Doing Business in the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) Region?

8/9/2019 Doing Business in the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) Region?

1/34

Evaluation of Convergence in Business Practice in Black Sea Economic Cooperation

(BSEC) Member Countries, 2005-2010

Dr. Adrian S. Petrescu

Brussels Belgium, April-May 2010

Executive Summary

Introduction

We have been conducting an analysis of progress and evolution in the Black Sea

Economic Cooperation (BSEC) area between 2004 and 2010. The full analysis hasconsidered recent geo-politico-economic and institutional developments in the region,

within the BSEC Organization itself, the newly established BSEC-EU relationship and

relations with other BSEC Region centered related International Organizations or

Initiatives. In this document herein however we only address in more detail issuespertaining to convergence in business practice in the BSEC member countries, as this is

one of the most important goals of the cooperation established in 1991-1992 among theeleven countries.

Scope

This interim progress report is the first out of two consecutive progress reports and out of

three reports in total, to include the final report. At this stage, this interim progress report

presents the scope, background, methodology, primary, secondary and quantitative datasources collected, consulted and being used in the analysis, as well as a sample analysis

on some dimensions used in the evaluation, with respective interim conclusions. It also

addresses further evaluation research plans and deliverables, and includes references on

the variety of sources in use in the analysis.

Background

Established in 1992 and comprising of eleven member states, the Black Sea Economic

Cooperation Organization (followed shortly in 1993 by the establishment of its

complementary BSEC Parliamentary Assembly) represented at the time for many actorsand analysts an ambitious and most welcomed initiative. Its goals and objectives were

improving or simply maintaining stability and security in the Black Sea area, particularly

through increased international cooperation in economic affairs between its members.

Between 1992 and 2004 many things have changed in the international and regionalarena, and the BSEC region has been in much part at the core of some of these changes.

While earlier reports found some significant progress in the establishment of aninstitutional framework, many and very diverse analysts of the region have concluded

that by far not as much functional progress as was hoped for in 1992 has been achieved.


2/34

From 2004 onwards, more significant changes have affected the area. Many have been in

the positive, with 2007 bringing new EU memberships for two of the BSEC member

states (Bulgaria and Romania), or with some progress on settlement of some of the long-lasting conflicts plaguing the region. New policy cooperation initiatives have been

established within the EU towards its neighbours (the European Neighbourhood Policy

ENP), and stronger ties have been built between the EU and BSEC (the Black SeaSynergy of 2007). Attention to the region, both in academic and think-tank circles, has

been growing steadily, while foreign investments as well as foreign trade inside and with

countries in the region have also surged somewhat significantly.

Many changes have been in the negative nonetheless. To single out a significant

example, in August 2008 two otherwise members of the BSEC, Russia and Georgia, were

for five days at the heart of what became known as the five days war. While the crisiswas eventually controlled, and it resulted in an ongoing test for EU newly built strength

in monitoring missions, the case is much telling of the maintained very high instability

potential (not just silent, but often erupting) that the region presents. It also speaks

volumes to the clashes of views and interests between BSEC member states that maydwarf in applied practice the formal progress achieved in institutional capacity building

between members. While extreme, the non-singularity of the five day war case posesthen questions about the actual effectiveness of the BSEC and the broader institutional

context surrounding it in achieving its stated goals and objectives of stability and security

through intensified economic cooperation.

The 2008 world financial crisis, triggered from the United States sub-prime mortgage

crisis but affecting global economic outlooks through investments related interconnection

of world economies, didnt leave the region unaffected. In fact, having experiencedovervaluation based real estate investments driven economic booms right prior to 2008,

many of the regions countries are seeing after 2008 some of the more extreme negative

effects of the crisis when compared to other countries affected. This massive economicslow down, often neighbouring the fear (or even manifestations) of national insolvency,

plaguing even the EU member states in the region, whether old (Greece) or new

(Bulgaria, Romania) affects highly the potential for any meaningful sustained economiccooperation in the area. This comes as no surprise at all for the set of 11 weaker BSEC

economiesas different as they actually are--, especially since the EU itselfa much

stronger economic actoris experiencing the effects of the crisis strongly and manifests

some internal divergences on crisis response strategies and policies. The April 2009legislative elections in Moldova brought a major internal democratic crisis, which has

resulted initially in further straining of already ever so unnaturally tight political relations

between Romania and Moldova. The crisis was ultimately resolved, yet its effects andmessage about inherent difficulties with conduct of democratic processes under hard and

hardening economic conditions. None of these selected cases only briefly mentioned

here are at all singular. Such developments are rather the norm in the region, thusexamples being much too many to include them comprehensively in this executive

summary.

2


3/34

Many simply neutral (or somewhat positive, albeit by not being directly related to BSEC

own achievements they can be equally deemed negative) developments occurred as well.

The opening in 2005 of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceykan pipeline finalized project is one suchcase. Maintained short-circuiting of any multilateral institutional approach (BSEC

included, but not alone in the category) in resolving differences in views or advancing

various (complementary or competing) gas pipeline planned investment projectstraversing the region and intended to provide natural gas to Europe from Russia can be

considered another. These two instances are again not singular, being simply typical of

many other similar instances. Such occurrences may however be consideredsymptomatic for the seemingly parallel-style (or disjointed) lack of connection between

intended and/or declared goals and objectives inside and around the BSEC, and the way

in which different members actions and preferences or initiatives are actually pursued in

practice.

Under these conditions, this report comes at a time seemingly filled with mixed to modest

results of the BSEC when faced with ever more challenging developments in the region,

whether on the geo-political side, the economic side, or on the internal democratic rule orinternational institutional cooperation fronts. This happens in spite of all the laudable yet

perhaps overly ambitious internal and connected-regionally institutional efforts to scaleup the capabilities and cooperative framework of BSEC, and several other related bodies.

Hence, in this report we attempt at evaluating progress in the face of increasing

challenges (which themselves may contribute to simply making significant progress moreunlikely in spite of best efforts), and at identifying areas of more effective success. The

latter comes in view of learning some lessons on what areas of cooperation may work

better than others, and thus on how could BSEC, EU, and connected existing frameworksimprove their mutual policy actions for increasing their overall effectiveness.

Working Hypotheses and Methodology

The overarching hypotheses behind the creation of regional economic cooperation

mechanisms such as the BSEC stem from the logic of the democratic peace theory, asamended to specify that economically interconnected democracies would not fight each

other. Thus, mechanisms such as BSEC and/or related bodies and initiatives surrounding

it or its members would contribute to members and partners natural efforts to ensure

internal stability and security in the region. Furthermore, in the presence of high-politics disagreements, it is deemed that economic cooperation may be the vehicle for

mutually mitigating such disagreements through the mutual interest based interest of

participating states in using economic means for mutual trust-building purposes. In turn,such trust-building measures would ensure over time more potential progress on

resolving the other disagreements in other fields that may exist. This logic is represented

by the following assumed cause-effect links:Economic Cooperation => Higher Interdependence

Higher Interdependence => Avoidance of Conflict, and Mutual Trust Building

Avoidance of Conflict => Increased Regional Stability

Mutual Trust => Increased Potential for Resolving Existing (Frozen) Conflicts

3


4/34


5/34

Further quantitative data will be collected on Economic Cooperation Instances, and

potentially on comparisons with other peer regions

Sample Analysis of Selected Domains

Based on data from the World Bank Doing Business series reports for 2005-2010, wehave included herein the comprehensive quantitative analysis of convergence in business

practices in the BSEC member countries. While the detailed findings are too many to

report in this executive summary, the overall conclusion is that convergence in ease ofbusiness in the study area has not been achieved. This finding is consistent with and

furthers and complements several analysis found earlier in the studied secondary studies.

Interim Conclusions and Further Steps

BSEC itself and the importance given to it by various partner international institutions as

well as its own members have evolved since 2004. Faced however with a multitude of

challenging changes in the region ad globally over the study period, BSEC may not havebeen the mechanism of choice selected as such by members for resolving their

divergences. Nor has it been the mechanism of choice selected by foreign businessinitiatives settling more and more in the region. While the institutional progress is much

welcomed and the strengthening of ties and diversification and intensification of

cooperative agreements and programmatic work with the EU is a more than beneficial

development, all of these seem to have fallen short of meeting the ambitious goals theywere set for. Instead, amplified global and regional challenges have left the BSEC and

BSEC-EU progress seem sinking under the sea of challenges it couldve been faced with

directly if it had the trust of its members and partners as being the mechanism of choice,which however it did not have.

In this part of our report, evaluating the progress made by BSEC over the last few years,we found mixed results. Particular achievements exist in two areas of cooperation,

namely combating crime and emergency assistance, yet none of these two domains were

at the actual core of the original goals and objectives of the organization. Instead, onissues that do make the original core strategic goals, progress is rather slow, and when

economic cooperation is achieved in the region it happens rather parallel to the BSEC

than through it.

Nonetheless, we have found and we are currently processing recommendations based on

some degree of success encountered, which may be transformed in some necessary policy

and practice adaptations that BSEC may have to go through in the face of increasingchallenges.

We could be proposing to interested parties a broad set of recommendations representinglessons to be learned on how could BSEC, EU, and connected existing frameworks

improve their mutual policy actions for increasing their overall effectiveness. Of equal

interest, we could advise interested businesses as to where and how to (not) get involved

in the region if they so wish.

5


6/34

Outline

of Available Report

(we customize analysisand/or training--based on request)

Introduction

Scope, Content, Methods, Findings

1. Background on BSEC

2. Methodology for Assessment

2.1. General Methodological Approach

Available Dimensions for the Evaluation (Areas of Cooperation of BSEC, and beyond)

Agriculture

Banking and FinanceCombating Crime *

CultureCustoms Matters

Emergency Assistance *

Education

EnergyEnvironmental Protection

Exchange of Statistical Data and Information

Healthcare and PharmaceuticalsInformation and Communication Technologies (EU)

Institutional Renewal and Good Governance

Science and Technology (EU)SMEs

Tourism

Trade and Economic DevelopmentTransport

* A mark represents a domain in which the assessment so far demonstrates higher

success of internal cooperation among BSEC member states. A purposive sample of

domains is used, based on the criterion of best/worst cases analysis.

Measurement of Progress: Purposive Selection of Areas of Cooperation, based on

criterion of best/worst cases analysis. Indicators and Sources.

2.2. Qualitative Analysis:

* a. Primary Sources* b. Available analyses

* c. News sources analysis

[d. Interviews: national policy makers, businesses, international policy makers,

academics]

6


7/34

[e. Relevant conference participation, and key informant interviews plus

snowballing method]

* A mark represents currently complete data collection

[] represents data collection is under way

2.3. Quantitative Analysis:

* General Macroeconomic data

* Existing Issues inside the Study AreaData on Economic Cooperation Instances. Comparison with other Regions

* Data on convergence of economic/business practice in BSEC member states

A few notes on one Dependent Variable (avoidance of conflict)

* A mark represents that data collection and analysis is complete

2.4. Conducting the Analysis

3. National Roles

4. Other Connected International Organizations Roles

5. Barriers and Shortcomings

6. Integrated Analysis

Cooperation => Higher Interdependence

Cooperation => Avoidance of ConflictCooperation => Increased Regional Stability

Areas of Cooperationcase by case assessment

7. Conclusions and Policy/Business Recommendations

References and Bibliography

Appendixes

7


8/34

Extract from Appendixes

for data analysis, interpretations and recommendations,please contact us:

Dr. Adrian S. Petrescu

[email protected]

8


9/34

Evaluation of Convergence in Business Practice in Black Sea Economic Cooperation

(BSEC) Member Countries, 2005-2010--Figures

Ease of Doing Business World Rank (number)

Ukr_1

Tur_1

Rus_1

Rom_1

Mol_1

Gre_1

Geo_1

Bul_1

Aze_1

Arm_1

Alb_1

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

YEAR

2009

2010

Source: own representation of data from World Bank (Doing Business Reports 2009-2010)

Starting a Business--Rank (number)

Ukr_2

Tur_2

Rus_2

Rom_2

Mol_2

Gre_2

Geo_2

Bul_2

Aze_2

Arm_2

Alb_2

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

YEAR

2009

2010


9


10/34

Starting a Business--Procedures (number)

2010200920082007200620052004

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

Alb_3

Arm_3

Aze_3

Bul_3

Geo_3

Gre_3

Mol_3

Rom_3

Rus_3

Tur_3

Ukr_3

Source: own representation of data from World Bank (Doing Business Series 2004-2010)

Starting a Business--Time (days)

2010200920082007200620052004

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Alb_4

Arm_4

Aze_4

Bul_4

Geo_4

Gre_4

Mol_4

Rom_4

Rus_4

Tur_4

Ukr_4


10


11/34

Starting a Business--Cost (% of income per capita)

2010200920082007200620052004

50

40

30

20

10

0

Alb_5

Arm_5

Aze_5

Bul_5

Geo_5

Gre_5

Mol_5

Rom_5

Rus_5

Tur_5

Ukr_5


Starting a Business--Min. Capital (% of income per capita)

2010200920082007200620052004

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Alb_6

Arm_6

Aze_6

Bul_6

Geo_6

Gre_6

Mol_6

Rom_6

Rus_6

Tur_6

Ukr_6

11


12/34


Dealing w ith Construction Permits--World Rank (number)

Ukr_7

Tur_7

Rus_7

Rom_7

Mol_7

Gre_7

Geo_7

Bul_7

Aze_7

Arm_7

Alb_7

180

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

3020

100

YEAR

2009

2010


Dealing with Construction Permits--Procedures (number)

2010200920082007200620052004

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Alb_8

Arm_8

Aze_8

Bul_8

Geo_8

Gre_8

Mol_8

Rom_8

Rus_8

Tur_8

Ukr_8


12


13/34

Dealing w ith Construction Permits--Time (days)

2010200920082007200620052004

800

600

400

200

0

Alb_9

Arm_9

Aze_9

Bul_9

Geo_9

Gre_9

Mol_9

Rom_9

Rus_9

Tur_9

Ukr_9


Construction Permits--Cost (% of income per capita)

2010200920082007200620052004

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Alb_10

Arm_10

Aze_10

Bul_10

Geo_10

Gre_10

Mol_10

Rom_10

Rus_10

Tur_10

Ukr_10


13


14/34

Employing Workers--World Rank (num ber)

Ukr_11

Tur_11

Rus_11

Rom_11

Mol_11

Gre_11

Geo_11

Bul_11

Aze_11

Arm_11

Alb_11

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

YEAR

2009

2010


Employing Workers--WB Difficulty of Hiring Index (0-100)

2010200920082007200620052004

80

60

40

20

0

Alb_12

Arm_12

Aze_12

Bul_12

Geo_12

Gre_12

Mol_12

Rom_12

Rus_12

Tur_12

Ukr_12


14


15/34

Employing Workers--WB Rigidity of Hours Index (0-100)

2010200920082007200620052004

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Alb_13

Arm_13

Aze_13

Bul_13

Geo_13

Gre_13

Mol_13

Rom_13

Rus_13

Tur_13

Ukr_13


Employing Workers--Difficulty of Redundancy Index (0-100)

2010200920082007200620052004

80

60

40

20

0

Alb_14

Arm_14

Aze_14

Bul_14

Geo_14

Gre_14

Mol_14

Rom_14

Rus_14

Tur_14

Ukr_14


15


16/34

Em ploying Workers--WB Rigidity of Em ploym ent Index (0-10

2010200920082007200620052004

50

40

30

20

10

0

Alb_15

Arm_15

Aze_15

Bul_15

Geo_15

Gre_15

Mol_15

Rom_15

Rus_15

Tur_15

Ukr_15


Em ploying Workers--Redundancy Cost (weeks of salary)

2010200920082007200620052004

100

80

60

40

20

0

Alb_16

Arm_16

Aze_16

Bul_16

Geo_16

Gre_16

Mol_16

Rom_16

Rus_16

Tur_16

Ukr_16


16


17/34

Registering Property--WB World Rank (number)

Ukr_17

Tur_17

Rus_17

Rom_17

Mol_17

Gre_17

Geo_17

Bul_17

Aze_17

Arm_17

Alb_17

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

YEAR

2009

2010


Registering Property--procedures (number)

2010200920082007200620052004

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Alb_18

Arm_18

Aze_18

Bul_18

Geo_18

Gre_18

Mol_18

Rom_18

Rus_18

Tur_18

Ukr_18


17


18/34

Registering Property--Time (days)

2010200920082007200620052004

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Alb_19

Arm_19

Aze_19

Bul_19

Geo_19

Gre_19

Mol_19

Rom_19

Rus_19

Tur_19

Ukr_19


Registering Property--Cost (% of property value)

2010200920082007200620052004

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Alb_20

Arm_20

Aze_20

Bul_20

Geo_20

Gre_20

Mol_20

Rom_20

Rus_20

Tur_20

Ukr_20


18


19/34

Getting Credit--WB World Rank (number)

Ukr_21

Tur_21

Rus_21

Rom_21

Mol_21

Gre_21

Geo_21

Bul_21

Aze_21

Arm_21

Alb_21

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

100

YEAR

2009

2010


Getting Credit--WB Strength of Legal Rights Index (0-10)

2010200920082007200620052004

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Alb_22

Arm_22

Aze_22

Bul_22

Geo_22

Gre_22

Mol_22

Rom_22

Rus_22

Tur_22

Ukr_22


19


20/34

Getting Credit--WB Depth of Credit Informat ion Index (0-6)

2010200920082007200620052004

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Alb_23

Arm_23

Aze_23

Bul_23

Geo_23

Gre_23

Mol_23

Rom_23

Rus_23

Tur_23

Ukr_23


Getting Credit--Public Registry Coverage (% of adults)

2010200920082007200620052004

30

20

10

0

Alb_24

Arm_24

Aze_24

Bul_24

Geo_24

Gre_24

Mol_24

Rom_24

Rus_24

Tur_24

Ukr_24


20


21/34

Protecting Investors--WB World Rank (number)

Ukr_26

Tur_26

Rus_26

Rom_26

Mol_26

Gre_26

Geo_26

Bul_26

Aze_26

Arm_26

Alb_26

150

125

100

75

50

25

0

YEAR

2009

2010


Protecting Investors--Extent of Disclosure Index (0-10)

2010200920082007200620052004

10

8

6

4

2

0

Alb_27

Arm_27

Aze_27

Bul_27

Geo_27

Gre_27

Mol_27

Rom_27

Rus_27

Tur_27

Ukr_27


21


22/34

Protecting Investors--Extent of Director Liability Index (0-10)

2010200920082007200620052004

10

8

6

4

2

0

Alb_28

Arm_28

Aze_28

Bul_28

Geo_28

Gre_28

Mol_28

Rom_28

Rus_28

Tur_28

Ukr_28


Protecting Investors--WB Ease of Shareholder Suits Index (0-

Ukr_29

Tur_29

Rus_29

Rom_29

Mol_29

Gre_29

Geo_29

Bul_29

Aze_29

Arm_29

Alb_29

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

YEAR

2006

2010


22


23/34

Prot. Invest.--WB Strength of investor protection index (0-10)

2010200920082007200620052004

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Alb_30

Arm_30

Aze_30

Bul_30

Geo_30

Gre_30

Mol_30

Rom_30

Rus_30

Tur_30

Ukr_30


Paying Taxes--World Rank (number)

Ukr_31

Tur_31

Rus_31

Rom_31

Mol_31

Gre_31

Geo_31

Bul_31

Aze_31

Arm_31

Alb_31

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

YEAR

2009

2010


23


24/34

Paying Taxes--Payments (number per year)

2010200920082007200620052004

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Alb_32

Arm_32

Aze_32

Bul_32

Geo_32

Gre_32

Mol_32

Rom_32

Rus_32

Tur_32

Ukr_32


Paying Taxes--Time (hours per year)

2010200920082007200620052004

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Alb_33

Arm_33

Aze_33

Bul_33

Geo_33

Gre_33

Mol_33

Rom_33

Rus_33

Tur_33

Ukr_33


24


25/34

Paying Taxes--Total Tax Rate (% profit)

2010200920082007200620052004

60

50

40

30

20

10

Alb_37

Arm_37

Aze_37

Bul_37

Geo_37

Gre_37

Mol_37

Rom_37

Rus_37

Tur_37

Ukr_37


Trading Across Borders--World Rank (number)

Ukr_38

Tur_38

Rus_38

Rom_38

Mol_38

Gre_38

Geo_38

Bul_38

Aze_38

Arm_38

Alb_38

180

170

160

150

140130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

100

YEAR

2009

2010


25


26/34

Trading Across Borders--Documents to Export (number)

2010200920082007200620052004

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

Alb_39

Arm_39

Aze_39

Bul_39

Geo_39

Gre_39

Mol_39

Rom_39

Rus_39

Tur_39

Ukr_39


Trading Across Borders--Time to Export (days)

2010200920082007200620052004

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Alb_40

Arm_40

Aze_40

Bul_40

Geo_40

Gre_40

Mol_40

Rom_40

Rus_40

Tur_40

Ukr_40


26


27/34

Trading Across Borders--Cost to Export (US $ per container

20102009200820072006

1100

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

Alb_41

Gre_41

Tur_41

Source: own representation of data from World Bank (Doing Business Series 2004-2010)(data not available for the other countries not represented herein)

Trading Across Borders--Documents to Import (number)

2010200920082007200620052004

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

Alb_42

Arm_42

Aze_42

Bul_42

Geo_42

Gre_42

Mol_42

Rom_42

Rus_42

Tur_42

Ukr_42


27


28/34

Trading Across Borders--Time to Import (days)

2010200920082007200620052004

60

50

40

30

20

10

Alb_43

Arm_43

Aze_43

Bul_43

Geo_43

Gre_43

Mol_43

Rom_43

Rus_43

Tur_43

Ukr_43


Trading Across Borders--Cost to Import (US $ per container)

20102009200820072006

840

820

800

780

760

740

720

700

Alb_44

Tur_44


(data not available for the other countries not represented herein)

28


29/34

Enforcing Contracts--World Rank (number)

Ukr_45

Tur_45

Rus_45

Rom_45

Mol_45

Gre_45

Geo_45

Bul_45

Aze_45

Arm_45

Alb_45

100

80

60

40

20

0

YEAR

2009

2010


Enforcing Contracts--Procedures (number)

2010200920082007200620052004

50

40

30

20

Alb_46

Arm_46

Aze_46

Bul_46

Geo_46

Gre_46

Mol_46

Rom_46

Rus_46

Tur_46

Ukr_46


29


30/34

Enforcing Contracts--Time (days)

2010200920082007200620052004

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

Alb_47

Arm_47

Aze_47

Bul_47

Geo_47

Gre_47

Mol_47

Rom_47

Rus_47

Tur_47

Ukr_47


Enforcing Contracts--Cost (% of claim)

2010200920082007200620052004

50

40

30

20

10

Alb_48

Arm_48

Aze_48

Bul_48

Geo_48

Gre_48

Mol_48

Rom_48

Rus_48

Tur_48

Ukr_48


30


31/34

Closing a Business--World Rank (number)

Ukr_49

Tur_49

Rus_49

Rom_49

Mol_49

Gre_49

Geo_49

Bul_49

Aze_49

Arm_49

Alb_49

200

100

0

YEAR

2009

2010


Closing a Business--Recovery Rate (cents on the $)

2010200920082007200620052004

50

40

30

20

10

0

Alb_50

Arm_50

Aze_50

Bul_50

Geo_50

Gre_50

Mol_50

Rom_50

Rus_50

Tur_50

Ukr_50


31


32/34

Closing a Business--Time (years)

Ukr_51

Tur_51

Rus_51

Rom_51

Mol_51

Gre_51

Geo_51

Bul_51

Aze_51

Arm_51

Alb_51

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

YEAR

2004

2010


Closing a Business (% of estate)

Ukr_52

Tur_52

Rus_52

Rom_52

Mol_52

Gre_52

Geo_52

Bul_52

Aze_52

Arm_52

Alb_52

50

40

30

20

10

0

YEAR

2004

2010


32


33/34

References (Selection)

Nikitin, Alexander, 2007, The End of the Post-Soviet Space. The ChangingGeopolitical Orientations of the Newly Independent States, Chatham House Briefing

Paper, REP BP 07/01, available online at www.chathamhouse.org.uk, retrieved March

20, 2010

European Commission, 2009a, Communication from the Commission to the European

Parliament and the Council. Implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy in2008, COM(2009) 188/3.

European Commission, 2009b, The Impact of the Global Crisis on Neighbouring

Countries of the EU, Occasional Papers 48, DG ECFIN, June

European Commission, 2009c, Progress Report Republic of Moldova. Commission Staff

Working Document Accompanying the Communication from the Commission to The

European Parliament and the Council. Implementation of The European NeighbourhoodPolicy In 2008, SEC(2009) 514/2

Cornell, Svante E., 1999, The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, Report no. 46, Department

of East European Studies, Uppsala University

Adams, Jonathan, King, Christopher, and Ma, Nan, 2009, Global Research Report.China. Research and collaboration in the new geography of science., Thomson Reuters,

Leeds UK, November

Adams, Jonathan, and King, Christopher, 2010, Global Research Report. Russia.

Research and collaboration in the new geography of science., Thomson Reuters, Leeds

UK, January

Emerson, Michael, 2006, What should the Community of Democratic Choice do?,

CEPS Policy Brief, no. 98, Center for European Policy Studies, Brussels Belgium,March, available online at www.ceps.be, retrieved March 19, 2010

Zhou, Eve, and Stembridge, Bob, 2008, Patented in China. The Present and Future State

of Innovation in China., Scientific Thomson Reuters, available online atwww.thomsonreuters.com, retrieved March 20, 2010

European Commission, 2007a. European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument(ENPI) Funding 2007-2013, available online at

http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/funding_en.htm, retrieved March 19, 2010

European Commission, 2007b. European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument

(ENPI). Inter-Regional Programme, Revised Strategy Paper 2007-2013 & Indicative

Programme 2011-2013, available online from http://www.enpi-info.eu/main.php?

id=344&id_type=2, retrieved March 20, 2010

33


34/34

European Commission, 2007c. Communication from the Commission to the Council

and the European Parliament Black Sea Synergy - A New Regional CooperationInitiative, COM(2007) 160 final, Brussels, 11.04.2007

The World Bank, 2009a. Doing Business 2010. Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ECA).Comparing Regulation in 183 Economies, The World Bank and the International

Finance Corporation, available online from www.doingbusiness.org, retrieved March 19,

2010

The World Bank, 2009b. Doing Business 2010. Reforming through Difficult Times.

Comparing Regulation in 183 Economies, The World Bank, the International Finance

Corporation, and Palgrave MacMillan, available online from www.doingbusiness.org,retrieved March 19, 2010

Bonas, George, 2007, Research Potential of the Black Sea Countries.

Recommendations for RTD Policies., International Centre for Black Sea Studies,Athens, Greece, available online from www.icbss.org, retrieved March 19, 2010

European Commission, 2007d, Working together. The European NeighbourhoodPolicy, Directorate General for External Relations, available online from

www.ec.europa.eu/world/enp, retrieved March 21, 2010

Department of Energy, Map of Caspian Pipelines, available online athttp://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Azerbaijan/images/Caspian_pipe_map.pdf, retrieved

March 23, 2010

BSEC, 2007, BSECEU Interaction: The BSEC Approach, Southeast European and

Black Sea Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2, June 2007, pp. 311326

ICJ, 2009, Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Press Release,

No. 2009/9, International Court of Justice, The Hague, Netherlands, available online at

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/132/14985.pdf, retrieved March 22, 2010

BSCC, 2007, Black Sea Basin Joint Operational Programme, 2007-2013, Final Version,

Black Sea Cross Border Cooperation, November, available online at:

http://www.blacksea-cbc.net/index.php?page=DOCUMENTS_PROGRAMME_DOC,retrieved March 22, 2010

European Commission, 2008, Commission Decision of 27.11.2008 on the jointoperational programme "Black Sea 2007-2013" for the ENPI Cross-Border Co-operation

2007-2013. Doc. No. C(2008) 7406 final, available online at: http://www.blacksea-

cbc.net/user/file/Programme%20Documents/Black%20Sea%20_C_2008_7406_F_EN_DECISION.pdf, retrieved March 22, 2010

Dr. Adrian S. Petrescu 2010

www.InnovationTrek.org

Doing Business in the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) Region?

Documents

Transcript of Doing Business in the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) Region?