The concept of the EAEU and problems in the migration sphere: is there a way out?
Public discussion
The tragedy that occurred in Crocus City near Moscow has sharpened the public debate regarding migration policy to the limit.
It is no secret that, on the one hand (“from below”), society demands a tightening of migration policy, on the other hand, the sectoral and departmental lobby (“from the side”) insists on its preservation and even greater liberalization, and on the third - political control (“from above”) usually extinguishes this discussion in the style of “don’t rock the situation.”
As a result, everything fundamentally remains as it is, which generally plays into the hands of the lobby, and not the sentiments “from below.”
To justify expanding the share of migrants in the economy, the lobby has been pushing theses for the second year that “the economy is overheated”, “there is not enough labor force”, “the lack of labor provokes inflated (!) wages”, the employer does not meet high demands, etc. etc. In general, if labor resources are not imported, there will be neither economic growth nor an industrial breakthrough.
In reality, it is quite difficult to counter the arguments of lobbyists, if only because the macroeconomic reporting on which these arguments are based is of an official nature. These indicators have openly raised doubts for a long time, but all other indicators are of a private nature, which in departmental discussions greatly reduces their practical value.
The result here is naturally that supporters of tightening migration policy, at best, seek the creation of another departmental “large program for cultural adaptation, taking into account comments and suggestions.” The discussion itself moves into the category of political philosophy - about the limits of Eurasianism, Russian identification, etc.
Sometimes even “from above” some grants are allocated for this, but only to cover it all up with a slogan like “the discussion was lively and constructive, but everyone came to the conclusion that “friendliness” is the main thing, and Russian is “Russian” in spirit."
Achilles' heel
The Achilles heel of opponents of increased migration is, oddly enough, precisely the area of economic justification. Without an economic base, which still needs to be properly formalized and bureaucratically “packaged,” the top people perceive dissatisfaction with migration as a kind of noise, to which they will simply respond with a barrage of projects like the next “Pilaf Day,” “Multinational Maslenitsa,” etc. And this will be it has its own bureaucratic, administrative logic, since it has its own ways of describing reality.
At the same time, among the arguments and counterarguments, we do not see debates around one of the main factors of the migration problem - the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).
Meanwhile, it is the concept of the EAEU, as well as the very significant regulatory framework that has developed over the years of the existence of this association, that is one of the main elements of the so-called. "migration agenda". Of course, countries such as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are not directly included in the EAEU, and the main migration flow comes from them. However, they are considered as potential participants of the EAEU, and accordingly, the bilateral regulatory framework for these countries is being “pulled up” to the basis of the association.
The roots of current migration problems lie largely in the concepts and ideas of the EAEU itself and those associated with the EAEU, which in themselves had a significant right to exist, subject to their systematic and consistent implementation in their original form.
It is from this conceptual basis that a discussion about the economic efficiency or ineffectiveness of migration can (and should) be built. The political system, coupled with the administrative-bureaucratic mechanism, works from large projects to small ones, and not vice versa.
For a long time, the EAEU has been more of a convenient ideological and economic way to justify current approaches to labor migration issues. Moreover, the further it goes, the more the generally sound idea of reintegrating the post-Soviet space, unfortunately, resembles a simulacrum.
By calling the current EAEU a simulacrum, the author did not at all seek to offend those teams that have been carrying out this project for years, and did it without laurel wreaths, tangible personal returns and benefits. They delayed, struggling with the fact that a significant number of interested groups simply sought to use integration ideas for the sake of profit from import migration or for the purpose of banal re-export by circumventing duties and quotas.
Moreover, these groups are not so much ours, Russian, as a “hodgepodge” of interests from the CIS countries. But in the end, we have exactly a Platonic simulacrum - reality and the normative ideas that are embedded there have little connection with each other.
Integration
Eurasian integration has gone through two main stages of development. From mid-2000 to 2014, integration took place in a format known as the EurAsEC, and by and large, despite the various political instruments created in this format, was a version of an expanded Customs Union.
Elements of a political (Interparliamentary Assembly) and economic superstructure (Eurasian Bank) were created, but the main practical role was assigned to the Commissions of the Customs Union, which primarily regulated issues of transit and re-export. This was also a considerable set of issues related to quotas, duties, tariffs, taxation and permitting documentation, but it should be recognized that from the point of view of integration into the “common space” such activities were only a small part of what was necessary.
Since 2014, or more precisely, from 2016–2018, the EurAsEC has been transformed into the EAEU - from the “Community” to the “Union”. Over the course of several years, the team represented by S. Glazyev has come a long way, trying to transform the structure aimed at transit and re-export into the concept of a full-fledged common economic zone.
The main theses of such an association can be seen both in the regulatory framework and in the works and speeches of Academician S. Glazyev. The response to the next round of scientific and technological revolution should be a transition to a new industrial and economic structure. The transition to a new way of life is impossible without relying on your market. An independent market requires a certain number of consumers (from 300 million, there are other estimates).
One of the conditions for the functioning of a common market is the joint formation of value by participants, when the value is established primarily through each other. The next condition for a common market is the formation of a common profit center, etc.
While it is still possible to debate in some way with S. Glazyev’s author’s terminology, it is quite difficult to argue with the fundamental theses and general concept.
The single cost zone of the European Union, no matter what they say on TV, gives this association unique stability, which, by the way, allows the European bureaucracy to continue to pursue such a costly foreign policy. China is also successfully forming such a zone in Southeast Asia. The United States intends to join the EU cost zone to itself in any way, and to construct a cost competitor to China between India and the Middle East.
In such conditions, creating a value cluster with a functioning internal market in place of the amorphous CIS was undoubtedly an adequate task, especially since Iran could easily fit into this market.
During all this time, the formulation of the task in this way was not challenged at any level; moreover, it found support even on the ideological front. It was suitable for supporters of projects like “USSR 2.0” and “Empire 2.0”, and for fans of Eurasianism and concepts like “Greater Eurasia - Third Horde”. But the main thing is not even these ideological guidelines, but the real pressing requirement to comply with the conditions of global competition.
Actually, the issues and problems of labor migration mainly come from an extremely liberal regulatory framework, super-loyal if you look at world analogues. And from the point of view of the original concept, it was logical - the common market is a market including labor and capital. As already mentioned in the first paragraphs, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, although they were not members of the EAEU, all bilateral legislation was brought under the concept of a “common labor market”, since they were also considered as potential participants in the common market.
The numbers are alarming
Now let's look at the results with which this sound and even strategically necessary concept is being implemented.
Below are graphs from Articles S. Glazyev dated 11.03.2024/XNUMX/XNUMX for the Tsargrad channel.
3,9% – share of the EAEU in world GDP (PPP); 2,5% – the share of the EAEU in world trade (for exports of goods); 1,3% – share of the EAEU in world trade (export of services).
Sources: World Bank, EEC calculations
We agree that it is quite difficult to compare these results with the indicators of the European Union, the value cluster China - Southeast Asia or the USA - Canada - Mexico. At the same time, the numbers themselves are alarming.
Firstly, because, judging by the reports of our financial and economic bloc, GDP at PPP in Russia seems to be a vigorous 5,51 trillion in dollar terms, which gives 5,3% of the global total in the Russian Federation alone. Here we see the entire EAEU as 3,5% for 2022.
Secondly, if we take the indicators from the graph as a basis, then Russian GDP in PPP terms amounted to $2022 trillion in 2,8, or 2,6% of the global total (GDP in PPP terms for the rest of the EAEU countries is $0,91 trillion). The difference is not just big, but very big.
It is possible that in 2023 we actually made a giant leap, and gained GDP in PPP twice as much as the previous year, although there are no analogues for such leaps in stories I can’t remember off the top of my head. But even if a miracle happened, then 6,11% for the union that was built in place of the USSR - CIS is at least an ambiguous result.
Moreover, it is ambiguous (to put it mildly), including for the countries of Central Asia, because if the unification does not provide clear advantages in international competition, then from the unification it is necessary to take only what is clearly beneficial in a specific period, and this approach will be in its own way logical. It’s even better when there is no need to formally join the association, and preferences can be obtained from bilateral agreements that are aimed at unification in a hypothetical future.
The paradox is that in terms of the volume of accumulated direct investment in Central Asia, Russia showed a fairly decent result - over $40 billion in investments. This is comparable to European and Chinese investments, however, in mutual trade, even with our own Eurasian Bank, we come with the third result of 20%, against the EU and China. Neither the EU nor China have made integration associations similar to the EAEU.
More detailed information about this data can be found in the following materials: “Is there potential for creating a Eurasian value zone or Greater Eurasia as an economic pole” и “USA – EU” vs “China – Russia”.
This is the result of the fact that the regulatory framework was tailored to one concept, but in reality everything went on as it had been going on since the 2000s - private targeted projects that took off somewhere and were closed somewhere, the legal framework for the general labor market worked and works purely for the migrant lobby and, by and large, is a plus, from the point of view of transfers for the countries of Central Asia, the common cost zone has remained a hypothetical project. Everything worked for transit and re-export, and continues to work, but transit and re-export are about additional income (by the way, not for everyone), and not about the general zone of value.
And again, the paradox is that this situation was not predetermined. After all, in Central Asia there are two basic issues: water and energy - these are not just problems, but a potential source of enormous income. And if we are to form a general cost cluster, then it is very strange that Russia has not developed and co-financed water and generation programs for so many years. At a minimum, this would make it possible to loop financial flows from us to our neighbors and back, taking into account the interests of both our elites and the elites of Central Asia. No one would even object to this, with the exception of groups that are simply directly associated with funds like Soros and Co. But even here their voice would not be strong.
Now in Russia there are voices saying that a visa regime should be introduced with the countries of Central Asia. And these voices are either populist or out of misunderstanding, since to introduce a visa regime it is necessary to reset the entire regulatory framework of the EAEU, and to revise the remnants of the regulatory framework for the CIS, which is still in effect. And to reset this base means to automatically create huge obstacles to parallel imports, which, not least of all, operate on these regulatory structures. What to do, these are the features of import substitution.
There are no simple solutions
All this shows that there are no simple solutions in this area.
To justify migration limits, it is necessary to formulate restrictions on the EAEU, which means that the entire economic model must be reworked and something offered in return. At the moment, it is not possible to abandon the ideas of integration and a connected bilateral base, and the migrant lobby also works on this argument. But it is also impossible not to admit that the current EAEU does not correspond to the underlying project ideas.
The EAEU can only be returned to its original design by a large-scale investment program in basic sectors – water and energy. After all, in fact, at least half of the current migration flow to Russia would have to work in this model at home, and not on our construction sites of the new century. If we admit that we do not have the resources to launch such programs, then the most logical and adequate step would be to return to the concept of the Customs Union, which reduces the limits of integration, but does not mean a rejection of integration as such.
Unfortunately, there is no real potential for recognition of this problem, and therefore full-fledged economic justification for a discussion on the same migration.
Information