DOCSLIB.ORG

Economic Effects of Belarus' Participation in the CIS Countries Customs Union in 1995 - 2000

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

КОНСОРЦИУМ ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ И ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ - РОССИЯ И СНГ ECONOMICS EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CONSORTIUM – RUSSIA AND CIS Irina Tochitskaya, Ernest Aksen Economic Effects of Belarus’ Participation in the CIS Countries Customs Union Abstract In 1995 three countries of the former Soviet Union (Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan) established a Customs Union, which Kyrgyzstan and Tadjikistan joined later. After the passage of five years since the Customs Union formation, it is essential to assess the implications of Belarus’ membership in this Customs Union. The objective of this project is the analysis of the costs and benefits of the Belarus’ participation in the Customs Union of the CIS countries based on the study of the static and dynamic economic effects and their impact on the nation’s welfare, and the Belarus’ economy growth rate. As the evaluations of Belarus’ participation in the Customs Union by the country’s government and political opposition are completely opposite, a politically independent analysis is of principal importance. Final Report ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF BELARUS’ PARTICIPATION IN THE CIS COUNTRIES CUSTOMS UNION Irina E. Tochitskaya, Ernest M. Aksen Research Grant R00-4431 Final Report Abstract: The authors analyze the static and dynamic economic effects of Belarus' participation in the CIS countries Customs Union in 1995 - 2000. Utilizing the set of methodologies proposed in literature it was proved that Belarus’ membership in CIS regional trade arrangement results in trade diversion effects especially in the group of medium and high-tech products. Econometric evaluation focuses on the assessment of the impact of the Customs Union on revealed comparative advantage, which was calculated for group of medium- and hi-tech products as easily interpretable measure of their competitiveness and efficiency of production. Two sets of independent variables have been used: those reflecting possibility of technology, knowledge transfer and those reflecting regional integration. It is shown that Belarus’ participation in the Customs Union does not facilitate the improvement in the domestic exports structure, the formation of the new comparative advantages both in trade with CU member countries and the rest of the world. JEL classification: F14, F15 Keywords: Regional economic integration; Static effects; Dynamic effects 1. Introduction The last ten-fifteen years have been evidence of the trend towards new wave of regional economic integration. Turning into the dominant factor of the world trade, regionalism affects both economic and political relations between countries, confronting them with the choice should they enter trade agreement, which form of integration should be preferred and who should be a partner. Such questions have been discussed among new independent states after break up of the USSR. The impetus for the creation of regional arrangements among CIS countries was the aspiration to maintain and restore the economic ties as well as desire to remain in traditional export markets and to decrease the competitive pressure from the rest of the world by using high external trade barriers. As a first attempt of trade cooperation the protracted process of CIS counties Free Trade Zone formation should be considered. Besides in 1995 three countries - Belarus, Kazakstan and Russia - established a Customs Union (it was renamed in Eurasian Economic Community in 2001) that Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan agreed to join in 1996. Belarus membership at this regional agreement strongly affects the county's economy. First, it was accompanied by a reorientation of trade flows towards the members of the Customs Union. According to Belarusian trade data in 1995 the country exported 54% of goods outside the trade block, yet in 2000 this figure fell to 46%. The same tendency occurred in imports where the share of the rest of the world decreased from 54% in 1995 to 36% in 2000 (table B1). As to the trade with traditional CIS partners (non-members) the 2000 share of the country's exports (14%) and imports (7%) were almost two-time lower than the corresponding 1995 level. However, according to EBRD estimations all transition economies should amount no more than 11% of Belarus external trade while EU countries - up to 60% (EBRD, 1999). Second, the Customs Union members negotiated a common external tariff based on Russian tariff system. As a result Belarusian average unweighted tariff rose in 1995 -2000 from 12.3% to 13% and in manufactured products up to 15%. Since more than six years passed after Belarus’ joining the Customs Union, it is useful to make more detailed analysis of the implication of above trends on Belarusian economy and assessment whether membership in the CIS countries CU is an efficient element of the national development strategy. 2 So far a large number of theoretical and empirical studies focus on the problems (welfare effects, labor migration, exchange rate agreements, real convergence and etc.), faced by regional blocs that were formed between high-income countries and developing countries or both of them (NAFTA). However literature considering the process of trade bloc formation among CIS countries and examining the issues arising within this regional group, in particular the economic and political effects on the partners is not extensive. The objective of this project is the analysis of the costs and benefits of the Belarus’ participation in the Customs Union of the CIS countries based on the study of the static and dynamic economic effects and their impact on the nation’s welfare, and the Belarus’ economic development. The modern approaches to the study of the regional integration rely on constructing the models estimating the changes in commodity prices, in volumes and structure of the production in different sectors, gains and losses of producers, consumers and the state resulting from the mutual elimination of the customs duties and creation of the joint customs barriers, as well as growth models including intermediate import as a conduit for technology and knowledge transfer. We propose to verify the following hypotheses based on these approaches: • The hypothesis about the appearance of the trade diversion effect in the trade in medium- and high-tech products due to significant reorientation of Belarus’ foreign trade flows to the Customs Union partner countries, first of all to the Russian Federation. • The hypothesis about the absence of “potential dynamic benefits” based on the assumption that the Belarus’ participation in the Customs Union does not facilitate the attraction of modern technologies and production factors to the economy, the acquisition of the new comparative advantages in high-tech sectors and are likely to retard Belarus’ economic transformation to high-R&D economy. 3 The paper is organized as follows. The next section introduces the review of literature; Section 3 explains the model specification issue; Section 4 describes the empirical methodology and contains results of the empirical estimations, and Section 5 concludes. 2. Review of literature The formation of the economic integration theory is associated with the works of J. Viner (1950), J. Meade (1955), R. Lipsey (1960) that have assessed the consequences of joining a regional trade agreement (CU, FTA) from the viewpoint of welfare effects of the removal of tariffs and the introduction of the common external tariff on trade. The reduction of the barriers increases the gain from trade in the case when the importer from the partner country substitutes less efficient (higher costs) domestic suppliers, the result is trade creation effect. Unlike this, trade diversion effect arises when the lower-cost imports from outside of the customs union (free trade zone) are displaced by the output of a partner country because of the distorting impact of the tariffs. The important question is whether negative net effect of trade diversion is inevitably generated outcome resulting in welfare reduction. This is still a much-discussed topic among trade economists. Lipsey (1957) and Bhagwati (1971) examined the issue of the welfare impact of RIAs on the assumption of zero demand elasticity in member-country and proved that wholly trade- diverting union may lead to a net increase in welfare. Kemp, Wan (1976) and Ohyama (1972) argued in the case of customs union that it is possible to enhance welfare adjusting the common external tariff at a level just proper to fix the initial extra-union trade flows. However as to the individual members, either outcomes (gain or lose) may occur. Panagariya (1999) provided the analogous result for a large union example keeping external tariffs at initial levels. 4 There is also “natural-trading-partner” hypothesis according to which trading partners are more likely to gain from regional integration agreements the higher is the intra-regional shares in total trade (Krugman, 1993). However, Schiff’s (1997) analysis provides an opposite conclusions: an individual country benefits more from RIAs if it imports less from its partner countries (with imports measured either in volume or as a share of total import). The result holds both in the small country and the large-country case. The standard techniques of estimating the impact of the above effects on the member countries’ welfare are the general and partial equilibrium models as well as econometric evaluations. The most applications were to the European Union and its extension, North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) and Latin America trade agreements (Winters (1987);
Recommended publications
  • Comparative Advantage and Trade Performance: Policy Implications”, OECD Trade Policy Papers, No

    Comparative Advantage and Trade Performance: Policy Implications”, OECD Trade Policy Papers, No

    Please cite this paper as: Kowalski, P. (2011), “Comparative Advantage and Trade Performance: Policy Implications”, OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 121, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kg3vwb8g0hl-en OECD Trade Policy Papers No. 121 Comparative Advantage and Trade Performance POLICY IMPLICATIONS Przemyslaw Kowalski JEL Classification: F11, F14, F16, F17 OECD TRADE POLICY WORKING PAPERS The OECD Trade Policy Working Paper series is designed to make available to a wide readership selected studies by OECD staff or by outside consultants. This document has been declassified on the responsibility of the Working Party of the Trade Committee under the OECD reference number TAD/TC/WP(2010)38/FINAL. Comments on the series are welcome and should be sent to [email protected]. OECD TRADE POLICY WORKING PAPERS are published on www.oecd.org/trade © OECD 2011 Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this material should be made to: OECD Publishing, [email protected] or by fax 33 1 45 24 99 30 Abstract COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AND TRADE PERFORMANCE: POLICY IMPLICATIONS Przemyslaw Kowalski Trade Policy Analyst, Development Division, OECD This paper builds on recent generalisations of theory and empirics of comparative advantage and establishes the relative importance of different sources of comparative advantage in explaining trade, with particular focus on policy and institutional factors. The broad policy and institutional areas posited as determinants of comparative advantage in this paper include: physical capital, human capital (distinguishing between secondary, tertiary education and average years of schooling), financial development, energy supply, business climate, labour market institutions as well as import tariff policy.
  • Comparative Advantage and Trade Policy - Bharat R

    Comparative Advantage and Trade Policy - Bharat R

    INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND TRADE – Vol.I - Comparative Advantage and Trade Policy - Bharat R. Hazari, Pasquale M. Sgro COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AND TRADE POLICY Bharat R. Hazari Professor of Economics, School of Economics, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia Pasquale M. Sgro Professor of Economics, School of Economics, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia Keywords: absolute advantage, autarky, community indifference curve, comparative advantage, consumer surplus, domestic market failure, dual markets, exports, first-best, factor endowments, free trade, import substitution, infant industry, Heckscher-Ohlin, imports, manufacturers, non-tariff barriers, optimal tariff, pattern of trade, producer surplus, production possibility curve, protection, quotas, Ricardo, second-best, tariffs, technological differences, transformation surface, tariff revenue. Contents 1. Introduction 2. Comparative Advantage 2.1. The Ricardian Theory of Comparative Advantage 2.2. The Heckscher-Ohlin Theory of Comparative Advantage 3. Free Trade 4. Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers 5. International Trade Policy Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketches Summary The theory of comparative advantage suggests that voluntary trade between nations takes place because it is mutually beneficial, and that the pattern of trade is determined by differences in comparative advantage. Despite the undeniable gains free trade produces, throughout history countries have applied both tariff and non-tariff barriers to restrict trade. The concepts of consumer and producer surplus are often used to measure both the welfare benefits of free trade and the welfare costs of imposing tariffs. Both economicUNESCO and non-economic reasons have – been EOLSS used justify the restriction of trade. 1. IntroductionSAMPLE CHAPTERS Nations trade with each other because they consider it to be mutually beneficial. The gains occur in at least two ways.
  • Multilateralism Or Regionalism?

    Multilateralism Or Regionalism?

    MULTILATERALISM OR REGIONALISM? TRADE POLICY OPTIONS FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION GUIDO GLANIA JÜRGEN MATTHES CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES BRUSSELS The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is an independent policy research institute based in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound analytical research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe today. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors writing in a personal capacity and do not necessarily reflect those of CEPS or any other institution with which the authors are associated. They gratefully acknowledge financial support provided by DaimlerChrysler and BASF. Guido Glania, Dr. rer. pol., is responsible for trade and development policy at the Federation of German Industry (BDI), with which he has worked in Brussels since 2004 and in Berlin from 1999-2003. From 1996-99 he was responsible for European trade policy at the Central Federation of the Textile Industry (Gesamttextil) in Eschborn. He studied economics in Cologne and was conferred a doctorate in Erlangen-Nuremberg. Jürgen Matthes is a Senior Economist with the Cologne Institute for Economic Research (IW Köln). Since 2003 he has been responsible for the International Economic Policy department. Prior to that he was the head of IW’s New Economy department (from 2000-03) and personal assistant to the director (1995-2000). His economic studies were undertaken in Dortmund and Dublin. He has published on a wide range of issues covering trade policy, development, the competitiveness of nations, the new economy and corporate governance. ISBN 92-9079-603-0 © Copyright 2005, Centre for European Policy Studies.
  • Preventing Deglobalization: an Economic and Security Argument for Free Trade and Investment in ICT Sponsors

    Preventing Deglobalization: an Economic and Security Argument for Free Trade and Investment in ICT Sponsors

    Preventing Deglobalization: An Economic and Security Argument for Free Trade and Investment in ICT Sponsors U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOUNDATION U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CENTER FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION Contributing Authors The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations. Copyright © 2016 by the United States Chamber of Commerce. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form—print, electronic, or otherwise—without the express written permission of the publisher. Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 6 Part I: Risks of Balkanizing the ICT Industry Through Law and Regulation ........................................................................................ 11 A. Introduction ................................................................................................. 11 B. China ........................................................................................................... 14 1. Chinese Industrial Policy and the ICT Sector .................................. 14 a) “Informatizing” China’s Economy and Society: Early Efforts ...... 15 b) Bolstering Domestic ICT Capabilities in the 12th Five-Year Period and Beyond ................................................. 16 (1) 12th Five-Year
  • Has US Comparative Advantage Changed? Does This Affect Sustainability?

    Has US Comparative Advantage Changed? Does This Affect Sustainability?

    3 Has US Comparative Advantage Changed? Does This Affect Sustainability? The evidence is overwhelmingly persuasive that the massive increase in world competition— a consequence of broadening trade flows—has fostered markedly higher standards of liv- ing . this surge in competitive trade has clearly owed, in large part, to significant advances in technological innovation. —Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, “Technology and Trade,” remarks before the Dallas Ambassadors Forum, Dallas, Texas (16 April 1999) [T]he globalization system . is not static, but a dynamic ongoing process: globalization involves the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states and technologies to a degree never witnessed before—in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation- states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before. —Thomas L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (1999) Why Trade? People trade because they want different things, have different skills, and earn different amounts of money. With individuals represented by their national aggregates, countries trade for the same reasons. Countries differ from one another in terms of resources and the techniques firms use to produce goods and services. People value goods and services differently, depending on their income and tastes. Investors in financial assets have different preferences for risk, return, and diversification. These differ- 29 Institute for International Economics | http://www.iie.com ences are reflected across countries as differences in costs of production, prices for products and services, and rates of return on and “exposures”1 to financial assets. Because costs, prices, and returns differ across countries, it makes sense for a country to trade some of what it produces most cheaply and holds less dear to people who want it more and for whom production is costly or even impossible.
  • Agri-Food Export Competitiveness of the ASEAN Countries

    Agri-Food Export Competitiveness of the ASEAN Countries

    sustainability Article Agri-Food Export Competitiveness of the ASEAN Countries Tamás Mizik * , Ákos Szerletics and Attila Jámbor Department of Agribusiness, Corvinus University of Budapest, F˝ovám tér 8, 1093 Budapest, Hungary; [email protected] (Á.S.); [email protected] (A.J.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 25 October 2020; Accepted: 23 November 2020; Published: 25 November 2020 Abstract: Agri-food trade competitiveness analyses are relatively understudied in the empirical literature with many countries/regions missing. The novelty of this paper to analyze the agri-food export competitiveness patterns of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), thereby aiming to fill this gap in the literature. Our research questions include which countries and products are competitive in the ASEAN region in agri-food trade; whether raw materials or processed products are more competitive; whether regional or global agri-food trade is more competitive and how persistent competitiveness is in the long run. The paper is based on ASEAN–ASEAN and ASEAN–world agri-food trade flows from 2010 to 2018, thereby global and regional competitiveness patterns have become visible. Results suggest that Myanmar (18.88), Laos (8.21) and the Philippines (5.36) have the highest levels of agri-food trade competitiveness in the world market, while in regional markets, Laos (17.17), Cambodia (15.46) and Myanmar (12.39) were the most competitive. Both raw materials, as well as processed products, are generally competitive, and regional trade, in general, was more competitive than global trade for the majority of the countries. However, results suggest a generally decreasing trend in keeping these competitive positions, which is also supported by the duration tests.
  • Kazakhstan Regulatory and Procedural Barriers to Trade in Kazakhstan

    Kazakhstan Regulatory and Procedural Barriers to Trade in Kazakhstan

    UNECE UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE Regulatory and procedural barriers to trade in Kazakhstan Regulatory and procedural barriers to trade in Kazakhstan - Needs Needs Assessment Assessment Information Service United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Palais des Nations UNITED NA CH - 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland Telephone: +41(0)22 917 44 44 Fax: +41(0)22 917 05 05 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.unece.org TIONS Printed at United Nations, Geneva GE.14-22004–May 2014–150 UNITED NATIONS ECE/TRADE/407 UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE Regulatory and procedural barriers to trade in Kazakhstan Needs Assessment United Nations New York and Geneva, 2014 2 Regulatory and procedural barriers to trade in Kazakhstan Needs Assessment Note The designation employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the ex- pression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers of boundaries. This study is issued in English and Russian. ECE/TRADE/407 Copyright © 2014 United Nations and International Trade Centre All rights reserved Foreword 3 Foreword The International Trade Center (ITC) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) are pleased to present the needs assessment study of regulatory and procedural barriers to trade in the Republic of Kazakhstan. We would also like to express our appreciation to Kazakhstan’s Centre for Trade Policy Development under the Ministry of Economic Development, which cooperated with both ITC and UNECE in preparing the study.
  • Comparative Advantage and Specialization TRADE

    Comparative Advantage and Specialization TRADE

    Comparative Advantage and Specialization TRADE We have learned enough about production that we can now begin our explanation of trade. TRADE - Assumptions Let’s assume there are two products (Food and computers). There are two countries: Europe, South America. TRADE the main question: To be self-sufficient and produce everything we need OR To cooperate with the other country & TRADE TRADE Trade is beneficial if one can only produce food while the other can only produce computer. Trade is good if Europe is better in one while South America is better in the other. – They should SPECIALIZE and trade. SomeSome points points on on South South America’s America's PPF PPC SomeSome points points on on Europe’s Europe's PPF PPC Computers Food Computers Food 200 0 400 0 100 200 200 100 0 400 0 200 TRADE But what happens if one is much better in producing both computers and food? A different example SomeSome points points on on South South America'sAmerica’s PPC PPF SomeSome pointspoints on Europe’sEurope's PPCPPF Computers Food Computers Food 250 0 200 0 125 125 100 50 0 250 0 100 They can still benefit from trade as long as opportunity costs are different. Opportunity Costs What is the opp. cost of 1 food in Europe? Let’s look at the extremes: 100 vs. 200 Opportunity Costs What is the opp. cost of 1 food in Europe? If you pick to produce 100 units of food … you give up producing 200 computers. 100 vs. 200 Opportunity Costs 100 vs.
  • Preferential Trading Arrangements As Strategic Positioning

    Preferential Trading Arrangements As Strategic Positioning

    Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics Discussion Paper Series ISSN 1749-3293 CeDEx Discussion Paper No. 2006–09 Preferential trading arrangements as strategic positioning Daniel J. Seidmann April 2006 The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics was founded in 2000, and is based in the School of Economics at the University of Nottingham. The focus for the Centre is research into individual and strategic decision-making using a combination of theoretical and experimental methods. On the theory side, members of the Centre investigate individual choice under uncertainty, cooperative and non-cooperative game theory, as well as theories of psychology, bounded rationality and evolutionary game theory. Members of the Centre have applied experimental methods in the fields of Public Economics, Individual Choice under Risk and Uncertainty, Strategic Interaction, and the performance of auctions, markets and other economic institutions. Much of the Centre's research involves collaborative projects with researchers from other departments in the UK and overseas. Please visit http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/economics/cedex/ for more information about the Centre or contact Karina Whitehead Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics School of Economics University of Nottingham University Park Nottingham NG7 2RD Tel: +44 (0) 115 95 15620 Fax: +44 (0) 115 95 14159 [email protected] The full list of CeDEx Discussion Papers is available at http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/economics/cedex/papers/index.html Preferential Trading Arrangements as Strategic Positioning∗ Daniel J. Seidmann† November 30, 2005 Abstract We analyze a three-country model of trade negotiations in which countries can form bilateral free trade areas, customs unions or a trilateral preferential trading arrangement, and can continue negotiating after reaching an agreement.
  • Revealed Comparative Advantage: a Study of India and ASEAN Economies

    Revealed Comparative Advantage: a Study of India and ASEAN Economies

    Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management, Delhi LBSIM Working Paper Series LBSIM/WP/2020/18 Revealed Comparative Advantage: A Study of India and ASEAN economies Rashmi Ahuja August,2020 LBSIM Working Papers indicate research in progress by the author(s) and are brought out to elicit ideas, comments, insights and to encourage debate. The views expressed in LBSIM Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the LBSIM nor its Board of Governors. WP/August2020/18 LBSIM Working Paper Research Cell Revealed Comparative Advantage: A Study of India and ASEAN economies Rashmi Ahuja Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management Dwarka , Delhi Abstract The trade relations between India and ASEAN economies have gained more attention among academicians and researchers especially after India initiated ‘Look East Policy’ in 1991. It gained even more importance after its upgraded version of ‘Act East policy’ and also the recent withdrawal of India from Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). This paper aims to explore India’s comparative advantage with that of nine ASEAN economies in different product groups at SITC one-digit level classification for the period 2009-2018. This empirical analysis uses Balassa (1965) measure of Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA). Our findings suggest that India has maintained stable comparative advantage in two primary product group and two labour-intensive product groups while Indonesia has maintained comparative advantage in highest number of product groups among all ASEAN economies over the considered period of study. Further, we identified that India could leverage its trade potential in two product groups i.e.
  • World Bank Document

    World Bank Document

    22143 ~ UNDP-WORLDBANK December1991 TRADEEXPANSION PROGRAM OCCASIONALPAPER 7 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized REGIONAL INTEGRATION AMONG DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SURVEY OF PAST PERFORMANCE AND AGENDA Public Disclosure Authorized FOR FUTURE POLICY ACTION Rolf J. Lan;hammer and Ulrich Hiemenz The Kiel Institute of World Economics Public Disclosure Authorized FILECOPY Thisoccasional paper is a productof the jointUNDP/World Bank Trade Expansion Program which provides technicaland policy advice to countiesintending to reformtheir traderegimes. The views contained herein are tose ot the aufors anddo not necessarilyreflect those ot the UnitedNabons Development Programme or the WorfdBank. REGIONAL INTEGRATION AMONG DEVELOPINGCOUNTRIES: Survey of Past Performance and Agenda for Future Policy Action Rolf J. Langhammerand UlrIch Hlemenz The Kiel Institute of World Economics December 1991 Trade Policy Division The World Bank Washington, D.C. Summary Experience with regional integrationamong developingcountries over the past twenty-fiveyears has been far from satisfactory. Most integrationschemes were based on the European Economic Communitymodel and failed to meet their own targets for the establishmentof free trade areas or customs unions. Tariff preferenceswere biased toward costly trade diversion based on regional import-substitutionstrategies instead of increasedcompetition between domesticproducers and regional suppliers. Distributionalconflicts broke out in most regional schemes as less developed partners began to view
  • 22 Comparative Advantage Measurement in ASEAN's Ten

    22 Comparative Advantage Measurement in ASEAN's Ten

    BISE: Jurnal Pendidikan Bisnis dan Ekonomi https://jurnal.uns.ac.id/bise p-ISSN 2548-8961 | e-ISSN 2548-7175 | Volume 4 Nomor 1 (2018) Ó Program Studi Pendidikan Ekonomi, FKIP Universitas Sebelas Maret Comparative Advantage Measurement in ASEAN’s Ten Leading Export Commodities: A Case Study of ASEAN-5 Estira Woro Astrini1, Nurul Azizah Az zakiyyah2 1 Magister Science of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, Gadjah Mada University 2 Non Functional Budget State Analys Setjen DPR RI Article Info Abstract DOI: This paper analyzed ASEAN-5’s comparative advantage of their best http://dx.doi.org/10.20 ten products using “products mapping” as now we faced ASEAN 961/bise.v4i1.17560 Economic Community (AEC). Its a need to know which commodities are those countries in comparative advantage and as a net exporter. JEL Classification: Using data retrieved from UN COMTRADE accessed from F13, Q56 INTRACEN website, we used information of best ten ASEAN’s leading export commodities which was under 2 digits HS classsification. For Keyword: ASEAN, analysis in this paper, we derived those products into 4 digits HS International Trade, classification, so then we were not only use 10 commodities but 320 TBI, Product Mapping commodities. Comparative advantage measurement that we used were Revealed Symmetric Comparative Advantage (RSCA), as for know if 1 this paper is a the countries were net-importer or net-exporter we used Trade Balance personal idea of the Index (TBI). Lastly, we combined those two indexes of comparative authors without advantage to draw each country’s products mapping. From the analysis, representing the we got the result that, Indonesia’s exported commodities (net-exporter) university or and comparative advantage mostly are from animal or vegetable fats organization and oil, Malaysia’s mostly are from rubber and articles thereof, Singapore and Thailand’s mostly from organic chemicals, and Philipines’s mostly from electrical and electrical equipment.