Why Uzbekistan pays premium prices for sugar: Institutional and market analysis
Identifikátory výsledku
Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F62156489%3A43110%2F25%3A43928369" target="_blank" >RIV/62156489:43110/25:43928369 - isvavai.cz</a>
Výsledek na webu
<a href="https://doi.org/10.24263/2304-974X-2025-14-4-14" target="_blank" >https://doi.org/10.24263/2304-974X-2025-14-4-14</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.24263/2304-974X-2025-14-4-14" target="_blank" >10.24263/2304-974X-2025-14-4-14</a>
Alternativní jazyky
Jazyk výsledku
angličtina
Název v původním jazyce
Why Uzbekistan pays premium prices for sugar: Institutional and market analysis
Popis výsledku v původním jazyce
Introduction. Among the fifteen largest global sugar importers by value, only three countries pay average prices exceeding $700 per ton: the United States ($761), Italy ($709), and Uzbekistan ($706). The first two countries implement extensive programs to protect domestic production. Uzbekistan produces virtually no sugar. This study examines how a country with nothing to protect pays prices comparable to protectionist economies. Materials and methods. This study analyses data on sugar imports classified under the Harmonised System code HS1701 for the period 2017-2024, obtained from two main sources: the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database (UN Comtrade) and the International Trade Centre Trade Map (ITC Trade Map). The study employs comparative price analysis across three dimensions-time, cross-country, and supplier-specific-in combination with natural experiment designs and a counterfactual welfare estimator. Results and discussion. Using HS1701 import data from 2017 to 2024 for Central Asian and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, we identify systemic procurement inefficiencies. Uzbekistan pays 17.4% more than Kazakhstan, 8.8% more than Tajikistan, and 7.9% more than Kyrgyzstan, despite importing more sugar than all regional competitors combined. Natural experiment comparisons separate institutional from geographic factors: Kyrgyzstan (EAEU member, similar geography) and Tajikistan (non-member, worse geography) both achieve better prices, ruling out location as the cause. For Brazilian sugar-where no preferential agreements apply-Uzbekistan pays a 39.6% premium over Kazakhstan, confirming procurement inefficiency independent of EAEU effects. Estimated welfare losses reach $67-117 million annually (0.06-0.10% of GDP), totalling $362 million in 2021-2024. Conclusions. The study makes three contributions. First, it shows that institutions can outweigh geography: Tajikistan's lower prices despite worse location challenge the idea that landlockedness alone drives trade costs. Second, it quantifies the EAEU exclusion penalty (12.1%) while proving domestic factors matter-non-members like Tajikistan and Azerbaijan match EAEU prices. Third, it overturns bargaining theory: despite importing more sugar than all neighbours combined, Uzbekistan pays the highest prices. This inverse volume-price relationship reveals that institutional weaknesses can erase the benefits of scale.
Název v anglickém jazyce
Why Uzbekistan pays premium prices for sugar: Institutional and market analysis
Popis výsledku anglicky
Introduction. Among the fifteen largest global sugar importers by value, only three countries pay average prices exceeding $700 per ton: the United States ($761), Italy ($709), and Uzbekistan ($706). The first two countries implement extensive programs to protect domestic production. Uzbekistan produces virtually no sugar. This study examines how a country with nothing to protect pays prices comparable to protectionist economies. Materials and methods. This study analyses data on sugar imports classified under the Harmonised System code HS1701 for the period 2017-2024, obtained from two main sources: the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database (UN Comtrade) and the International Trade Centre Trade Map (ITC Trade Map). The study employs comparative price analysis across three dimensions-time, cross-country, and supplier-specific-in combination with natural experiment designs and a counterfactual welfare estimator. Results and discussion. Using HS1701 import data from 2017 to 2024 for Central Asian and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, we identify systemic procurement inefficiencies. Uzbekistan pays 17.4% more than Kazakhstan, 8.8% more than Tajikistan, and 7.9% more than Kyrgyzstan, despite importing more sugar than all regional competitors combined. Natural experiment comparisons separate institutional from geographic factors: Kyrgyzstan (EAEU member, similar geography) and Tajikistan (non-member, worse geography) both achieve better prices, ruling out location as the cause. For Brazilian sugar-where no preferential agreements apply-Uzbekistan pays a 39.6% premium over Kazakhstan, confirming procurement inefficiency independent of EAEU effects. Estimated welfare losses reach $67-117 million annually (0.06-0.10% of GDP), totalling $362 million in 2021-2024. Conclusions. The study makes three contributions. First, it shows that institutions can outweigh geography: Tajikistan's lower prices despite worse location challenge the idea that landlockedness alone drives trade costs. Second, it quantifies the EAEU exclusion penalty (12.1%) while proving domestic factors matter-non-members like Tajikistan and Azerbaijan match EAEU prices. Third, it overturns bargaining theory: despite importing more sugar than all neighbours combined, Uzbekistan pays the highest prices. This inverse volume-price relationship reveals that institutional weaknesses can erase the benefits of scale.
Klasifikace
Druh
J<sub>imp</sub> - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science
CEP obor
—
OECD FORD obor
40500 - Other agricultural sciences
Návaznosti výsledku
Projekt
—
Návaznosti
I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace
Ostatní
Rok uplatnění
2025
Kód důvěrnosti údajů
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Údaje specifické pro druh výsledku
Název periodika
Ukrainian Food Journal
ISSN
2304-974X
e-ISSN
2313-5891
Svazek periodika
14
Číslo periodika v rámci svazku
4
Stát vydavatele periodika
UA - Ukrajina
Počet stran výsledku
21
Strana od-do
792-812
Kód UT WoS článku
001678194500012
EID výsledku v databázi Scopus
2-s2.0-105030693612