006; (3):492-519. Available at: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=9282947 (accessed 28.06.2019). (In Russ.)

28. Kopnova E.D., Rodionova L.A. Modeling the Influence of Foreign Investments on Food Security Based on Panel Cointegration Models. Biznes-informatika = Business Informatics. 2017; (3):20-29. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/1998-0663.2017.3.20.29

29. Pesaran M.H. A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross Section Dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics. 2007; 22(2):265-312. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951

30. Pedroni P. Fully Modified OLS for Heterogeneous Cointegrated Panels. In: Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration and Dynamic Panels. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2000. p. 93-130. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0731-9053(00)15004-2

31. Dogan E., Aslan A. Exploring the Relationship among CO2 Emissions, Real GDP, Energy Consumption and Tourism in the EU and Candidate Countries: Evidence from Panel Models Robust to Heterogeneity and Cross-Sectional Dependence. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2017; 77:239-245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.111

32. Green W.H. Econometric Analysis. Pearson Education International. Pearson Education; 2011. Available at: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Econometric-Analysis-International-William-Gree... (accessed 28.06.2019). (In Eng.)

Submitted 01.07.2019; accepted for publication 02.10.2019; published online 30.12.2019.

About the authors:

Ksenia Yu. Voloshenko, Director, Centre for Regional Socio-Economic Development, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University (14 A. Nevskogo St., Kaliningrad 236041, Russia), Ph. D. (Economics), Associate Professor, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2624-0155, kvoloshenko@kantiana.ru

Tatiana E. Drok, Associate Professor, Department of Economics and Management, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University (14 A. Nevskogo St., Kaliningrad 236041, Russia), Ph. D. (Economics), Associate Professor, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6296-1160, tdrok@kantiana.ru

Contribution of the authors:

Ksenia Yu. Voloshenko – collection, processing and analysis of information; preparation of the initial version of the text; critical analysis of the materials.

Tatiana E. Drok – study of the concept; critical analysis and revision of the text.

For citation:

Voloshenko K.Yu., Drok T.E. Econometric Analysis of the Impact of the Intensity of Transboundary Activities on the Level of Economic Complexity: The Case Study of European Countries. Regionology = Russian Journal of Regional Studies. 2019; 27(4):602-632. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15507/2413-1407.109.027.201904.602-632

The authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
To download article

Лицензия Creative Commons
All the materials of the "REGIONOLOGY" journal are available under Creative Commons «Attribution» 4.0