NIESR Policy Paper 32
Date: 2 March 2022
The Economic Costs of the RussiaUkraine Conflict
Iana Liadze, Corrado Macchiarelli, Paul Mortimer-Lee,
Patricia Sanchez Juanino
About the National Institute of Economic and Social Research
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research is Britain’s longest established
independent research institute, founded in 1938. The vision of our founders was to carry out
research to improve understanding of the economic and social forces that affect people’s lives,
and the ways in which policy can bring about change. Over eighty years later, this remains
central to NIESR’s ethos. We continue to apply our expertise in both quantitative and qualitative
methods and our understanding of economic and social issues to current debates and to
influence policy. The Institute is independent of all party-political interests.
National Institute of Economic and Social Research
2 Dean Trench St
London SW1P 3HE
T: +44 (0)20 7222 7665
E: [email protected]
niesr.ac.uk
Registered charity no. 306083
Policy papers are written by members of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research to
specifically address a public policy issue. These may be evidence submitted to a public or
parliamentary enquiry, or policy research commissioned by a third-party organisation.
In all circumstances NIESR has full editorial control of these papers. We will make all policy papers
available to the public whether they have been supported by specific funding as a matter of course.
Some papers may be subsequently developed into research papers
This paper was first published in March 2022
© National Institute of Economic and Social Research 2022
National Institute of Economic and Social Research
Policy Paper no. 32
1
The Economic Costs of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict1
Iana Liadze, Corrado Macchiarelli, Paul Mortimer-Lee, Patricia Sanchez Juanino
• Using our Global Econometric Model, NiGEM, we estimate that the conflict in Ukraine could
reduce the level of global GDP by 1 per cent by 2023, which is about $1 trillion off global GDP
(Figure 1) and add up to 3 per cent to global inflation in 2022 and about 2 percentage points in
2023.
• Russia and Ukraine are important suppliers of commodities, including titanium, palladium, wheat,
and corn, and we envisage supply chain problems intensifying for users of such commodities,
including car, smartphone, and aircraft makers.
• Europe is the region affected most, given trade links and reliance on Russian energy and food
supplies; emerging markets are affected less than advanced economies.
• We expect higher public spending to support a massive inflow of asylum seekers from Ukraine and
to bolster military spending, which will limit adverse effects on European GDP, though both are
likely to add to pressure on resources and therefore inflation.
• The sanctions costs to Russia are partly offset by higher prices for gas and oil exports but the net
effect on the economy will be negative with Russian GDP expected to contract by 1.5 per cent this
year and more than 2.5 per cent by the end of 2023.
• Russian inflation is expected to soar above 20 per cent this year. Western inflation to go still higher
with recession risks mounting.
• We see the impact on the UK could be to reduce GDP growth by around 0.8 per cent to 4.0 per
cent in 2022 and to 0.5 per cent in 2023.
• For the UK, we now expect inflation to average 7 per cent in 2022 and 4.4 per cent in 2023, up
from 5.3 per cent and 2.7 per cent, respectively, in our February Outlook.
• The war intensifies the dilemma facing monetary policy makers since it will add to inflation but
weaken growth and damage consumer and business confidence, already undermined by Coviddriven price increases.
• Our advice is for central banks to proceed carefully but to use communication to signal that any
delays in rate hikes are merely postponements, not cancellations.
Figure 1 The GDP cost of the conflict for the global economy
Source: NiGEM simulations
1 This simulation is conducted in NiGEM and is available to model subscribers on request. Contact Iana Liadze for
more information ([email protected]).
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
World United States United Kingdom Eurozone Russia
Per cent diff. from base
2022 2023
National Institute of Economic and Social Research
Policy Paper no. 32
2
The main impact of the Russia/Ukraine conflict on the world economy is through higher prices
for energy and weaker confidence and financial markets, bolstered by strong international
sanctions against Russia. Ukraine is not a significant trading partner for any major economy,
Russia has a great exposure to the European Union and the UK. Countries such as China, US,
Germany, France and Italy represent one of the major import partners for Russia, where Russian
demand accounts for between 1-3.7 per cent of its GDP (Figure 2). Russia’s share of global GDP
was expected to be 1.6 percent in 2022, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
whereas Ukraine’s economic output was predicted to account for 0.2 percent of world
production. While the Ukrainian and Russian economies are in aggregate small in relation to the
global economy, they are significant in some key areas, particularly energy and food. The
conflict’s impact on commodity prices and therefore household spending is more important than
potential contagion through trade linkages with other nations. We have estimated these
spillover effects using the National Institute Global Econometric Model (NiGEM).
Figure 2 Russia imports by country
Source: authors’ calculations based on data from Trading Economics.
One important channel of trade spillovers is agricultural exports. According to the US
Department of Agriculture, Russian and Ukrainian wheat exports are about a quarter of the
global total (USDA, 2022). There are also significant exports of corn and other coarse grains,
with Ukraine and Russia accounting for nearly a fifth of global exports. About 80 per cent of
exports of sunflower oil are accounted for by Ukraine and Russia. Sanctions and disrupted
supplies would lead to higher prices for wheat and other grains, adding to already strong
inflationary pressures in the global economy. There could also be adverse political implications
in some emerging economies that rely on imported grain and where food is a high share of
household spending.
In the UK, bread and cereals have a weight of 2.1 per cent in the CPI. While flour prices move
closely with wheat prices, this is less true for bread, where the cost of production, ingredients,
packaging, and advertising mean that flour is a relatively small proportion of the cost of a loaf of
bread (ADHB, 2020). However, higher energy costs mean the cost of baking and transporting
bread has risen, and with global supplies already tight, pass through-to retail prices seems likely
to be noticeable and might add 0.1 per cent or so to inflation. Higher food prices could have a
much more important effect on emerging markets importing grain from Ukraine and Russia,
such as Egypt and Bangladesh, where food is a much larger share of the CPI basket.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
China
Germany
United States
Belarus
Italy
France
South Korea
Japan
Turkey
Kazakhstan
Poland
Vietnam
Netherlands
Ukraine
Czech Republic
India
United Kingdom
Spain
Finland
Rest of the
World
2020, per cent of Russian GDP
National Institute of Economic and Social Research
Policy Paper no. 32
3
Further up the tech scale, Russia is a major producer of palladium, used in engine exhausts to
reduce emissions, where it produced 40 per cent of global mine production, and about 10 per
cent of global platinum supply. Russia and Ukraine produce about 15 per cent of global supply
of titanium sponge, used in aircraft. Russia accounts for about 13 per cent of global fertilizer
supplies. Disruptions to global supplies of these commodities, added to existing supply chain
problems, have the potential to heavily disrupt specific industries and prolong shortages, for
example of cars, thus helping to keep prices high.
While exposure to Russian real activity and demand might alone not be material enough to
significantly disrupt the global economy, Russia’s involvement could also have indirect effects
on the world due to Russia being one of the world’s largest oil producers and energy exporters.
Should a military conflict lead to new international sanctions being imposed on Russia, those
sanctions could target Russia’s ability to export oil and gas with an ensuing escalation on energy
prices.
Figure 3 The inflation cost of the conflict
Source: NiGEM simulations
We have seen the Brent oil price surge to over $100 per barrel, the highest since 2014. Changes
in crude oil represent about 40 per cent of the changes in the cost of fuel at the pump in the US,
but far less in Europe, where the tax content is significantly higher. We assume that the oil price
jumps by $40 per barrel in our simulation. We expect that this surge will result in US inflation in
averaging 7.1 per cent in 2022 and 3.5 per cent in 2023, compared with 4.6 per cent and 2.5 per
cent, respectively, in our February forecast. In the euro area, we expect inflation of 5.5 per cent
in 2022 and 2.1 per cent in 2023, as against the forecasts we had of 3.1 per cent in 2022 and 1.3
per cent in 2023 in the February forecast.
For the UK, we now expect inflation to average 7 per cent in 2022 and 4.4 per cent in 2023, up
from 5.3 per cent and 2.7 per cent, respectively, in February (Figure 3).2 Inflation peaks at 8.1
per cent in 2022 Q3, 2.3 percentage points higher than at the time of our February forecast. The
simulation assumes the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) responds strongly to the rise in
inflation. As argued by Stephen Millard at the Treasury Select Committee on 28 February, the
2 The behaviour of the UK inflation is a combination of the UK being a small open economy, with the import prices
increase having a larger impact on headline inflation in the short-term, and regulatory assumptions embedded in the
baseline.
9 6 3 0
12
15
18
21
24
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
World United States United Kingdom Eurozone Russia (RHS)
abs diff. from base, percentage points
2022 2023
National Institute of Economic and Social Research
Policy Paper no. 32
4
MPC may decide to raise interest rates more gradually and by less than is implied by our
simulation on account of the ongoing uncertainty and the possibility of a recession. In that case,
it is possible that inflation may peak at a higher rate.3
Regarding our modelling assumptions, there are several channels to consider.
First, the economic sanctions on trade to Russia. More than 80 per cent of Russia’s daily foreign
exchange transactions and half of its commerce is in US dollars. The United States, the European
Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Japan have declared intentions to target
banks and rich individuals, while Germany has put a stop to a major Russian gas pipeline project.
Russian central bank reserves abroad have been frozen, and its banks have limited access to the
international payments system SWIFT, though energy transactions and payment of gas bills will
still be allowed. These sanctions, which are more severe than the ones imposed in 2014
following the Russian annexation of Crimea, have been deployed in a first tranche, targeting
some of Russia’s state-owned banks block it from trading in its debt on US, European and
Japanese markets.
The EU is also restricting access to European capital markets, preventing access to funds stored
by EU banks, and prohibiting commerce between the EU and the two rebel-controlled
territories. A partial closure of SWIFT to some Russian banks and the freezing of Russian central
bank assets puts in the spotlight on Western bank claims on Russian entities where, according
to the BIS, the largest exposures are for banks in Austria, France and Italy. Russian bank
subsidiaries outside Russia are facing severe stress, according to the ECB, and may be forced to
shutter.
Figure 4 The GDP cost of the conflict in Russia, by type of shocks
Source: NiGEM simulations
Russia might face a prohibition on financial transactions involving US dollars, as well as a
restriction in hi-tech commerce with the US and Europe. The United States, for example, might
prohibit corporations from selling semiconductor microchips to Russia. This sanction would
affect not just Russia’s defence and aerospace sectors (worth USD 6.25 million of Russia’s
3 This peak is in line with Stephen Millard’s evidence at the Treasury Select Committee on February 28th,
2022. Supply bottlenecks and rises in the prices of other (non-energy) commodities mean there is a risk inflation
could peak at a higher rate, possibly as high as 11%, but this is not our central expectation.
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
4 3 2 1 0
2022 2023
Per cent diff. from base
Energy price Inv. Premia Population Gov. expenditure Trade & Exch. rate premia Total
National Institute of Economic and Social Research
Policy Paper no. 32
5
imports), but its whole economy. Overall, we expect economic sanctions could result in a
curtailment of Russian imports of up to 30 per cent, though the extent of circumvention of
restrictions through trade conducted through third countries makes this difficult to gauge.
Overall, we see the war contributing to a fall in GDP in Russia (relative to base) of 1.5 per cent
in 2022 and 2.6 per cent in 2023. Russian inflation will spike due to higher import prices
following the fall in the rouble and due to higher inflation expectations (Figure 4). The adverse
effect will result in lower confidence, weaker real incomes, and disrupted trade. The overall
effect on Russia’s GDP is not going to be entirely cushioned by higher Russian revenues from
exports of energy. If sanctions were to extend to Russian energy exports, the implications for
the Russian economy would be much more severe, but the cost to the West would be still higher
energy prices and a bigger growth hit, increasing the chances of recession accompanying
significantly stronger inflation.
Secondly, significantly higher energy prices will feed into inflation. In the US, for instance, in the
CPI relative importance of energy is 7.3 per cent, with energy commodities, such as fuel,
accounting for 4 per cent and energy services such as electricity and piped gas 3.3 per cent. In
the UK electricity, gas and other fuels’ account for 3.3 per cent of the CPI with fuels and
lubricants accounting for a further 2.7 per cent. Because many of the world’s economic
development engines, such as China, Japan, and Europe are net energy importers, increased oil
costs will limit global growth. The US is self-sufficient, but higher oil prices will transfer income
away from consumers to producers, with a potential adverse effect on demand there also.
Meanwhile the increased income of energy producers will not be spent immediately, meaning
that the oil price shock transfers income from spenders to savers, thus subduing global GDP.
The European Union is the most vulnerable of the major economies, not only to increasing costs,
but also to the risk of energy shortages. Almost one quarter of the EU’s crude oil imports from
outside the EU, and almost half of the EU’s imports for natural gas, come from Russia. The EU
energy dependency rate, measured by the share of net imports (imports minus exports) in gross
inland energy consumption (defined as the sum of energy produced and net imports), shows that
the EU relies upon imports to meet more than 60 per cent of its energy needs. This means that
the reaction to a surge in energy prices in the EU depends not only on the energy intensity of
imports of EU Member States but also the share of imports from Russia. European reliance on
Russian gas varies from zero in Spain to about 40 per cent in Germany and Italy but much higher
in eastern Europe such as Czech Republic and Bulgaria. With summer coming, gas supply
shortages in 2022 may not disrupt the economy too much, but the most crucial period if there
are interruptions to gas supplies will be next winter. Rebuilding gas in storage over the summer
will keep gas prices elevated.
There is likely to be a significant investment in green energy in Europe and on port facilities to
import LPG to reduce reliance on Russia, though this will take some time to build up: this will
further add to GDP.
Were sanctions to be placed on Russia’s energy exports (i.e., Western nations could refuse to
buy oil and gas from the big Russian energy giants such as Gazprom or Rosneft) or were Russian
gas exports used as a tool for leverage through lower supply, European energy prices would rise
precipitously. If that happens, European energy prices will probably exceed the $140 per barrel
observed in 2008.
Third, there is the problem of asylum seekers. The UNHCR says there could be 4 million refugees
as the crisis unfolds. Shorter term, there will likely be considerable migration from Ukraine into
National Institute of Economic and Social Research
Policy Paper no. 32
6
western Europe, with Poland likely amongst the most important recipients in the first instance.
In 2021, more than 600,000 people left Ukraine, not to return. In 2015, almost a million and a
half migrants sought refuge in Europe during conflict in Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Depending on what border controls are erected in Ukraine, how long the conflict lasts, and how
the economy settles down after the war, large scale emigration seems likely. We have assumed
a net outflow of two million a year in 2022 and 2023. This will present substantial challenges,
mainly for western Europe, in terms of finding homes, public finances, providing jobs, and
possible social tensions. The OECD in 2017 calculated that the initial year cost of an asylum
seeker was about €10,000. In 2016, asylum seekers cost Germany over €20bn (Kroet, 2017).
The fiscal cost of asylum seekers in Germany in 2015 was about 0.5 per cent of GDP, in Sweden
about 1.35 per cent of GDP; and in Austria in 2017 and 2018, the cost was about three-quarters
of a percentage point of GDP (OECD, 2017). Evidence suggests that these costs decrease in
subsequent years as asylum seekers find jobs and add to tax revenues (Joakim, 2021; d’Albis et
al., 2018). We see the problem of Ukrainian refugees as a European problem and would urge
centralised funding in the EU, to alleviate the burden that would otherwise fall
disproportionately on some Eastern EU countries, like Poland. In our simulations, we have
increased public spending by 1 per cent of GDP in countries neighbouring Ukraine and added to
public expenditure equivalent to 0.5 per cent of GDP elsewhere in Europe.
The conflict is expected to increase spending not related to the need of first assistance of
refugees, but also defence expenditure. As China rises and increasingly challenges the US in Asia
Europe, faced with a belligerent Russia, will have to spend considerably more on defence than
hitherto. That will present considerable fiscal problems when it is already facing demographic
challenges and some key players face profound debt problems coming out of the pandemic. For
instance, NATO EU countries which are particularly exposed to the crisis, such as Germany,
have boosted military spending, finally giving in to the US pressure to bring defence expenditure
close to 2 per cent of GDP. There is a strong likelihood that defence spending will increase in
NATO, over the next few years: we have assumed this would amount to 0. 5 per cent of GDP
over two years roughly equal to a 30 per cent rise in defence spending in Western Europe, where
most countries do not meet the NATO target of a spend of 2 per cent of GDP, with the average
being 1.6 per cent. Outside of NATO, countries such as Sweden, Finland and several Eastern
European countries are also likely to drive a significant acceleration in defence spending in
response to the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
Fifth, there is political risk and uncertainty. Russia’s Ukraine invasion has up-ended many key
western assumptions about the post -Cold War order. Indeed, the invasion symbolizes the shift
in global power and a move away from the unipolar world that followed the collapse of the Soviet
Union. U.S. hegemony has withered, and we are in a multi-polar rather than unipolar world,
which is more dangerous (Mearsheimer, 2019). Uncertainty may drive up savings ratios and
make firms more reluctant to invest. On the other hand, the crisis is another potential challenge
to globalization, coming after trade disputes and Covid, and so manufacturers may be tempted
to re-onshore some facilities.
With the freezing of Russian central bank assets, its banks’ access to SWIFT being restricted,
and Germany and the EU being willing to supply arms to Ukraine, risks in Russia are clearly more
profound than elsewhere in Europe, with the rouble plunging on foreign exchanges (we expect
it to continue its descent) and the central bank hiking interest rates to 20 per cent to contain
inflationary pressure. Russian bank subsidiaries abroad have seen share prices fall precipitously
and there have been queues at cash machines in Russia on worries of bank liquidity problems.
National Institute of Economic and Social Research
Policy Paper no. 32
7
Lack of access to imports will result in supply chain problems, though Russia will seek to source
supplies through countries not applying sanctions.
In Russia, inflation is likely to surge while the crisis will damage economic activity, though higher
oil prices will buoy revenues. An increase in political risk and uncertainty mean inward foreign
direct investment flows will soon dry up and restrictions on exports would increase the reliance
on money printing to finance the war, increasing upside inflation risks. Worries over
counterparty exposures to Russian entities will keep new lenders cautious and those expecting
debt payments nervous. Risk premia on some European banks have risen, and share prices have
fallen. Markets will be watchful for any sign of default or liquidity problems for firms with strong
links to Russia.
Our recent analysis in the Winter 2022 Global Economic Outlook illustrated GDP growth and
inflation risk estimates for both the global economy and the Euro Area based on the possibility
of continued natural gas price increases starting from 2022Q1 (Macchiarelli et al., 2022). Here,
we supplemented this price risk with a 4 percentage point investment premium shock in Russia,
2 percentage point in Ukraine, both equivalent to what observed during the financial crisis, and
0.5 percentage point applied to all EU countries. This shock can be thought of as representing
an escalation of the situation in the Ukraine that represents a defence threat in the European
immediate neighbourhood, as it will increases country risks.
We have already seen that stock prices globally have been adversely affected by uncertainty
over Ukraine. A partial or full Russian occupation of Ukraine would raise serious questions
about what the reaction of the West would be in terms of stationing more troops in Poland and
other countries adjacent to Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, and what the Russian subsequent
actions could be, with particular questions over the Baltic states. In these circumstances, risk
premia would be high, and investment might be deterred, in line with our assumed increase in
risk premia.
Figure 5 The Rouble and energy price inflation
Source: NiGEM simulations
In our simulation, the downside range of the scenario implies that global GDP declines by 0.5
per cent in 2022 and close to 1 per cent compared with base in 2023, about 1.5 per cent lower
for the Euro Area in 2023; Russian GDP is 1.5 per cent below our baseline this year, with the
negative impact estimated to be up to 2.6 per cent next year. Increasing announcements of
Western corporate withdrawals from Russia will reduce foreign direct investment, lead to
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2020 2021 2022 2023
Rouble per US$ Global oil prices [US$ per barrel year]
Rouble per US$ (baseline) Global oil prices [US$ per barrel year] (baseline)
National Institute of Economic and Social Research
Policy Paper no. 32
8
outflows of capital that will soften the exchange rate and reduce know- how and technology
transfer to Russia, reducing its long-term potential growth rate. Nearer term, component and
shipping container restrictions could exacerbate supply-chain problems, reducing activity and
increasing upward price pressures. The unprecedented actions against the Russian central bank
will act to curb availability of foreign exchange, which could crimp imports, while being a
potential source of risk in the domestic banking system, where demand for liquidity has sharply
increased, draining funds from the banks and limiting credit. These effects are difficult to
quantify but suggest that the risks to our Russian growth outlook are on the downside and on
inflation on the upside. The rouble is expected to plunge by up to 70 per cent as the result of an
increase in risk and higher Russian inflation, which could be in excess of 20 per cent this year
(Figure 5). As the result of the conflict, the UK economy could experience up to 2 percentage
points higher inflation this year and the next.
The broad implications of this scenario are reminiscent of the 1970s energy crisis, when OPEC
countries effectively raised the price of oil, and subsequent oil price shocks. Higher prices and
supply limitations severely disrupted economic activity in the global economy and led to higher
inflation, which would also increase the cost of living and could further squeeze household
consumption.
The ECB recently opined that high energy prices would knock 0.2 per centage points off
European growth. If gas supplies were interrupted and that if there were rationing the ECB said
that the impact could be much worse, calculating that a gas rationing shock could knock GDP
down by 0.7 percentage points (ECB, 2022). If Russian gas supplies were to cease entirely, the
EU could go into recession. The UK draws most of its gas imports from Norway and produces a
sizeable chunk of its own gas needs, so interruptions in supply would be less likely, but it would
suffer from higher wholesale gas prices. With Ofgem limiting gas price hikes to households,
higher wholesale gas prices would pressure the financial position of gas suppliers and, if it were
to act to moderate the effect of higher prices, the government (Mortimer-Lee and Patel, 2022a,
2022b). Gas prices at the household level would likely rise when Ofgem reviews price limits
again in October.
Near term, President Putin’s demands over recent weeks extended beyond Ukraine, and it
should be expected that he will use any military victory to pressure NATO for concessions
elsewhere in Eastern Europe, with the clear threat that if it does not get what it wants, further
aggression is likely. His calculation will be that the US will not risk nuclear war with Russia over
the Baltics, say, or over Sweden and Finland joining NATO. We thus seem to be in for an
extended period of high tension where Russia repeatedly tries to strong-arm the West. Those
tensions will increase if, after a potential successful occupation of Ukraine, arms flow to Ukraine
resistance groups from neighbouring countries.
The war in Ukraine represents a challenge for the global economy with only a few winners –
energy exporters – and many losers. It calls into question monetary policy makers’ strategy since
it will simultaneously harm growth and put upward pressure on inflation when inflation is
already at high levels. In the short run, higher rates cannot mute the higher prices resulting from
the war but could exacerbate any fall in confidence and activity. Longer-term, lower activity will
help to mute the second-round effects on prices so for policy-relevant horizons, monetary policy
may not need to that much to the war itself. The dilemma for central banks is what to do about
rate hikes already in the pipeline. The Gulf War contributed to the early 1990s recession and its
end helped the recovery (Silk, 1991). In the face of uncertainty about the impact on activity, and
about the possibility of a gas supply interruption in Europe, our advice is for policy makers to
National Institute of Economic and Social Research
Policy Paper no. 32
9
wait for more information about the extent and effects of the war before raising interest rates.
However, delay risks entrenching inflation, so that if they feel they must raise rates in the
months ahead we would counsel doing so only slowly while they assess the impact on confidence
and activity of the war and its squeeze, through energy, on real incomes.
References
AHDB. (n.d.). Do wheat prices matter for bread? Grain Market Daily | AHDB. Retrieved
February 25, 2022, from https://ahdb.org.uk/news/do-wheat-prices-matter-for-bread
Anstey, C. (2022, February 25). Three Ways the Ukraine Crisis May Rattle the World Economy.
Bloomberg.Com. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-02-25/globaleconomy-latest-three-ways-ukraine-crisis-hurts-world-economy
Associated Press. (2022, February 26). Ukraine crisis: UNHCR predicts 4 mn will flee to
neighbouring countries. Business Standard India. https://www.businessstandard.com/article/international/ukraine-crisis-unhcr-predicts-4-mn-will-flee-toneighbouring-countries-122022600772_1.html
d’Albis, H., Boubtane, E., & Coulibaly, D. (n.d.). Macroeconomic evidence suggests that asylum
seekers are not a “burden” for Western European countries. Science Advances, 4(6),
eaaq0883. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaq0883
ECB, E. C. (2022). Economic Bulletin Issue 1, 2022. https://www.ecb.europa.eu//pub/economicbulletin/html/eb202201.en.html
Economist, The. (2022, January 29). How will Europe cope if Russia cuts off its gas?
https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/01/29/how-will-europe-cope-if-russia-cutsoff-its-gas
Kroet, C. (2017, January 27). Refugee crisis cost Germany over €20 billion in 2016. POLITICO.
https://www.politico.eu/article/refugee-crisis-cost-germany-over-e20-billion-in-2016/
Lejeune, T. (2022, February 26). Europe braces for wave of Ukrainian refugees [Text]. TheHill.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/595918-europe-braces-for-wave-of-ukrainianrefugees
Macchiarelli, C., & B. Naisbitt; J. Boshoff, I. Hurst, I. Liadze, I, X. Mao, P. Sánchez Juanino, C.
Thamotheram “Global Economic Outlook – Inflation: Central Bank on It” (2022), National
Institute Economic Review, 259, Winter.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2019). Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order.
International Security, 43(4), 7–50. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00342
Mortimer-Lee, P., & Patel, U. (n.d.-a). Gas Prices and Price Controls. NIESR. Retrieved February
25, 2022, from https://www.niesr.ac.uk/publications/gas-prices-and-price-controls
Mortimer-Lee, P., & Patel, U. (n.d.-b). The Impact of Energy Price Inflation. Retrieved February
25, 2022, from https://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/the-impact-of-energy-price-inflation
OECD. (2017, January). Who bears the cost of integrating refugees? Migration Policy Debates.
Poitiers, N., Tagliapietra, S., Wolff, G., & Zachmann, G. (2022, February 27). The Kremlin’s Gas
Wars. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2022-02-27/kremlinsgas-wars
Reuters. (2022, February 15). Gas supply shock would cut value of Europe’s economy, ECB says.
Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/gas-europe-growth-idUSL1N2UQ0EV
Ruist, J. (2020). The fiscal aspect of the refugee crisis. International Tax and Public Finance,
27(2), 478–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-019-09585-2
Silk, L. (1991, August 16). Economic Scene; The Broad Impact of the Gulf War. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/16/business/economic-scene-the-broadimpact-of-the-gulf-war.html
USDA. (n.d.). Grain: World Markets and Trade. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. Retrieved
February 25, 2022, from https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/grain-world-markets-and-trade