The analysis of structural changes in the Lithuanian economic sectors under conditions of uncertainty
Abstract
The research aims to analyse the structural changes in Lithuanian economic sectors from 1995 to 2022. Structural changes in this research are understood as changes in gross value added by an economic sector during the period analysed. The greatest decreases in GDP happened in 1999, 2009, and 2020. During this period, economic crises in Lithuania were recorded practically every 10 years. The economic recession of 1999 is partly related to the Russian economic crisis. The negative growth in GDP in 2009 is related to the global financial crisis. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, Lithuania recorded zero GDP growth. The analysis of the period 1995-2022 reveals that the Lithuanian economy was constantly affected by short-term external turbulence but remained resistant to serious shocks. During these fluctuations, changes were formed in the structure of the economy. Some sectors of the economy expanded more, others - less. In 2004, compared to 1995, the share of agriculture in the structure of the economy decreased by almost 60 per cent. The share of financial intermediation decreased by 13.6 per cent, and other sectors decreased by almost 23 per cent. Between 1995 and 2004, the most intense structural changes were in agriculture, trade, and other sectors. In 2009, compared to 2004, the share of agriculture in the structure of the economy decreased by almost 39 per cent. The share of manufacturing decreased by 16.8 per cent, and construction decreased by almost 9.6 per cent. From 2004 to 2008, the fastest development of the construction sector was recorded, which is related to the active development of real estate. In 2004-2009, the most intense structural changes were in the agriculture, industry, and financial intermediary sectors. In 2019, compared to 2009, the share of industry in the structure of the economy decreased by almost 2 per cent, the financial sector decreased by 12 per cent, and other sectors decreased by 6 per cent. In 2009-2019, the most intense structural changes were in the agriculture, construction, and financial sectors. From 2019 to 2022, the most intense structural changes were in industry and financial sectors. In the ideal case, the positive result of structural changes is economic progress. During economic progress, there is an even and long-term development of all economic sectors. Because the structure of the economy is a complex mechanism, changes in it must not be too speedy and not chaotic. Only then could economic progress be the result of structural changes.
Downloads
References
2. Carlsson, B. (2004). The Digital Economy: what is new and what is not? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 5(1), 245-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2004.02.001.
3. Constantinescu, M.E., Marinescu, G. (2016). Smart economy- the potential of digital infrastructure for the circular economy, Social-Economic Debates, Association for Entrepreneurial Spirit Promotion, 5(1), 18-22.
4. Danner, B., Rösing, W.F., Schmeling, A., Schulz, R. (2006). The impact of economic progress and modernisation in medicine on the ossification of hand and wrist, Springer-Verlag, International Journal of Legal Medicine, 2, 121-126. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00414-005-0007-4.
5. Exports by country and region. 1995-2022. The World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS). Browse the Country. https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country.
6. Glazyev, S., Ajvazov, A., Belikov, V. (2018). The Future of the World Economy is an Integrated World Economic Structure, Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 1(1), 1-12.
7. Hardt, L., Barrett, J., Taylor, P.G., Foxon, T.J. (2021). What structural change is needed for a post-growth economy: A framework of analysis and empirical evidence, Ecological Economics, 179, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106845.
8. Herrendorf, B., Herrington, C., Valentinyi, A. (2015). Sectoral Technology and Structural Transformation, American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 7(4), 104-133. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20130041.
9. Lewis, L., Monarch, R., Sposi, M., Zhang, J. (2022). Structural Change and Global Trade, Journal of the European Economic Association, 20(1), 476–512. https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article/20/1/476/6321836?login=false.
10. Liparã, D. (2011). Why Is Human Capital a Driver for Economic Growth? Ovidius University of Constantza, Faculty of Economic Sciences, Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, 0(1), 1160-1165. https://ideas.repec.org/a/ovi/oviste/v11y2011i1p1160-1165.html.
11. Maddison, A. (2013). Economic Progress and Policy in Developing Countries, Routledge.
12. Misiūnas, P., Kaminskienė, B. (1999). Pagrindinės pramonės pokyčių tendencijos. Lietuvos ūkis: ekonominės minties žurnalas, 1, 21–23.
13. Neuss, L. (2019). The drivers of structural change, Journal of Economic Surveys, 33(1), 309-349. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12266.
14. Nissan, E., Galindo, M.A., Méndez, M. T. (2010). The future of services in a globalised economy, The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, 31(1), 59-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2010.485195.
15. Salustri, A. (2019). The UN 2030 Agenda and Social and Solidarity Economy: toward a structural change? Review of Applied Socio-Economic Research, 18(2), 104-117. https://www.reaser.eu/ojs/ojs-3.1.2-1/index.php/REASER/article/view/26.
16. Suslov, N. (2013). UN Project Future of the World Economy, Problems of Economic Transition, Taylor & Francis Journals, 56(1), 53-68. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2753/PET1061-1991560105.
17. Wen-Yi, C. (2016). Health progress and economic growth in the USA: the continuous wavelet analysis, Springer, Empirical Economics, 50(3), 831-855. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00181-015-0955-6.
18. Yelkikalan, N., Aydin, E., Kurt, U. (2017). Impact on Economic Growth of Technological Progress in the Turkey Economy: Empirical Analysis on Political and Financial Stability Channel, Canadian Center of Science and Education, International Business Research, 10(3), 80 – 90. pdfs.semanticscholar.org.
19. Malakauskaitė, A., Navickas, V. (2008). New Leverage over Macroeconomic Policy: The Phenomenon of Clusters, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Verslas: teorija ir praktika, 4, 245-252. https://doi.org/10.3846/1648-0627.2008.9.245-252.
20. Pileičikienė, N., Pukelis, K. (2012). Change of paradigms in higher education: towards where? Lietuvos edukologijos universitetas, Pedagogika, 108, 117-124.
21. Valodkienė, G., Snieška, V., Gaidelys, V. (2011). Innovation and science impact the competitiveness of Lithuanian industry, Kaunas University of Technology, Economics & Management, 16, 411-417. https://etalpykla.lituanistika.lt/object/LT-LDB-0001:J.04~2011~1367176919558/.
22. Zygmunt, J. (2020). The effect of changes in the economic structure on entrepreneurial activity in a transition economy: the case of Poland. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 15(1), 49-62. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=898781.
Copyright (c) 2023 Artūras Vitas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
