Policy, Research, and External Affairs WORKING PAPERS Trade, Finance, and Public Sector Technical Department, Europe, Middle East, and North Africa Regional Office and Country Economics Department The World Bank May 1991 WPS 690 The Terms-of-Trade Effects from the Elimination of State Trading in Soviet-Hungarian Trade Gabor Oblath and David Tarr A reduction of the Soviet "subsidy " to Eastern European countries would impose greater transition costs on them just as they are attempting to make the drastic adjustments they need to move to market economies. How much of a cost will the switchover of their CMEA trade relations impose? The Policy, Research. and Extemal Affairs Complex dlstributes PRE Working Papers to disseminate the fndings of work in progress and to encourage the exchange of ideas among Bank staff and all others intcrested in development issues. Thesc papers carry the names of the authors, reflect only their views, and should be used and cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions are the authors' own. They should not be attributed to t,. 'orld Bank, its Board of Directors, its management, or any of its member countries. Plc,Rsearch, and External Affairs] Trade, Finance, and Public Sector WPS 690 This paper -- a joint product of the Trade, Finance, and Public Sector Division, Technical Department, Europe, Middle East, and North Africa Regional Office and the Socialist Economies Reform Unit, Country Economics Department - is part of a larger effort in PRE to examine the role of trade liberalization in the transition from a socialist to a market economy. Copies are available free from the World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433. Please contact Joe Smith, room H9-07 1, extension 37350 (30 pages). Economists have delated whether the Soviet Based on the assumption that oil would sell Union subsidized ti.e with its Eastern European at about $21 a barrel, Hungary probably will partners in the Council of Mutual Economic suffer an income terms-of-trade loss of $1.5 Assistance (CMEA). billion to $2.15 billion, more than double the most recently published careful estimate. In Effective January 1, 1991, former CMEA view of the volatile price of oil on world mar- members implemented their "switchover" kets, however, the study estimates that for each decision to convert to world market prices dollar change in the world price of oil, all energy denominated in convcrtible currency. The costs would change by $76 million. switchover dramatically reduced the rolc of "state trading" by permitting direct enterprise to Contrary to conventional wisdom, Oblath enterprise transactions denominated and settled and Tarr find that the majority of Hungarian in convertible currency. firms exporting to the Soviet Union have been disfavored by the combination of the payments Oblath and Tarr made an intensive study of mechanism, exchange rate, tax, and subsidy the trading relationship between Hungary and the policies. Soviet Union as a case study on the terms-of- trade issue. The experience of early 1991 suggests that a significant decline is likely to occur in Soviet A detailed empirical investigation of prices imports from Hungary during the remainder of in Soviet-Hungarian trade before and after the the year. A variety of problems account for the switchover provides some indication of the decline, many of them specific to internal terms-of-trade loss that Hungary is likely to conditions in the Soviet Union. suffer as a result of the switchover of its trading relationship with the Soviet Union. The PRE Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work under way in the Bank's Policy, Research, and Extemal AffairsComplex. Anobjective oftheseries is toget thesefindings out quickly, even if presentations are less than fully polished. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions in these papers do not necessarily represent official Bank policy. Produccd by the PRE Dissemination Center The Terms-of-Trade Effects from the Elimination of State Trading in Soviet-Hungarian Trade Table of Contents 1. The Litemature on the Suviet Subsidization of Eastern European Trade 4 2. The Methodology 7 Overview of the Methcdology 7 3. The Results 9 The Change in the Income Terms-of-Trade 9 The Change in the Bilateral Commodity Terms-of-Trade 11 Adjusting the Estimates of the Switch-Over Costs for Changes in the 13 Energy Sector 4. Comparison with other Estimates 15 The Price of Hungarian Exports 1S Comparison with other Recent Estimates 16 5. Conclusions 18 Appendix 1: Description of the Sample 19 Appendix 2: Explanation of the Terms-of-Trade Estimating Fonnulas 22 References 29 THE TERMS-OF-TRADE EFFECTS FROM THE ELIMINATION OF STATE TRADING IN SOVIET-HUNGARIAN TRADE Gabor Oblath Kopint-Datorg, Budapest and David Tarr The World Bank' Whether the Soviet Union subsidized the trade with its Eastern European partners in the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) has been a matter of considerable debate. As of January 1, 1991, the now former CMEA countries implemented their decision (taken at the CMEA meetings in Sofia during January 1990) to convert to world market prices denominated in convertible currency in the CMEA (called the "switch-over");' thus, the issue has become one of great practical importance to the Eastern European countries who formerly comprised the CMEA. A reduction in the Soviet "subsidy" would impose greater transition costs on their economies, due to the loss of real income it entails, at a time when these economies are already burdened oith heavy transition costs as they struggle to create market economies. This paper contributes to chis literature in five important ways: (1) We 'The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the World bank or Kopint Datorg. 2The practical means through which this has been accomplished is by negotiation at the enterprise to enterprise level, with payment in convertible currencies, i.e., by dramaticalLy reducing the role of the state in trading. As explained in World Bank (1991), world market prices for products such as machinery will not, in general, be determined through intergovernmental negotiation. 2 provide an update of the estimate for Hungary. Previous estimates have inid'cated that the Soviet subsidy changed significantly from year to year, and our estimate of the Soviet subsidy is more than double the Marrese-Wittenberg estimate for 1987; (2) We introduce a new data set which is based on our extensive interview survey of experts in important Hungarian enterprises who engage in trade with the Soviet Union; the frequently cited estimates of Marrese-Vanous (1983), which were based on unit values, have been criticized for excessive adjustment for quality. We believe that our method, which .mplicitly adjusts for quality based on the expert opinion, is at least as reliable; (3) we analyze the previously unnoted methodological question of how to assess the terms-of-trade change for the Eastern European countries who have trade surpluses in TR. There is a problem in assessing the terms-of-trade change, given that in 1989 and 1990, all Eastern European CMEA countries except Romania had a surplus with the Soviet Union denominated in an inconvertible unit of account, the transferable rouble (TR);3 (4) we show that contrary to the conventional wisdom on the subject, the majority of Hungarian firms exporting to the Soviet Union have been disfavored by the combination of the payments mechanism and exchange rate, tax and subsidy policies; and (5) we compare and evaluate the methodology of other recent estimates of the terms-of-trade loss due to the switch-over in Eastern Europe. Based on data for 1988, 1989 and 1990, this paper presents estimates that Hungary will suffer a terms-of-trade loss as a result of the switch-over to hard currency pricing with the Soviet Union in 1991. The estimate is presented using two measures: the loss of income to Hungary (the income terms-of-trade) and the 3The uncertain settlement of the TR balance between the Soviet Union and Hungary is described below. 3 change in the relative prices of Hungary in its bilateral trade with the Soviet Union (what we call the bilateral commodity or barter terms-of-trade).' The estimate of the income loss is that, based on 1988 or 1989 quantities and prices, Hungary would have lost between $0.8 billion and $1.2 billion as a result of the switch-over. Regarding the price effect, it is estimated that Hungary would suffer an adverse impact in the prices at which it trades with the Soviet Union of between 17 and 24 percent. The upper and lower bounds of the estimates derive from the following extreme assumptions, which are elaborated in more detail in section 3. If the TR surpluses were unredeemable and worthless, then there will be less terms- of-trade shock to Hungary because Hungary's terms-of-trade are less favorable in its CMEA trade than TR pricing implies; then the lower estimates of the terms- of-trade loss are appropriate. If the TR surpluses are fully redeemable at the TR prices of imports prevailing in CMEA trade, then the terms-of-trade of Hungary are more favorable in its CMEA trade, there will be a larger terms-of-trade l'vm to Hungary and the larger estimates are appropriate. Updating for the effects of the developments in the energy sectors as of early 1991 results in an estimated income loss to Hungary of between .1.5 and $2.15 billion, an estimate which again depends on a methodological assumption, discussed below. The estimates are based on an assumed oil price of $21 per barrel. In view of the volatile price of oil on world markets, however, we also estimate that for each dollar change in the price of oil on world markets, all 4The difference between the bilateral commodity terms-of-trade (as used in this paper) and the commodity terms-of-trade [as used in the literature, see Salvatore (1987)], is that the former relates to foreign trade price changes with a single country only. The impact of a change in the bilateral commodity terms- of-trade on the overall commodity terms-of-trade is given by weighting the change in the bilateral commodity terms-of-trade by the share of trade with the particular country in overall trade. 4 energy Costs would change by $76 million. Consequently, the reader may calculate the impact of a price change in oil on the switch-ever costs for any assumed rrice of oil The estimates are summarized in table 2. We begin in section 1 with a brief overview of the literature on the Soviet subsidy of trade in the CMEA. In section 2 and in the mathematical appendix, we discuss the principal methodological questions in evaluating the costs of the switch-over. Our results are presented in section 3. In section 4, we compare our estimates with other recent estimates, and also provide estimates of the impact of the switch-over at the sector level. Mathematical derivations and explanations of the data sources are presented in the appendices. 1. THE LITERATURE ON THE SOVIET SUBSIDIZATION OF EASTERN EUROPEAN TRADE" Traditionally it was assumeJ that the Soviet Union exercised political and military power to exploit its CMEA partners through terms-of-trade favorable to itself (Holzman, 1985). In their extremely influential concribution, Marrese and Vanous (1983) reversed this presumption. They argued that the Soviet 'Jnion was selling "hard" goods (fuel and raw materialh L.o its CMEA partners in return for "soft" goods (most notably machinery) at terms-of-trade very unfavorable to the Soviet Union when proper account is taken for the low quality of the Eastern European goods. They estimated that the average annual loss to the Soviet Union rose from $248 million in 1960 to $2840 million in 1978. Marrese and Wittenberg (1990) have updated the Marrese and Vanous estimates for Hungary; they estimate that the Soviet subsidy of Hungary was $4.2-$4.4 billion for 1982 and $250-$530 million for 1987, with a fall in the price of oil accounting for 80 percent of 'This discussion of this section draws on the discussion by Balassa (1990). 5 the decline in the subsidy. Marer (1984) critie'zed the Marrese-Vanous estimate for using excessive discounts for quality in the calculations,' and for failing to take into account that Eastern European type eou'ipment is often ,)ecially designed for the Soviet market and may not be available in the West.7 Thus, although the Eastern European equipment way be perfectly adequate for the Soviet market, it may be forced to sell at large discounts if marketed in the West, and it was these Western discounts which formed the basis of the Marrese-Vanous calculations. As discussed below, however, the basic Marrese-Vanous results have been replicated by a number of authors; as a result, by the late 1980s a static terms-of-trade loss to the Soviet Union from its trade with Eastern Europe was the conventional wisdom. Whether the Soviet Union "subsidized" Eastern Europe is a broader question. Erada (1985) and Koves (1983) noted that the obligation to provide the Soviet Union with machinery products in a rigid state controlled framework provides little incentive for quality improvement or innovation. Thus, there were almost certainly dynamic efficiency losses involved in the system. Balassa (1990) commented that the CMEA countries provision of capital for jcint projects, such as pipelines, at an interest rate of about 2 percent was a subsidy by Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union, given that Euromarket rate. 9-10 percent prevailed "The actual way in which Mefrese-Vanous and Marrese-Wittenberg (1989)determined the world market price of a product was by selecting a Western market where a product of comparable quality, in their judgement, was sold. 'An example would be railroad cars from the former East Germany, which are built to the special gauge of the tracks in the Soviet Union, and replacement parts for a network of 10 year old Soviet computers, which are supplied by Videoton in Hungary. 6 and convertible currency was used extensively in the provision of credit.8 We also note that what is of paramount importance is tnar socialist economic systems were imposed on most of the countries of Eastern Europe in the post-World War II era by the Soviet Union. Were it not for this Soviet imposition and continued control, many of the economies would almost certainly have become market economies integrated into the Western industrial trading system with standards of living comparable to that of their neighboring countries in Western Europe, i.e., many multiples of their present levels. Thus, when we discuss the Soviet subsidization of Eastern Europe it must clearly be in some very limited context, which ignores the dramatic overall income reducing influence of the historical Soviet presence. Marrese and Vanous contended that the Soviet Union subsidized Eastern Europe in order to obtain political and military allegiance. Brada (1988) noted, however, that the populations of the Eastern European countries were not providing the sought after allegiance, for the populations objected to the loss of sovereignty; and the leaders of the former Communist regimes found Soviet control in their own self interest, as is evident from the dramatic political upheaval that occurred in all six Eastern European CMEA countries in 1989 accompanying the decline in the Soviet presence. Moreover, deviations from the prescribed Soviet path were suppressed in Hungary and Czechoslovakia by military means. Thus, the rationale for Soviet subsidies is not clearly articulated, because it appears that the subsidization bought little support, and the 'In addition, components of the projects supplied by Eastern European countries (purchased in US dollars) were credited in TR at the official Soviet exchange rate between the US dollar and the TR which overvalued the TR. 7 subservl6nce was obtainable through milltary means.* In view of the arguments on the dynamic ineffLciencies entalled in the CMAE trading arrangement, the Eastern European subsldies of a number of capital projects and the long run impact of the Soviet presence, we avoid discussion of the overall Soviet subsldizatlon issue; rather we confine oursel-'es to a narrower subject of the static terms-of-trade loss of the switch-over, which we estlmate for Hungary alone. We shall, however, int-rchangeably use the term "subsLdy" to be understood in this very limited sense. 2. THE METHODOLOGY Overview of the 1.ethodology The methodology ls elaborated in detail in two appendices. In appendix 1, information on the sample, as well a number of technical detaLls related to table 1 are discussed. Appendix 2 provides mathematical derivations of the formulas employed, demonstrates that our approach is independent of the use of exchange rates (which are necessarily arbitrary) as well as further insight into comparisons of our approach to others. An overview of the essential features, however, is provided here. Representative products of major exporting and importing b&ancbes were selected and both objective data and expert opinion were used for estimating what the potential dollar prices of these products would be 9Holzman (1986) and Brada "1985, 1988) argued that market segmentation in the CMEA explained the pattern of prices, and that relative prices wit.h2.n the Eastern European CMEA members reflected the same relative prices between the CMEA members and the Soviet Union (referred to as the customs union theory of CMEA pricing). In particular, net exporters of fuel and raw materials would be subsidy givers within the CMEA. Since Poland, which has better resource endowment than Hungary, and is a net exporter of energy and net imporftr of manufactured goods, Marrese-Wittenberg tested this proposition by comparing Polish and Sovlet subsidies to Hungary. They find mixed evidence for the customs union theory of CMEA pricing: in 1982 Poland subsidized Hungary, but in 1987 the evidence seems to support an interpretation of Hungarian subsidies to Poland. 8 if they were traded in hArd currency with the Soviet Unior.. By objective data we mean that for homogeneoue products, such as oil and raw materials, a world market price was known from international commodity marktt quotations. For manufactured goods however, this approach was not possible because of the great variation in product quality. Therefore, for heterogeneous products, expert opinion was sought. In these cases, individcuals from foreign trade orgi.nizations and manufacturing firms who were most likely to have the best information were requested to give an estimate. In all cases where expert opinion was sought an in depth interview was performed. Based on their knowledge of the prices of similar products on the world ma-.ket on the one hand, and on conditions in the Soviet market on the other, they were asked to estimate the pl_,es thuir exports could fetch or what they would have to pay for imports, if they were priced and paid for in US dollars in trade with the Soviet Union. The survey was conducted for the year 1988. As we discuss below, given the importance of the terms-of-trade costs of the switch-over to the Eastern European economies, a number of researchers have attempted to estimate the terms-of-trade costs of the switch-over on the basis of somewhat aggregate unit value data. Without a detailed microeconomic investigation, however, these estimates, while useful, can only be viewed as illustrative. The serious alternative approach to ours is to compare unit values at a somewhat disaggregated level, compiled from foreign trade statistics -- the approach adopted by Gacs (1989) and Marrese-Wittemberg (1990). These researchers must either choose representAive markets as Marrese-Wittenberg, or choose a quality adjustment coefficient. Relying on a small team of researchers to make adjustments for product quality for literally hundreds of products about which their expertise is somewhat limited presents problems that are at least 9 as large if not greater than those in this approach. Thus, although this approach has neveral limitations which are discursed in the appendix, we believe it should be viewed as at least as goLd as any of the alternatives. It should be noted that a significant advantage of the approach ir this paper is that it a-voids conversions through exchangt.; rates between roubles, dollars and forints. This fact is demonstrated in the appendix. Given the fact that the forint/rouble and rouble/dollar exchange rates are not market determined, it is desirable to avoid any conversion based on exchange Lates and the arbitrariness that involves. 3. THE RESULTS The Chnge iAn the Income terms-of-trade The first measure discussed is the income terms-of-trade loss to Hungary of the switch-over. The basic data are presented in table 1. Based on 1988 quantity weights and on the price information for that year, the summary data are presented in column 7. An explanation of the other columns is presented *n the appendix. Column 7 indicates the value Hungarian exports would earn in dollars and the value Hungarians would have to pay in dollars for imports at world market prices tn 1988. Take machinery exports as an exampla. If the same quantity of Hungarian machinery exports to the Soviet Union were sold at world market prices estimated to prevail in 1988, the expected value of the earnings is $2.15 billion as opposed to 2.83 billion TR. If all exports were sold in dollars the expected earnings are $4.1 billion, and if all imports were paid for in dollars, the expected value of Hungarian payments is $4.9 billion. Thus, the difference of $0.8 billion is the expected value of the additional dollars that Hungary would have to pay as a result of the switch-over. 10 In order to arrive at an estimate of the income terms-of-trade loss, it is necessary to decide how to value the TR surplus that existed in 1988. One can note from ablu 1 that Hungary had a surplus in its bilateral mercahndise trade with the Soviet Union of 0.4 billion TR in 1988. The surplus was about the same in 1989, but rose to over 0.6 billion TR in 1990. One extreme is to assume that the TR surpluses are valueless, i.e., that the export and import bundle of goods was the best deal that Hungary could negotiate with the Soviet Union, and Hungary would never receive any compensation in goods or services for these surpluses. Then $0.8 billion is the estimate of the income terms-of-trade loss, because it values the TR surpluses at zero. At the other extreme is to assume that the TR surpluses would have been redeemable in full for goods and services from the Soviet Union at relative prices for imports prevailing in 1988. Under this assumption it is necessary to assign a dollar value to the TR surplus at the relative prices that prevailed in 1988. This is appropriately done by counterfactually reducing the vector of export quantities and increasing the vector of import quantities equiproportiorately such that trqde is balanced in TR. Assessing the total dollar value of these counterfactually produced vectors of exports and imports yields an expected value for the dollar loss from the switch-over of $1.23 billion.'° Which of these estimates is closer to being correct? The great uncertainty, which prevailed in 1989 and early 1990, of if and when the TR surpluses would be exchanged for goods in the future suggests that the TR surpluses were not valued in full at the relative prices prevailing in 1988, so the estimate $1.23 t0Hungary's bilateral trade balance with the Soviet Union is likely to be negative in 1991. Since we are estimating terms-of- trade effects, we ignore quantity effects which would affect the trade balance. 11 billion ia too high. This uncertainty contributed to the system of licensing Hungarian exports to the Sovlet Union ln early 1990. On the other hand, the settlement of the Hungarian-Soviet Union TR balance appeared to be resolved with the agreement to convert Hungary's accumulated TR surplus Ath the Sovlet Union into a dollar amount to be used for the purchase of Soviet goods or to finance a bilateral trade deficit at the rate of $0.92 - 1 TR. This indicated that the TR surpluses have value, and the estimate of $0.8 billion is too low. The Soviet Union, however, has presented some counter claims against Hungary (for example, for improvements to buildings its departing military is leaving behind), and, more importantly, the time period over which these surpluses could be redeemed remained unresolved as of Harch 1991; the Hungarian government wanted a one year period and the Sovlet Union a five year period. If a five year period were agreed, then the surpluses would have to be discounted significantly. The ChAnge in the Bilateral Commodity terms-of-trade The counterpart to the income loss from a terms-of-trade change is the change in prices, which is naturally based on the commodity terms-of-trade, i.e., an index of the price of exports divided by an index of the price of imports. Given the importance of the Soviet trade for Hungary, we define such indices with respect to the Soviet Union alone. The percentage change in the ratio of the price index of exports to the price index of imports in the Soviet Union- Hungarian trade we define as the percentage change in the bilateral commodity terms-of-trade. Similar to the calculations regarding the income terms-of-trade we must make an assumption regarding how to value the trade surpluses with the Soviet Union. Again, at one extreme is the assumption that they are valued in full at 12 the relative prices in TR prevailing in 1988, i.e., that Hungary would be able to convert its TR surpluses with the Soviet Union into imports from the Soviet Union at the TR prices prevailing in 1988. In that case the TR prices that prevailed in 1988 are the relevant prices for defining the price index in 1988, and the estimated dollar prices are relevant for defining the price indices after the switch-over. We show in the appendix that based on 1988 initial data, the change in the bilateral commodity terms-of-trade is the ratio of the weighted average export relative price (.864) to the weighted average import relative price (1.134) or 0.762. That is, the terms-of-trade would shift adversely for Hungary by almost 24 percent. The other extreme is to assume that the TR surpluses were valueless. In this case the TR prices are not the relevant prices with which to construct the price indices, because they are not the prices at which Hungary can import. The appropriate TR prices would be the counterfactually created TR price vectors where export prices are reduced and import prices are increased equiproportionately such that there is no trade surplus in TR. This means that the true terms-of-trade under the protocols in 1988 are worse than the terms- of-trade based on unadjusted TR prices; consequently the switch-over would cause less of an adverse effect on the terms-of-trade. Making this adjustment, it is necessary to decrease TR export prices and increase import prices in TR by 4.5 percent in order to create a zero trade balance in TR with fixed quantities. Then the change in the terms-of-trade is reduced to 17 percent. This is obtained from the ratio of the counterfactually created export relative price index of .901 to the import relative price index of 1.083, which is .832. Thus, we estimate that had the switch-over occurred in 1988, the bilateral commodity terms-of-trade with the Soviet Union would have moved adversely against 13 Hungary between 17 and 24 percent. Adjusting the Estimates of the Switch-Over Costs for Changes in the Energy Sector Due to volatility in the price of energy products it is useful to update the estimates for energy price changes; these are presented in table 2. Based on dollar prices that prevailed in February 1991 and TR prices in 1990, the relative price in the mining sector would increase to 1.39 and the relative price in the electricity sector would increase to 1.57." Though the relative prices for other industries (product groups) might also have changed, there is no information of any comparably important change in the relative price of other industries as that of energy products. Using 1990 quantity weights, results in an estimate of an additional cost to Hungary of the switch-over of $700 million (for a total cost of between 1.5 and 1.9 billion dollars), and an additional adverse movement in the bilateral terms-of-trade of 13 percent (for a total adverse movement of between 30 and 37 percent). There is a methodological question regarding whether 1988 or 1990 quantity weights would be most appropriate. Since the volume of trade between the Soviet Union and Hungary declined by about 30 percent in 1990 relative to 1988 or 1989, the choice between 1990 and either of the previous two years is significant. One view is that one should use 1990 quantity weights if 1990 prices are being employed. To assess the "subsidy" that Hungary actually received from the Soviet "We assume a price of $21 per barrel (and 7.4 barrels per metric ton), which is based on the spot price of a barrel of oil during early February 1991. The relative prices of natural gas, coal and electricity are calculated on the basis of TR prices of 1990 and actual contractual prices between Hungary and the Soviet Union during early 1991. The increase in the relative price also derives from a decrease in the TR price of oil between 1988 and 1990 (from 133 to 96 TR per metric ton of oil), due to the 5 year moving average Bucharest formula. 14 Union in 1990, this would be the correct procedure. Another view is that the Soviet Union cut deliveries to Hungary of oil in 1990 to force Hungary to incur some of the switch-over costs in 1990. That is, if the Soviet Union had a continued commitment to the CMEA system, it would have made an effort to maintain deliveries to the CMEA partners, rather than sell to the West for convertible currency. t2 Then one could counterfactually evaluate what the Soviet "subsidy" to Hungary would have been in 1990, if it had maintained deliveries in 1990 at the level of 1988. Using 1988 quantities and the prices of the previous paragraph, results in an additional cost of the switch-over of $950 million (for a total cost of between 1.75 and 2.15 billion dollars). Since the prices of energy products are subject to considerable volatility, we also estimate the change in the Soviet "subsidy" to Hungary for each dollar change in the price of oil (taking into account the impact of a change in the price of oil on other energy prodcuts). Based on 1990 quantity weights, we estimate that the switch-over costs to Hungary will change by $76 million for each dollar change in the price of a barrel of oil."3 Using this estimate of the subsidy per dollar per barrel, the reader may easily calculate the change in the "O0f course, part of the reason for the cut in Soviet deliveries to Eastern Europe was domestic production problems. But, deliveries of oil to Eastern Europe fell more than in proportion to the drop in production or in sales to the West. '3The estimate is derived using the following methodology. In 1990 Hungary imported 32.9 million barrels of oil from the Soviet Union. Thus, a one dollar increase in the price of oil will increase the cost of oil from the Soviet Union by $32.9 million. In addition, a one dollar increase in the price of oil is estimated to increase the cost of non-oil energy imports by $43 million. The latter number is derived from the fact that non-oil energy imports represented 67 percent of the total value of Hungarian energy imports from the Soviet Union in 1990, and Hungarian government and industry sources estimate that the proportional increase in non-oil energy costs will be 65 percent of the proportional increase in the cost of oil, i.e., $43 million - $32.9 million*(67/33)*(.65). 15 Soviet subsidy to Hungary foi. any estimted future price of a barrel of oil."4 4. COMPARISON WITH OTHER ESTIMATES The Price of Hungarian Exports Before comparing our estimates to others, we first discuss some data that will be useful in assessing other estimates. Despite the fact that Hungarian exports are of lower quality than Western products, our investigation, summarized in table 3, finds that Hungarian exporters would have been able to obtain considerably more in domestic currency by selling for convertible currency in the Soviet Union than by selling in transferable roubles.'5 In column 3 of the export section of the table, one can observe (by sector) the number of forint an untaxed Hungarian exporter (or importer) is expected to earn (pay) by exporting and selling for dollars compared to transferable roubles. For the exporting enterprise itself, its incentives are dependent on the system of trade taxes and subsidies. In column 6, we note that all sectors except the food processing industry expected to earn more in domestic currency after the switch- over. t6 These data show that the microeconomic incentives to Hungarian 4As mentioned above, part of the increased switch-over costs attributible to using updated energy prices derives from a reduction in the TR price of oil in 1990 relative to 1988. Thus, only adjusting the dollar price of oil will not totally eliminate the difference in the estimate of the switch-over costs between 1988 and 1990. '6Based on a recent survey of Polish enterprises, Rosati (1990) has found similar results in Poland. 'It is assumed in column 6 that the subsidies and taxes on trade among the former CMEA countries will be eliminated. (We ignore MFN tariff rates and any export subsidies which will be uniformly applied.) The actual situation may vary as well because of the costs of the exporting (continued...) 16 enterprises after the switch-over are consistent with the macroeconomic adjustment required due to the terms-of-trade loss, i.e., more exports and less imports. Comparison with other Recent Estimates It is intutive, based on the data of table 3, that it does not make sense to assess the terms-of-trade loss to Hungary by examining only a portion of the import and export bundle employing TR-dollar exchange rates. Rather, the whole bundle of imports and exports must be assessed to determine how much exports the Eastern European countries are giving up in return for the oil and other imports. In particular, Vanous (1990) has estimated the Soviet subsidy of Eastern European oil purchases alone, by introducing what he terms as a realistic exchange rate of the TR for the dollar (based on the Hungarian cross-exchange rate). Employing the same logic and exchange rate would imply (from table 3) that the Hungarian machinery exports were subsidizing the Soviet Union, which would reduce the overall Soviet subsidy."17 t8{ ... continued) enterprise of its energy inputs will likely increase, payment will be less rapid due to the cancellation of the "prompt encashment system,' and the government may impose taxes to compensate for the loss of trade taxes. When these other cost increases are taken into consideration, the exporting enterprise may not find that its unit profitability inproves after the switch-over. "There is an old joke in Eastern Europe about a man who claims to have sold his ugly dog for $1000. The astonished listener ultimately discovers, however, that the man received no cash for his dog. Rather, he received in return two cats, for which he claims to have paid $500 each. Examining either side of the sale separately would reveal a great subsidy relative to a market transaction. Another way to see this is to suppose that all prices in TR were doubled, with no change in any exchange rate. Then the terms-of-trade, which are defined by relative prices in TR are unchanged; but a calculation of the subsidy would be reduced by 50 percent based on oil imports. One could argue that a doubling (continued...) 17 Due to the importance of the issue of the switch-over costs, there have been a number of efforts at estimating these costs based on rather aggregate unit value data without a microeconomic investigation of product quality.1" The most systematic of these is Kenen (1990). He has estimated the terms-of-trade loss as a result of the switch-over based on 1989 quantities and unit value data for Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Romania, but calls his estimates illustrative. Konen's calculations involve the valuation of the import and export bundle using domestically applicable cross exchange rates of the TR to the dollar, with adjustments as he deems appropriate. In the case of Hungary, he estimates it will lose approximately $2.08 billion and its bilateral commodity terms-of-trade will deteriorate by 36.7 percent. Based on the data of table 3, we believe these estimates are too high for 1989; they failed to adjust prices of the industrial consumer goods sector and prices of the machinery sector were adjusted in the opposite direction indicated by the data of table 3.19 In unpublished notes, Marrese has estimated the terms-of-trade effect of the switch-over for the six Eastern European CMEA countries. He assumed that the 1( ... continued) of all import and export prices in TR will induce the authorities to appreciate the domestic currency against the TR. A proportionate appreciation of the domestic currency will leave everything unchanged. The example, nonetheless emphasizes that it is best to avoid a calculation which is so dependent on a somewhat arbitrary exchange rate. '8See, for example, Institute of International Finance (1990) and Havlik (1990). No explanation of the methodology is available in these studies. 19Data in Marrese and Wittenberg (1990) suggest a quality adjustment similar to that indicated by table 3. They found that the prices of Hungarian machinery goods sold in the Soviet Union were far lower than comparable Hungarian exports sold in the West (about 80 percent lower even after their adjustment for product quality). 18 relative prLces that prevailed in 1987 (estimated in the Harrese-Wittenberg study) continued to prevail in later years, with the exception of energy prices. For 1990 his estimate (with $21 per barrel oil) o' $1.9 billion is at the upper range of our comparable estimate (row 2 table 2).0 5. CONCLUSIONS This paper has surveyed the literature on the Soviet "subsidy" to Eastern Europe and concluded that, given the overall income reducing effect of the Soviet presence, a Soviet subsidy can only be interpreted in the limited context of a static terms-of-trade loss. This paper has introduced a new data set, which is based on interviews of experts in the respective product categories, for the purpose of analyzing the static terms-of-trade loss that Hungary is likely to suffer as a result of the switch-over in 1991 of its trading relationship with the Soviet Union. We believe that these data are at least as reliable as the principal alternative data sources, which are based on selection of unit values from markets defined as comparable by the researcher. We have analyzed the 'Seminar entitled, "The Cost to Central-East Europe of the Disintegration of the CMEA and the 1990 Oil Price Increase," at the OECD-World Bank conference on "the Transition to a Market Economy in Central and Eastern Europe," Paris, November 28-30, 1990. Marrese's estimates for 1988, however, are considerably less than ours; in fact, he finds that Hungary "subsidized" the Soviet Union in 1988. Since, as we explain in appendix 2, for the same relative prices, Marrese's estimates of the Soviet subsidy to Hungary will be larger than our lower bound estimate, the fact that he has a lower estimate than us for 1988 of the Soviet subsidy must derive from different relative price estimates. Marrese, however, did not update his and Wittenberg's microeconomic investigation of relative prices (other than in energy) from 1987. We also note that Marrese's estimate of the terms-of-trade loss to Hungary at $26 per barrel is 27 percent greater than our midpoint estimate; this indicates that his estimates are more sensLtive than ours to a change in the price of oil, apparently due in part to an assumption of a greater percentage pass-through to the natural gas and electricity sectors than we have assumed. 19 previously unnoted methodological question of how to assess terms-of-trade changes for countries that have unredeemable trade surpluses. In table 2, the paper has provided a range of updated estimates of the terms-of-trade loss for Hungary, taking into account the unredeemable surplus problem as well as different quantity weights and energy prices. Based on oil at $21 per barrel, the estimates are that Hungary will suffer an income terms-of-trade loss of between $1.5 billion and $2.15 billion, which is more than double the most recently published estimate. In table 3, we have shown that contrary to conventional wisdom, the majority of Hungarian firms exporting to the Soviet Union have been disfavored by the e^,rlination of the payments mechanism, exchange rate, tax and subsidy policy. Finally, we have compared and evaluated the methodology of other estimates of the terms-of-trade changes due to the switch- over in Eastern Europe. Based on early 1991 experience, It appears that there will be a significant decline in Soviet imports from Hungary in 1991. The reduction in the quantity of Soviet imports is related to a variety of problems, many internal to the Soviet Union, which are beyond the scope of this paper.2" Since we are estimating terms-of-trade effects only, we ignore the quantity effects in this paper. The reductions in the quantity, however, appear to be at least as important as the price changes from the macroeconomic perspective of Hungary. APPENDIX 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE 1. In this appendix we use the term industry to refer to one of the ten broad aggregates of products listed in table 1, and we use the term products to refer 21See Tarr (1991) for a discussion of these issues. 20 to subsectors of the industry aggregates. For exami le, mining and machinery are two of the industries; and oil is a product within the mining industry. Our sample selected representative products of exporting and importing industries. Products were included in the sample, as a rule, based on their importance in Hungarian-Soviet bilateral trade (like buses and grain in Hungarian exports, and crude oil and Lada cars in Hungarian imports). Column 1 presents the value of Hungarian imports from and exports to the Soviet Union by industry in TR, and column 2 presents the share of each industry in total exports or imports. In column 4, an indication of how large the sample was in relation to the industry is provided. For example, the sample of metallurgy exports products was 76.9% of total Hungarian metallurgy exports to the Soviet Union. Column 3 equals column 4 times column 2, and is an indication of how large the sample is in total trade. The sum of column 2 indicates that the products sampled were 52.2% of total Hungar4an exports to the Soviet Union and 62.1% of total Hungarian imports. 2. For the selected products which were homogeneous, prices were available from international commodity markets. For products subject to quality variation, information on the potential dollar price of exported (imported) products to (from) the Soviet Union was requested. The ratio of the potential dollar prices to actual transferable rouble prices were defined as relative prices for each product in the sample. First, relative prices for industries were calculated (column 5) by weighting the relative prices of products within industries. In all, data were collected on the relative prices of 54 export products and 47 import products. 2The shares of the representative products within industries were increased equiproportionately such that the sum of the shares equaled unity. The scaled up shares were then used as the weights. 21 The relative prices for industries were aggregated into overall export and import relative prices using as weights the share of each industry's exports (imports) in total TR exports (imports), yielding .864 for exports and 1.134 for imports." For industries with a lower share in exports or imports than 1 per cent, no sample was taken. In those cases, the sample average was used. 3. In cases where there were multiple estimates from experts regarding the dollar price or when only a minimum-maximum range of prices could be estimated (for example, when the product was not actually traded in dollars), the mean of the estimates was taken as "the" estimate for the product. On the basis of these actual or estimated dollar prices in roubles on the one hand, and their actual foreign trade prices in roubles on the other, relative prices were determined for each selected product. These relative prices indicate the amount of dollars that would have to be paid in case of imports, or could be received in case of exports for, the unit of any product bought or sold for one rouble in Hungarian - Soviet trade. 23Another average, which was called the sample average, was calculated by taking the weighted average of the price relatives of the individual products in the sample. The weights were obtained by taking the shares of the products in overall imports and exports and increasing the shares equiproportionately such that the weights summed to unity. The sample average was used as the price relative for the small industries for which a sample was not performed. ?2 APPENDIX 2 EXPLANATION OF THE TERHS-OFoTRADE ESTIMATING FORMULAS In this appendix we elaborate the mathematical relationships that are the basis of the estimates in the text. In the process, we clarify some of the distinctions made in the text, and compare our methodology to that of Marrese and his coauthors. First, it is necessary to define some notation. Let: PE$ - the export price of good i in US dollars PE TR.the export price of good i in transferable roubles PM$ - the import price of good i in US dollars i PM TR- the import price of good i in transferable roubles Xi the quantity of exports of good ito the Soviet Union Mi . the quantity of imports of good i from the Soviet Union Then TB($) - Z XiPEv - M M $PM - the bilateral trade balance with the Soviet Union in dollars, and TB(TR) - 2 X PER - I H PMT - the bilateral trade balance with i i i the Soviet Union in transferable roubles. The gi&Luda IQ WW9li3ang LewQX Bund kLMaL In table 1, we obtained the lower bound estimate of the terms-of-trade loss through the use of the following formula: (1) - 4 - XiPE [PE?/PEi v MiPM i [P/PMi/ I i.e., by multiplying the exports and imports of each sector denominated in TR by the relative price from our survey. Clearly, multiplication within the terms of the summation in equation (1) yields: SL - -TB($). Thus, the approach of table 1, which takes the fixed transferable rouble values and multiplies by the relative price, is equivalent to taking fixed quantity weights and valuing this bundle of exports and imports in dollars. That is, it produces an answer to the question of: if the same bundle of exports and imports were traded at dollar prices, how much extra would have to be paid in dollars. If this value L -3 is negative, as it is in table 1, it indicates that Hungary will have to pay out dollars for the same bundle of imports and exports. Thus, we say that Hungary will suffer a terms-of-trade loss equal to the negative of TB($). The- Subidy to jungary: R Bound Estmatg The calculation in equation (1) values the surplus in TR at zero. An alternative assumption is to assume that it is redeemable at the relative prices that prevailed in 1988, so that the switch-over results in a further loss of income due to the loss of the value of the TR trade surplus. We do this by equiproportionately decreasing exports and increasing imports such that the trade balance is balanced in TR; we then value this balanced trade balance in dollars. Choose a 6, where 0 < 6 < 1, such that TB (TR) - (1-6)XiPEi - (1+6)M - O i iii Then: (2) TB (TR) - TB(TR) - 6 [ XPETR T MiPPMTR] - 0. i i That is, the second term on the right hand side of equation (2) is the trade surplus denominated in TR. We value this counterfactually created trade balance, TB (TR) in dollars at the relative prices of 1988 to obtain the upper bound estimate of the income terms-of-trade loss. Focusing on the second term on the right hand side of (2) 6 (E XiPE T(PE$/PET ] + R PMTR[PM$i/PMT 1) i i i i i MIPi (Pi - 5(1 X PE$ + E MiPM$] - the TR trade surplus valued in dollars. i i Since, TB(TR) when valued in dollars at 1988 relative prices is TB($), the upper bound estimate of the Hungarian terms-of-trade loss is equal to: (3) u S -TB($) + 6[1 X PE$ + I Mi i u i ~~i i which exceeds the lower bound estimate by the amount of the second term on the right hand side of (3). ComRarison k shA Mgthodolv 2Q NAjXMA Marrese defines the Soviet subsidy to Hungary as: (4) S -TB($) + (E XiPEi - E MiPMi)/ER H ~~~~i i where PEF is the export price of good i defined in Hungarian forint, i PMF is the import price of good i defined in Hungarian forint, and ER$ i is the number of forint one receives for a dollar at the official exchange rate in Hungary, i.e, about 60 in late 1990. In (4) we have reversed the signs of Marrese's formula, since he defines the 21. Hungarian subsidy to the Soviet Union. How does (4) compare to our estimates? In the Hungarian trade data we have that F TR TR T PEi - PE ER where ER is the number of forint received for a transferable rouble in Hungary at the official exchange rate. Consequently, the second term in (4) is equal to (5) z XiPE$ - E M PM$t , where the dollar prices in (5) are obtained i i at the cross-rate of the rouble to the dollar that prevails at the official exchange rates in Hungary. That is, the Marrese estimate is equal to the value of the bundle of exports and imports in dollars (our lower bound estimate of the terms-of-trade loss) plus the TR surplus valued at the cross-exchange rate of the TR to the dollar prevailing in Hungary. To the extent that the second term in (4) differs from the second term in (3), our upper bound estimate will differ from Marrese. We have preferred to avoid the use of exchange rates that are not market determined, because of the arbitrariness that is involved in their use. We believe, however, that a clear upper bound on the valuation of the TR surplus is the assumption that the TR suurplus is redeemable at the relative prices that prevailed in 1988, as calculated by our upper bound estimate. Our lower bound estimate will differ from Marrese because it places a zero value on the TR surplus. The Bilateral Commodity TerMs-of-Trade: The terms-of-trade is defined as the number of units of exports necessary to obtain a unit of imports. For a convertible currency country, it would be: TOT - PE/PM. With many comodities, the export and import prices are indices which we now construct for the Soviet-Hungary trade. Define: VX - E X PET ; VM - M i i - TR H TR ae _ X XPE /VX; i PM v. i _ i - 1. Cas LL lue Aa Eimgd uatAte. RdoneMabla IB Suroluses First consider, the case where the TR surplus is fully redeemable. Then we define: PEO aX PE TR; P(O OPMTh ii i, i PE1 aX PE$; and PM1 -I1 PM$ Then (PEL /PM1]/[PE /PM ] is the proportional change in the terms-of-trade. Rerranging and substituting yields: 75 (6) (PEl/PMl1/,PEO/p 0 aI (PE$/PE 1)/(E aM (PM$I/PM TR), i i which from table I is equal to: .864/1.134 - .764. Thus our upper bound estimate of the adverse shift in the bilateral commodity terms-of-trade is 23.6 percent. Case JL Lower god Estimags Unredeemable IM Sug2uses Analogous to the income terms-of-trade calcualtion, if the TR surplus is unredeemable, then the pre-existing terms-of-trade are not as good as revealed by the prices defined in TR. In this case, it is necessary to adjust the index of prices, such that the trade balance is eliminated, i.e., define: PE - 1_) TR 14m TR PE (1-6) PEi P - (1+6) PM1 , where 6 was def ined in this appendix above. Then the proportional change in the terms-of-trade are equal to: $/pTR])/ K $ TR ((1+6)1(1-6)]lE O X[ /P1 4H Q P /PMi 1) - [(1+6)/(1-6)](.762) - .83. Thus, the adverse shift in the bilateral commodity terms-of-trade is only 17 percent if we regard the TR surpluses as unredeemable. 26 Table 1. Irnc term of trae calculations from effects of switching to dollar payments in Hunarien-Soviet trade, 1988 Exports Actual Share ln Share of Share of Price Value In 1988 value actusl trade saple in sasplo in relatives 1000 USD (1000 TRbt) total trade branch's trade (USD/TRbi) Kean (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Mining 39,529 0.8X * 35,515 Electricity 2.919 0.1X * 2,622 Notallurgy 134,648 2.8X 2.172 76.9X 2.182 293,784 Machinrry 2833,761 59.52 26.20X 44.1X 0.759 2,150,824 Chmicals 504.309 10.6X 9.422 89.12 0.789 397,719 Light Industry 498. 178 10.5X 4.65X 44.52 1.056 525,945 Food Processing 522,612 11.02 9.77T 64.32 0.964 493.089 Agriculture 198.333 4.2X 0.9b4 187,129 Building Materials 20,228 0.42 * 18.174 Other 11.637 0.22 * 10,456 Total 4,766.154 100.02 52.21X 0.864 4,115,257 Imports Actual Share in Share of Share of Price Value in 1988 value actual trade seaple In sample In relatives 1000 USD (1000 TRbI) total trade branch's trade (USD/TRbI) Mean (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Mining 1t505,476 34.52 33.38% 96.72 0.879 1,323,144 Electricity 358.515 8.2Z * 400,756 Metallurgy 477,377 11.0X 9.32% 85.12 1.993 951.313 Machinery 858,013 19.72 4.76G 24.22 0.920 789.181 Chemicals 700,328 16.12 9.16X 57.02 1.247 872,990 Light Industry 325.858 7.52 4.80X 64.22 1.347 439.053 Food Processing 43.483 1.02 0.12Z 11.42 0.598 27,218 Agriculture 59.822 1.42 0.21X 15.22 1.807 108,095 Building Materials 23,868 0.52 0.37X 68.32 0.858 20.482 Other 4,062 0.12 * 4.540 Total 4,358.802 100.02 62.12X 1.134 4,936,772 * For sectors with an "" (which are generally small), no price survey was made and the overall saspte average was employed. This was .898 for exports and 1.118 for imports. The agriculture and food processing sectors were combined In calculating the price relative. 27 TABLE 2. COST TO HUNGARY OF THE SWITCH-OVER TO CON.VERTIBLE CURRENCY TRADE Adverse Percentage Change in the Bilateral Income Loss Commodity (Millions of Dollarsi Tlrms-of-Trade 1. 1988 Quantities and Prices 800 - 1,200 17 - 24 2. 1990 Quantities and $21 per barrel oil 1,500 - 1,900W 30 - 37 3. 1988 Quantities and $21 per barrel oil 1,750 - 2,1502/ 29 - 36 A/ For each one-dollar decrease in the price of oil, the estimated costs of the switch-over will decrease by US$76 million. The impact of the oil price increase on natural gas, coal and electricity is incorporated. Table 3. Estimated Initial Relative Price effect on Domestic Currency (Forint) in Exporting and Importing Industries in Hungary from the Switch Over (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Exporting Relative Cross Relative Subsidy Cross Exchange Relative Price Industries Price Exchange Price in Ratebl Rate by Sector in Forint after in the Rate in Forint after 63/[27.5(1+s)]JC the Switch-over Soviet Union Hungary the switch- Adjusting for (S/TR) (63/27.5) over (Ignoring Subsidies Subsidies) Metallurgy 2.182 2.29 5.0 0.56 1.47 3.20 Machinery 0.759 2.29 1.74 -0.14 2.67 2.02 Chemicals 0.789 2.29 1.81 -0.11 2.57 2.03 Light Industry 1.056 2.29 2.42 0.22 1.88 1.99 Food Processing 0.944 2.29 2.16 1.61 0.88 0.83 Agriculture 0.944 2.29 2.16 0.20 1.92 1.81 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Importing Relative Cross Relative Tax Cross Exchange Relative Price Industries Price Exchange Price in Rateb/ Rate by Sector in Forint after In the Rate in Forint after 63/[27(1+t0]3 the Switch-over Soviet Union hungary the switch- Adjusting for ($/TR) 63/27 over (Ignoring Taxes Taxes)}I Mining 0.879 2.29 2.01 0.81 1.26 1.11 Metallurgy 1.993 2.29 4.57 0.38 1.66 3.31 Machinery 0.92 2.29 2.11 0.00 2.29 2.10 Chemicals 1.247 2.29 2.86 0.17 1.97 2.45 Light Industry 1.347 2.29 3.09 0.18 1.94 2.62 Food Processing 0.598 2.29 1.37 0.02 2.24 1.34 Agriculture 1.807 2.29 4.14 0.21 1.89 3.42 Bldg. Materials 0.858 2.29 1.97 0.00 2.29 1.97 a/ Estimated number of forint received by exporters after the switch-over to dollar payment with the Soviet Union for each forint currently received or paid. b/ Subsidy and tax rates are calculated on an ad valorem basis from the data in Abel, Hillman and Tarr (1991). c/ The cross-exchange rate by sector adjusts for the subsidy rate "s" and the tax rate "t". 29 REFERENCES Abel, Istvan, Arye Hillman and David Tarr (1991), "The Government Budgetary Consequences of Reform of the CMEA System of International Trade: The Case of Hungary," in A. Hillman and B. Milanovic eds. Socialist Economies in Transition, forthcoming. Balassa, Bela (1990), "Economic Integration in Eastern Europe," July, The World Bank, mimeo. Brada, Josef (1985), "Soviet Subsidization of Eastern Europe: The Primacy of Economics over Politics?" Journal of ComDarative Economics, 9, 80-82. Brada, Josef (1988), "Interpreting the Soviet Subsidization of Eastern Europe," International Organization, 639-58. Economic Commission for Europe (1990), "Foreign Trade of the Eastern Countries." Economic Bulletin for Europe, 42, chapter 2. Gacs, J. Szamitas a magyar-szovjet kereskedelem szabaddevizas elszamolasa esten bekovetkezo valtozasokrol. (Computations concerning changes resulting from introducing hard currency payments in Hungarian-Soviet trade.) Institute for Economic Market Research and Informatics, Budapest, 1989. Havlik, Peter (1990), "Soviet Trade with Easterr Europe: What Will Happen Next," WIIW- Hit Holzman, Franklyn (1985), "Comecon: A 'Trade Destroying' Customs Union?" Journal of ComRarative Economics, *., 410-23. Holzman, Franklyn (1986), "The Significance of Soviet Subsidies?" Comparstive Economic Studies, 28, 54-65. Institute of International Finance (1990), "Central and Eastern European Trade with the Soviet Union: Where do we go from here?" Washington, D.C., mimeo. Kenen, Peter (1990), "Transitional Arrangements for Trade and Payments Among the CMEA Countries," IMF Discussion paper presented at the OECD-World Bank Conference on the Transition to a Market Economy in Central and Eastern Europe, Paris, November 28-30, 1990. Koves, A.(1989). "CMEA and Cooperation with the West," Paper presented at Conference on "Attempts at Liberalization: Hungarian Economic Policy and International Experience," Budapest, Hungary, November 16-18. Marer, Paul (1984), "The Political Economy of Soviet Relations with Eastern Europe," in Soviet PolLcy in Eastern Europe, Sarah Meiklejohn Terry ed., New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Marrese, Michael and Jan Vanous (1983). Soviet Subsidization of CMEA Trade with Eastern Euro2e, Berkeley University of California Press. Marrese, Michael and Lauren Wittenberg (1990). "Implicit Trade Subsidies Within the CMEA: A Hungarian Perspective," Northwestern University, mimeo. Pesci, Kalman (1981), The Euture of Socialist EconoMic Integratin, Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. Rosati, Dariusz (1990), "Impact of Replacing CMEA Trade Regime by a Market Trade Regime: Poland," Warsaw: Foreign Trade Research Institute, October, mimeo. Salvatore, Dominick (1987). International Economics, New York: MacMillan. Tarr, David (1991), "What Next for Eastern Europe after the Demise of the CMEA?" The World Bank, EMTTF, mimeo. Vanous, Jan (1990). "Soviet Energy Developments in 1989," Plan-Econ Report, June 8. World Bank (1991). The Demise of the CMEA: The Case of Hungarv, Report No. 9074-HU, January 15. PRE Working Paper Series Contact T& IXAuthIr for p r WPS675 Are Buybacks Back? Menu-Driven Ishac Diwan May 1991 S. King-Watson Debt-Reduction Schemes with Mark M. Spiegel 33730 Heterogenous Creditors WPS676 Higher Education in the Republic Viswanathan Selvaratnam May 1991 C. Cristobal of Yemen: The University of Sana'a Omporn L. Regel 33640 WPS677 On Economic Transformation in East- Andres Solimano May 1991 E. Khine Central Europe: A Historical and 39361 International Perspective WPS678 Economic Growth: AReview of the David Renelt May 1991 R. Luz Theoretical and Empirical Literature 34303 WPS679 Poverty Alleviation in Mexico Santiago Levy May 1991 M. Stroude 38831 WPS680 On Hunger and Public Action Martin Ravallion May 1991 C. Spooner 30464 WPS681 Political-Economy Arguments for Arvind Panagariya May 1991 K. Cabana UniformTariff Dani Rodrik 37947 WPS682 Intertemporal Substitution, Risk Patricio Arrau May 1991 S. King-Watson Aversion, and Private Savings in Sweder van Wijnbergen 31047 Mexico WPS683 Vocational Schooling, Occupational Shoshana Neuman May 1991 C. Cristobal Matching, and Labor Market Earnings Adrian Ziderman 33640 in Israel WPS684 The Value of Intra-household Survey Lawrence Haddad May 1991 J. Sweeney Data for Age-based Nutritional Ravi Kanbur 31021 Targeting WPS685 Children and Intra-household Ravi Kanbur May 1991 J. Sweeney Inequality: A Theoretical Analysis 31021 WPS686 Lending for Learning: Twenty Years Adriaan Verspoor May 1991 C. Cristobal of World Bank Support for Basic 33640 Education WPS687 Brazilian Frozen Concentrated Carlos Alberto Primo Braga May 1991 N. Artis Orange Juice: The Folly of Unfair Simao Davi Silber 37947 Trade Cases WPS688 Macroeconomics of Public Sector Felipe Morande May 1991 S. Jonnakuty Deficits: The Case of Zimbabwe Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel 39074 PRE Working Paper Series Contact BL Abor Die for eaer WPS689 Do Tax Policies Stimulate Investment Anwar Shah May 1991 A. Bhalla in Physical and Research and John Baffes 37699 Development Capital? WPS690 The Terms-of-Trade Effects from the Gabor Oblath May 1991 J. Smith Elimination of State Trading in Soviet- David Tarr 37350 Hungarian Trade