The nature of international trade has changed significantly since the early 1990s: the liberalisation of cross-border transactions, advances in information and communication technology, reductions in transport costs, and innovations in logistics have given firms greater incentives to break up the production process and locate its various stages across many countries. As a result, global supply chains have become very common, accounting for around a half of global trade in 2020 (World Bank 2020).

The prevalence of global value chains has been underpinned by the well-functioning international trade rule enshrined in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and later the WTO, as well as regional agreements. However, geopolitical tensions and disruptions to global value chains – ranging from cyber-threats, the US-China trade war (Fajgelbaum et al. 2022), and the Russian invasion of Ukraine to systemic issues such as the Covid-19 pandemic and the climate crisis – have led policymakers to re-evaluate their approach to globalisation. Many countries are considering ‘friend-shoring’ – trading primarily with countries sharing similar values (such as democratic institutions or maintaining peace) – as a way of minimising exposure to weaponisation of trade and securing access to critical inputs, particularly those required for green transition (Arjona et al. 2023, Attinasi et al. 2023).

In contrast to optimisation under free trade, friend-shoring – by imposing constraints – is likely to be less efficient. But how high is the price that needs to be paid for the alleged insurance benefits brought about by friend-shoring? To shed some light on this question, this chapter assesses the economic costs of friend-shoring, with a focus on broadly defined emerging Europe and European neighbourhood economies. We make three main points. First, we show that, in the medium run, friend-shoring is bad for most economies and generally leads to real output losses globally. Second, only countries that manage to remain non-aligned may see real output gains, but these gains are much smaller than the losses incurred by other countries and not guaranteed. Third, economic costs of friend-shoring are higher than the economic costs of sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine.

This Growth Diagnostic Report was generated as part of a research engagement between the Growth Lab at Harvard University and the Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC) between June 2021 and December 2022. The purpose of the engagement was to formulate evidence-based policy options to address critical issues facing the economy of Kazakhstan through innovative frameworks such as growth diagnostics and economic complexity. This report is accompanied by the Economic Complexity Report that applies findings from this report on economy-wide challenges to growth and diversification in order to formulate attractive and feasible opportunities for diversification.

Kazakhstan faces multifaceted challenges to sustainable and inclusive growth: macroeconomic uncertainty, an uneven economic playing field, and difficulties in acquiring productive capabilities, agglomerating them locally, and accessing export markets. Underlying Kazakhstan’s transformational growth in the last two decades—during which real GDP per capita multiplied by 2.5x—are two periods that underscore how Kazakhstan’s growth trajectory has been correlated with oil and gas dynamics. The early and mid-2000s characterized by the global commodity supercycle led to an expansion of the economy upwards of 8% annually, with a mild slowdown during the global financial crisis. In 2014, Kazakhstan’s growth slowed with the collapse of commodity prices, and alternative engines of growth have not been strong enough to fend against volatility since. These trends, along with growing uncertainty in the long-run demand of oil and gas, continue to highlight the limitations of relying on natural resources to drive development.

As in the experience of other major oil producers, diversification of Kazakhstan’s non-oil economy is a critical pathway to drive a new era of sustainable and inclusive growth and mitigate the impacts of commodity price shocks on the country’s economy. Kazakhstan’s growth trajectory demonstrates that the country has enough oil to suffer symptoms of Dutch disease, but not enough to position it as a reliable engine of growth in the future. Development of non-oil activities has been a policy objective of the government of Kazakhstan for some time, but previous efforts for target sectors have failed to generate sufficient exports and investments to produce alternative engines of growth. This report characterizes the relationship between growth, industrial policy, and the constraints to diversification in Kazakhstan. It utilizes the growth diagnostics framework to understand why efforts to diversify into non-oil tradables has been challenging. The report proposes a growth syndrome to explain the constraints preventing Kazakhstan from achieving productive diversification and sustainable growth.

This report is organized in six sections, including a brief introduction.

• Section 2 provides an overview of the methodological approach to the Growth Diagnostics analysis.
• Section 3 describes Kazakhstan’s growth trajectory and macroeconomic performance, as well as the motivations behind pursuing a diversification strategy to strengthen the non-oil economy.
• Section 4 summarizes three features of the country that manifest in a set of economy-wide constraints to growth and diversification.
• Section 5 analyzes each of the identified constraints in detail, describing their dynamics and breaking down the aspects that appear to be binding.
• Section 6 concludes by suggesting potential policy guidelines towards alleviation of the identified constraints.

Related project: Sustainable and Inclusive Growth in Kazakhstan

Since the end of the 1990s, Kazakhstan has relied on oil and gas as the main drivers of economic growth. While this has led to rapid development of the country, especially during years of high oil prices, it has also subjected the economy to more severe downturns during oil shocks, bouts of currency overvaluation, and procyclicality in growth and public spending.

Stronger economic diversification has the potential to drive a new era of sustainable growth by supporting new sources of value added and export revenue, creating new and better jobs, and making the economy more resistant to fluctuations in oil dynamics. However, repeated efforts to stimulate alternative, non-oil engines of growth have so far been inconclusive.

This report introduces a new framework to identify opportunities for economic diversification in Kazakhstan. This framework attempts to improve upon previous methods, notably by building country and region-specific challenges to the development of the non-oil economy directly into the framework to identify feasible and attractive opportunities. These challenges are presented in detail in the Growth Diagnostic of Kazakhstan and are summarized along three high-level constraints: (i) an uneven economic playing field dominated by government-related public and private-entities; (ii) difficulties in acquiring productive capabilities, agglomerating them locally, and accessing export markets; and (iii) ongoing macroeconomic factors lowering external competitiveness lower and making the economy less stable.

Our approach applies the economic complexity paradigm to identify what specific products and industries are most feasible for diversification, based on the existing productive capabilities demonstrated in the economy. We examine Kazakhstan's economic complexity at the national but also subnational levels, highlighting the heterogeneity of export baskets across regions that makes an analysis of opportunities at the subnational level essential.

Related project: Sustainable and Inclusive Growth in Kazakhstan

We analyze the effects of bans on exports at the level of 5,000 products and show how our results can inform economic sanctions against Russia after its invasion of Ukraine. We begin with characterizing export restrictions imposed by the EU and the US until mid May 2022. We then propose a theoretically-grounded criterion for targeting export bans at the 6-digit HS level. Our results show that the cost to Russia are highly convex in the market share of the sanctioning parties, i.e., there are large benefits from coordinating export bans among a broad coalition of countries. Applying our results to Russia, we find that sanctions imposed by the EU and the US are not systematically related to our arguments once we condition on Russia’s total imports of a product from participating countries. Quantitative evaluations of the export bans show (i) that they are very effective with the welfare loss typically ∼100 times larger for Russia than for the sanctioners. (ii) Improved coordination of the sanctions and targeting sanctions based on our criterion allows to increase the costs to Russia by about 60% with little to no extra cost to the sanctioners. (iii) There is scope for increasing the cost to Russia further by expanding the set of sanctioned products.

Wall Street Journal: Sanctions Against Russia Could Be Better, These Harvard Economists Say

Video summary: How can sanctions against Russia be more effective?