1. For convenience, UN data for the Socialist Countries of Eastern Europe are taken to represent the CMEA trade, which seems to be a reasonable approximation.
2. Distance and transport costs, dispersion of markets, knowledge of markets and business practices, jurisdiction, languages etc. Cf., Adam Broner, “The degree of autarchy in centrally planned economies,” Kyklos Vol. 29, Fasc. 3, 1976, p. 481. This seems to be confirmed by the part played by developing countries in trade of European DMECs in a similar position (historically and geographically), e.g. Scandinavian countries, Austria, etc.
3. Cf., Richard Portes, “Est, Ouest, et Sud: le röle des économies centralement planifées dans l’économie internationale,” Revue d’études comparatives Est-Ouest, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1979, p. 62.
4. Cf., Zbigniew M. Fallenbuchl, “Les changements récents dans la structure industrielle et leur impact sur le potentiel d’exportation des pays du CAEM dans le commerce Est-Ouest”, Revue d’études comparatives Est-Ouest, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1979, p. 98.
5. Cf., R. Portes, op. cit., pp. 39–40. Portes points to the fact that while in the intra-CMEA trade there exists a competitive trade pattern, typical for the modern international division of labour, the extra-CMEA trade reflects a complementary type of international specialisation.