ASIA-PACIFIC TRADE AND INVESTMENT REPORT 2011

ASIA-PACIFIC TRADE
AND INVESTMENT
REPORT 2011
Update March 2012
The volume is issued without formal editing
FOREWORD
The Asia-Pacific Trade and Investment Report (APTIR) is a recurrent publication
prepared by the Trade and Investment Division of the United Nations Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific. It provides information on and independent analyses
of regional trends and developments in trade and investment; emerging issues in trade,
investment and trade facilitation policies; and impacts of these policies on countries’
abilities to meet the challenges of achieving inclusive and sustainable development. APTIR
is also the principal background document for the biennial Committee on Trade and
Investment of ESCAP. In those years when the Committee has a session, APTIR contains
two parts. Part I contains a review of trends and developments in trade and investment in
the Asia-Pacific region, while Part II contains an in-depth analysis of a particular theme and
issues relevant for the Committee’s deliberations. In those years when there is no
Committee session, only Part I of APTIR is published online. Updates are issued as online
documents as necessary. APTIR is available as a full-text online publication and can be
downloaded from http://www.unescap.org/tid as can Asia-Pacific country briefs and the
annex tables with trade performance indicators and maps.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
APTIR 2011-Update March 2012 was prepared under the substantive direction and
guidance of Ravi Ratnayake, Director, Trade and Investment Division (TID) of the Economic
and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. The core team of authors, led by Mia Mikic,
consisted of Witada Anukoonwattaka, Yann Duval, Masato Abe, and Heini Amanda Salonen
of TID. Chorthip Utoktham provided valuable inputs to chapter 4 while the Asia-Pacific
Research and Training Network on Trade (ARTNeT) research assistants Mariano Mamertino,
Natta Charusilawong and Meerim Shakirova contributed through compilation and tabulation
of statistical data. Neema Paresh Majmudar contributed section E on business challenges to
enhance intraregional trade and to editing of the Update. The production of the Update was
managed by Panjai Limchupong. Chaveemon Sukpaibool formatted the volume. The volume
is issued without formal editing and the remaining errors and omissions are responsibility of
the authors. Views and opinions in this volume should not be taken as endorsed by the United
Nations or its members.
Parts of this Update were prepared as background material and inputs for two
flagships publications of ESCAP: Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific
(2012) and the theme study of 2012 under the title “Promoting regional cooperation and
integration”.
iv
CONTENTS
FOREWORD ...............................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... iv
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ..................................................................... vi
1.
TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS IN MERCHANDISE TRADE..........................8
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
2.
RECOVERY IN EXPORT SLOWING DOWN FOR THE LARGEST TRADING ECONOMIES..................8
SECTORAL PERFORMANCE..............................................................................................................................................................11
SHORT-TERM PROSPECTS FOR MERCHANDISE TRADE..........................................................................................14
TRENDS IN INTRAREGIONAL TRADE.......................................................................................................................................15
IDENTIFYING AND TRANSLATING INTRAREGIONAL TRADE OPPORTUNITIES INTO
BUSINESS REALITY..................................................................................................................................................................................19
TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS IN COMMERCIAL SERVICES TRADE...24
A.
B.
3.
EXPORTS OF COMMERCIAL SERVICES SLOW DOWN AT THE END ON 2011..........................................24
SUBREGIONAL AND SECTORAL BRAKEDOWN OF SERVICES TRADE.......................................................25
INTRAREGIONAL FLOWS HELP FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT TO
RECOVER...........................................................................................................................32
A.
B.
C.
D.
4.
FULL RECOVERY OF FOREIGN DIRECT FLOWS ONLY TO SOME PARTS OF THE REGION........32
INTRAREGIONAL FLOWS OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT ON THE RISE........................................41
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES........................................................................................................................................48
THE ROLE OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS IN PROMOTING INTRAREGIONAL FDI...........50
TRENDS IN PROTECTIONISM ...................................................................................53
A.
B.
5.
EXTENT OF USE OF ZERO MOST-FAVOURED NATION TARIFF RATES......................................................54
NON-TARIFF BARRIERS........................................................................................................................................................................61
5. MEASURING COMPREHENSIVE TRADE COSTS FOR THE REGION....63
A.
B.
6.
SHIFTING FOCUS TO BEHIND-THE-BORDER BARRIERS...........................................................................................63
IDENTIFYING POLICY PRIORITIES FOR REDUCING TRADE COSTS..........................................69
ASIA-PACIFIC AND TRADE AGREEMENTS.........................................................72
A.
B.
STYLIZED FACTS........................................................................................................................................................................................72
TRADE FACILITATION PROVISIONS IN TRADE AGREEMENTS..........................................................................78
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 80
v
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADB
AFTA
APTA
APTIAD
ARTNeT
ASEAN
Asian Development Bank
ASEAN Free Trade Area
Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement
Asia-Pacific Trade and Investment Agreements Database
Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
BIT
bilateral investment treaty
CIS
Comtrade
CLMV
Commonwealth of Independent States
United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics
Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar and Viet Nam
EFTA
EIU
EU
European Free Trade Association
Economist Intelligence Unit
European Union
FDI
FTA
foreign direct investment
free trade agreement
GATS
GDP
GTA
GVC
General Agreement on Trade in Services
gross domestic product
Global Trade Alert
global value chain
IIA
IMF
ITC
international investment agreement
International Monetary Fund
International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO
LPI
LSCI
logistics performance index
Liner Shipping Connectivity Index
M&A
MFN
MTS
mergers and acquisitions
most-favoured-nation
multilateral trading system
NIAEs
nie
NTBs
NTMs
newly industrialized Asian economies
not included elsewhere
non-tariff barriers
non-tariff measures
ODA
official development assistance
PTA
preferential trade agreement
ROW
RTA
rest of the world
regional trade agreement
vi
SAARC
SME
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
small and medium-sized enterprise
TNC
transnational corporation
UNCTAD
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
WITS
WTO
World Integrated Trade Solution
World Trade Organization
vii
1.
TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS IN MERCHANDISE TRADE
A.
RECOVERY IN EXPORT SLOWING DOWN FOR THE LARGEST
TRADING ECONOMIES
A return to high double digits export growth rates did not last for long. After
recording above 20% rates of growth in 2010, since second quarter of 2011 exports of the
Asia-Pacific as well as the world has been slowing significantly (figure 1). The region’s
export growth has declined significantly from 19% in the third quarter to just 9% in the
last quarter of 2011 due to weak global demands and the disruptions in the regional
supply chains caused by Japan’s tsunami and floods in Thailand. Since the second quarter
of 2011, the region has shifted from leading world export growth to falling behind the
world average. Import growth also decelerated gradually from 23% to 16% during the
same periods. However, the region has still maintained its leading position in import
growth due to resilient domestic demand of fast growing economies in the region.
Figure 1. Most countries followed the regional trend with increasing variations in
2011- World and Asia-Pacific trade developments, 2008-2011
50
Exports
30
20
10
2011Q4
2011Q3
2011Q2
2011Q1
2010Q4
2010Q3
2010Q2
2010Q1
2009Q4
2009Q3
2009Q2
2009Q1
2008Q4
2008Q3
-10
2008Q2
0
2008Q1
Year-onyear change(%)
40
-20
-30
World
Asia Pacific
-40
50
Imports
40
20
10
2011Q4
2011Q3
2011Q2
2011Q1
2010Q4
2010Q3
2010Q2
2010Q1
2009Q4
2009Q3
2009Q2
2009Q1
2008Q4
2008Q3
-10
2008Q2
0
2008Q1
Year-on-year change(%)
30
-20
-30
-40
World
Asia Pacific
Source: ESCAP calculation, based on World Trade Organization (WTO) online Short-term Statistics
8
Adverse impacts of the ongoing world’s economic slowdown have affected
economies in the region differently. The economies which face the greatest growth
pressure from the developed world’s continuous economic slowdown are the export
dependent economies. These are the economies which have the relatively high share of
their GDP accounted for by exports (figure 2). Among these, the economies in East and
South-East Asia such as Singapore, Hong Kong, China; Thailand, China, Taiwan
Province of China, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, and the Philippines appear to have
relatively high exposure. Their export growth performance has been deteriorating over
the past three quarters (figure 3). Another group of economies in the region who may
experience a slowdown in exports due to the global situation is commodity exporters.
The impact on this group is less certain, as not all commodity prices move downwards
in synch with global growth trends. For example, food prices may exhibit less of a
connection with global growth than prices of oil or metals. In addition, impacts of the
natural disasters have caused supply shortages of some commodities in short and
medium terms. Therefore, certain commodity producers in the region may be more
adversely affected than the others even if the world commodity prices are rising.
Figure 2. Merchandise export as a share to GDP, selected Asia-Pacific economies
180
160
140
Per cent
120
100
80
60
40
0
Singapore
Hong Kong, China
Nauru
Malaysia
Papua New Guinea
Brunei Darussalam
Viet Nam
Thailand
Turkmenistan
Azerbaijan
Mongolia
Bhutan
Kazakhstan
Cambodia
Tajikistan
Republic of Korea
Myanmar
Uzbekistan
Philippines
China
Kyrgyzstan
Iran (Islamic Rep.
Solomon Islands
Russian
Indonesia
Fiji
Lao PDR
Sri Lanka
Maldives
New Zealand
Bangladesh
New Caledonia
Turkey
Australia
Japan
Samoa
DPR Korea
India
Marshall Islands
Pakistan
Georgia
Armenia
Macao, China
Kiribati
Vanuatu
Micronesia (F.S.)
Nepal
Palau
French Polynesia
Afghanistan
Tonga
Cook Islands
Timor-Leste
Tuvalu
20
Source: Based on data from UNESCAP statistical yearbook 2011 database
9
Figure 3. Export and import growth of selected Asian countries, 2008-2011
120
Exports
100
Year-on-year change (%)
80
60
40
20
2011Q4
2011Q3
2011Q1
2011Q1
2011Q3
2010Q4
2010Q4
2011Q2
2010Q3
2010Q3
2011Q2
2010Q2
2010Q2
2010Q1
2009Q4
2009Q3
2009Q2
2009Q1
2008Q4
2008Q3
2008Q2
-20
2008Q1
0
-40
-60
100
Imports
80
40
20
2011Q4
2010Q1
2009Q4
2009Q3
2009Q2
2009Q1
2008Q4
2008Q3
-20
2008Q2
0
2008Q1
Year-on-year change (%)
60
-40
-60
Asia-Pacific
Indonesia
Singapore
Taiwan Province of China
Australia
Japan
Thailand
China
Republic of Korea
Viet Nam
India
Malaysia
Hong Kong, China
Source: ESCAP calculation, based on WTO online Short-term Statistics
On the other hand, the economies with the least impact from the developed economies’
slowdown are those with large and robust domestic markets and limited reliance on exports as
driver of growth- the most prominent being India and Indonesia. Strong domestic demand in
India and Indonesia are related to a high proportion of consumption in GDP. China is a special
case in that while exports are important to the economy, with a significant proportion of
investment also related to the export sector, domestic demand and especially investment also
10
plays an important role and will provide some cushioning to growth. The weakening of external
demand suggests that economic growth of China may be being rebalanced toward domestic
sources. While inflation remains a concern in those fast growing Asia-Pacific economies
including China, India and Indonesia, it appears that the inflationary pressures are getting
weaker. Thus, the moves toward tight monetary policy implemented over the past year may be
eased to some degree to help dealing with the weak external demand.
B.
SECTORAL PERFORMANCE
An analysis by sector reveals that the global trade share of the fuel and mining sector
has increased very rapidly over the past decade at the expense of the manufacturing sector.
From 2000 to 2010, the share of fuel and mining in world trade increased from 14% to 21%;
during the same period, the share of manufactures contracted from about 77% to 70%, while
agriculture maintained its share at about 10% (see Table 1). This global trend was followed by
the Asia-Pacific region, with the share of manufactures in its total trade dropping from 81% to
71% during the same period, while the share of fuel and mining in total trade increased from
12.5% to 21.5%. The trade share of agriculture remained quite stable at about 7%.
Table 1. Sectoral compositions of world and Asia-Pacific trade, 2000 and 2010
(Percentage)
World
Asia-Pacific
Sector
2000
2010
2000
2010
Agricultural products
9.0
9.5
6.4
7.1
Fuel and mining products
14.0
21.1
12.5
21.5
Manufactured products
77.0
69.5
81.2
71.4
Source: ESCAP calculation, based on WTO International Trade Statistics online
Similar changes took place on both export and import sides of Asia-Pacific
region (see Table 2). The share of manufactures in total exports of the region dropped
from 81% in 2000 to 76.5% in 2010, while the share in total imports contracted from
72% to 66% during the same period. The share of fuel and mining increased from 13%
to 17% in Asia-Pacific exports, and from 18% to 26% in its imports. The share of
agriculture in Asia-Pacific exports declined slightly from 10% to 8%.
Table 2. Sectoral composition of Asia-Pacific Exports and Imports, 2000 and 2010
(Percentage)
Sector
Exports
Imports
2000
2010
2000
2010
Agricultural products
6.4
6.0
10.1
8.4
Fuel and mining products
12.5
17.0
17.7
25.8
Manufactured products
81.2
76.5
72.2
65.8
Source: ESCAP calculation, based on WTO International Trade Statistics online
By looking at growth of trade value, we can observe that the rising portion of fuel and
mining in world trade is due to the rise in prices and not in real terms. In terms of export
volume, world manufacturing exports grew faster than exports by other sectors at an average
annual rate of 6% from 2000 to 2010, with agricultural exports increasing by slightly less than
4%, and fuel and mining exports growing by less than 3% (see Table 3). In 2010, the export
11
performance in real terms reveals that the manufacturing sector has been the key driver for
export recovery of the region. Manufacturing exports recovered strongly with a growth rate of
18% in real terms, while agricultural and fuel sectors grew by only 7% and 6%, respectively.
The major manufacturing exports included office and telecom equipment, transport equipment,
other machinery, and chemicals, each accounted for about 12% of total merchandise exports.
Table 3. Growth in the volume of world merchandise exports, 2000-2010
(Annual percentage change)
2000-2010 2007
2008
2009
2010
World merchandise exports
5.0
6.5
2.0
-12.0
14
Agricultural products
3.8
5.5
2.0
-3.0
7
Fuel and mining products
2.6
3.5
0.5
-4.5
6
Manufactured products
5.9
8.0
2.5
-15.5
18
Source: WTO (2011).
Asia-Pacific continues to gain market share in world trade, especially in
manufacturing exports. The region increased its share in world merchandise exports from
30% to 39% during a decade from 2000-2010 (see Table 4). It was relatively more successful
in capturing a larger portion of the world manufacturing market (up from 31% to 43%), than
of the fuel and mining sector (up from 26% to 32%) in the observed period. The region’s
share in world agricultural exports increased slightly from 21% to 25% during this period. In
a similar way, the share of the region in world imports increased from 25% to 35% in the
period 2000-2010. Dynamic economic activities in the region caused the region’s fuel and
mining consumption to grow very rapidly. The region accounted for 43% of world fuel and
mining imports in 2010, an increase by 11.5 percentage points from 2000. The region’s share
of world manufactured imports also grew fast to reach 33%, but its share of world agricultural
imports increased only marginally from 27% to reach 30% during this period.
Table 4. Share of Asia-Pacific in world exports and imports, by sector, 2000 and 2010
(Percentage)
Exports
Imports
Agricultural products
Fuel and mining products
Manufactured products
Asia-Pacific average
2000
2010
2000
2010
21.0
26.4
31.2
29.6
24.5
32.4
42.8
38.9
27.4
31.5
23.8
25.2
30.3
43.0
33.0
34.8
Source: ESCAP calculation based on WTO International Trade Statistics
By looking more closely at export products of the region’s economies, it is found
that export recovery of the region has been driven by exports of machinery and transport
equipment which accounted for 45% of total merchandise exports of the region (Table 5).
Office and telecommunication equipment account for about a half of exports of the
machinery and transport equipment sector and its exports grew by 28% in 2010. The recent
dynamics of Asia’s trade in office and telecom equipment confirmed the recovery from
export contraction during the 2009 global economic crisis. A further breakdown of trade
flows data for office and telecommunication equipment into three subcategories, namely
electronic data processing (EDP) and office equipment, telecommunications equipment,
12
and integrated circuits, revealed that trade recovery of integrated circuits outperformed most
of export sub categories.1
The region holds the leading role in world trade in these products with 63% of world
exports in 2010. A regional breakdown of exports of office and telecommunication during the
period between 2005 and 2010 revealed an outstanding export position of China. China’s
exports accounted for 28% of world exports, or over 40% of Asia’s exports in these products.
Exports of China grew by 15% annually during the past five years, while combined exports of
other Asian economies increased by 3% per year during the same periods (Table 5a).
Table 5. Merchandise exports of Asia, by products
Agricultural products
Food
Fish
Other food products
Raw materials
Fuels and mining products
Ores and other minerals
Fuels
Non-ferrous metals
Manufactures
Iron and steel
Chemicals
Pharmaceuticals
Other chemicals
Other semi-manufactures
Machinery and transport equipment
Office and telecom equipment
EDP and office equipment
Telecommunications equipment
Integrated circuits
Transport equipment
Automotive products
Other transport equipment
Other machinery
Textiles
Clothing
Other manufactures
Personal and household goods
Scientific and controlling instruments
Miscellaneous manufactures
Total merchandise exports
Shares in merchandise exports
2008
2009
2010
6.03
6.36
6.26
4.74
5.16
4.82
0.80
0.95
0.88
3.94
4.21
3.94
1.29
1.20
1.44
12.37
10.79
11.53
1.76
1.83
2.17
8.81
7.45
7.66
1.80
1.51
1.70
79.01
79.73
79.43
4.15
2.72
3.00
7.38
7.71
7.86
0.66
0.86
0.76
6.71
6.86
7.10
5.77
5.98
5.83
44.64
44.76
44.92
20.80
21.96
21.42
7.31
7.58
7.28
6.86
7.22
6.50
6.63
7.17
7.64
10.53
9.90
10.27
6.62
5.33
5.92
3.91
4.57
4.36
13.31
12.89
13.23
2.84
3.12
3.03
4.34
4.70
4.28
9.90
10.75
10.51
2.35
2.63
2.59
2.64
2.86
3.00
4.91
5.26
4.92
100.00
100.00
100.00
Annual Growth
2009
2010
-13.66
28.94
-11.00
22.44
-3.37
21.99
-12.56
22.54
-23.48
56.83
-28.57
39.85
-15.01
55.66
-30.77
34.54
-31.07
46.92
-17.40
30.46
-46.40
44.71
-14.42
33.35
5.62
15.66
-16.41
35.56
-15.11
27.62
-17.94
31.44
-13.57
27.70
-15.15
25.89
-13.84
17.84
-11.55
39.56
-23.01
35.82
-34.03
45.31
-4.39
24.77
-20.75
34.43
-9.96
27.27
-11.33
19.18
-11.14
28.13
-8.33
29.17
-11.55
37.34
-12.26
22.61
-18.15
30.95
Source: ESCAP calculation based on WTO (2011).
1
From 2005 until the beginning of world economic slowdown in late 2008, exports of telecom equipment
had been more dynamic than computers and semi-conductors due to vigorous demand growth for consumer
electronics, especially mobile phones, wireless telecom equipment and flat panel display colour television.
13
Table 5a. Exports of office and telecommunication equipment of selected regions,
2005-2010
Exporters
World
Asia
China
Other Asia
Europe
North
America
Share in world exports (in
Annual percentage change
%)
2005
2010
2005-2010
2009
2010
100
100
5
-15
54.7
62.6
8
-14
17.8
28
15
-9
36.9
34.6
3
-17
29.9
23.2
0
-19
13.9
12.8
3
-17
21
28
30
26
10
19
Source: WTO (2011), International trade statistic, table II.40, p.93.
C.
SHORT-TERM PROSPECTS FOR MERCHANDISE TRADE
Amid the weakening of global demand and adverse impacts of natural disasters,
growth of exports and imports by many developing Asia-Pacific economies are expected to
decelerate in 2012 with an upward adjustment and return to the normal (historical) level in
2013 (Table 6). However, the prospects of regional developing countries on average depend
also on the prospects of China’s exports return to double-digit growth rates, as China
accounts for over 30% of the exports values of Asia-Pacific developing economies.
Table 6. Prospects for real merchandise export and imports growth in selected
economies
(Percentage)
Economy
Exports (a)
Imports (a)
Japan
Australia
China
Hong Kong, China
India
Indonesia
Republic of Korea
Malaysia
Philippines
Russian Federation
Singapore
Taiwan Province of
China
Thailand
Turkey
Asia and the Pacific
(b)
Developing AP (c)
2011
0.50
1.47
4.47
3.59
24.73
13.55
11.25
4.64
-9.09
0.75
2.97
2012
2.90
7.06
10.11
2.42
7.68
6.01
4.79
7.40
-1.30
1.36
0.12
2013
7.88
9.24
9.77
6.93
11.90
7.48
10.71
7.66
14.51
5.05
8.07
2011
7.24
12.53
4.80
4.85
18.94
14.19
8.86
4.82
-6.23
18.92
3.29
2012
8.17
5.89
6.40
5.12
8.08
8.00
4.26
5.48
1.77
7.09
11.72
2013
5.46
2.84
7.28
7.20
12.99
8.75
10.82
7.41
13.52
9.32
8.93
4.20
4.11
8.37
-0.42
3.77
10.21
9.14
6.65
7.46
5.13
9.36
10.82
16.03
13.92
0.01
-1.39
10.02
9.24
5.38
5.51
8.85
8.24
6.12
8.30
6.38
5.91
9.01
8.16
5.81
9.04
Source: ESCAP estimates and projections based on Oxford Economic Forecast, data up to February 2012
(a) Estimates based on constant prices and exchange rates
(b) Growth of Asia and the Pacific is export-weighted average growth rates of those observed countries.
The estimates are using 2010 as base year
(c) Growth of developing Asia and the Pacific is export-weighted average growth rates of those observed
countries excluding Japan and Australia. The estimates are using 2010 as base year.
14
D.
TRENDS IN INTRAREGIONAL TRADE
The increasing importance of intraregional export demand can cushion the blow to
Asian exporters from the developed economies’ low economic growth and declining
demand for imports. This will be possible if intraregional export continues to grow faster
than the export to the traditional markets, as it was the case in the last decade. While
Asia-Pacific's exports to the rest of the world roughly doubled between 2000 and 2010,
intraregional exports rose almost 2.5 times (ESCAP, 2011b, p.9). To sustain this high
intraregional export growth not only this region needs to sustain high economic growth
and rising purchasing power, but also put in place more aggressive policies towards
removing obstacles to trade intraregionaly. Notwithstanding that, the region should not
underestimate the importance of demand from the rest of the world, including the
developed markets. In fact, the slowdown in overall manufacturing in a number of
economies of the region, as seen from the declines in Purchasing Managers Index (PMIs)
towards the end of 2011 and in early 2012 is a clear reminder of the still significant role
the developed economies have in supporting economic growth of the region.
The intraregional share of exports in Asia-Pacific has been growing, particularly in
the past decade. In 2010, intraregional exports accounted for 49.5% of total exports,
increasing from 43% in 2000 (see Table 7). In 2000, about 27.5% of total exports went to
developing countries in this region, while only 10.6% went to Australia, Japan and New
Zealand. Only 5% was absorbed by China. United States, EU25 and the rest of the world
were buying 21%, 18% and 17.6 % respectively in 2000. By 2008, that is one year before the
crisis fully affected the region’s trade, the roles of China and the United States already
changed radically: China’s share as a destination market for Asia-Pacific exporters increased
substantially by 60%, while the United States’ share dropped by almost half to 12.7
percentage share. With other shares almost not changed, this pushed the share of Asia-Pacific
to almost 50% that year. In 2010 these changes were reconfirmed with the share of China
rising to almost 10%, and that of United States falling further to 12.1% (Table 7). So, a large
part of export growth from the region can be explained by rapid growth of trade between
China with rest of the region. Moreover, the dependence on markets of the United States and
EU25 has declined by 9 and 0.3 percentage points, respectively, over the period 2000-2010.
Exports from the region to the rest of the world, excluding United States and the EU25, has
increased to 20.4% in 2010 from 17.6% in 2000.
The share of exports to United States declined by 6.2 percentage points for the
developing economies of the Asia-Pacific region as a group between 2000 and 2010,
while the share of exports to EU25 increased by about 0.4 percentage points during the
same period (lower part of Table 7). Finally, share of rest of the world in developing
Asia-Pacific exports increased from 17.2% in 2000 to 20.7% in 2010. Based on this trend
from the last decade, it’s clear that developing economies of the region have been slowly
moving away from directly exporting to the United States and other developed regions,
while increasing their exports to developing economies in the region and the rest of the
world. This shift has been probably accentuated by the economic crisis of 2008/2009.
The increasing importance of intraregional exports partly reflects that economies
in the region are accelerating the depth of regional integration through production
fragmentation and trade. Nevertheless, the true importance of the developed country
markets to economies in the region is hiding behind the fact that a significant portion of
15
exports of the medium-income and high-income economies of the region are
intermediate inputs which are processed in another country and onward exported to the
developed economies. China is the most prominent destination for intraregional
intermediate inputs, with the country’s large proportion of exports is toward the
developed economies. Thus, if demand from developed economies were to slow down
significantly and remain sluggish for some time, the ripple effects across the regional
supply chain may eventually be reflected in intraregional exports.
Table 7. Destination markets of Asia-Pacific exports
(in percentage share and percentage points)
World
Exporters
AP 2000
AP 2008
Developing AP
2000
Developing AP
2008
Change from 2000
(percentage points)
EU25
ROW
21.1
12.7
18.3
20.2
17.6
19.9
Developed
10.6
8.6
4.1
-2.0
3.0
3.2
-8.3
1.9
2.3
100
49.5
8.1
9.8
31.7
12.1
18.0
20.4
6.5
-2.5
4.8
4.2
-9.0
-0.3
2.8
100
45.1
13.4
4.4
27.4
18.1
19.5
17.2
100
45.9
9.0
6.0
31.0
12.1
22.1
19.9
0.8
-4.5
1.6
3.6
-6.0
2.5
2.7
47.6
8.6
7.1
31.9
11.9
19.9
20.7
2.4
-4.9
2.8
4.5
-6.2
0.4
3.4
Change from 2000
(percentage points)
Developing AP
2010
US
Total
43.0
47.1
Change from 2000
(percentage points)
100
China
4.9
7.9
Developing
excl. China
27.5
30.7
100
100
Change from 2000
(percentage points)
AP 2010
Asia Pacific
Source: ESCAP calculation based on UNCOMTRADE data, WITS database
On the import side, the bulk of the region’s imports is coming from within the
Asia-Pacific region. The share of intraregional imports was already over 50% in 2000,
and the share increased to 53.3% in 2010 (Table 8). For developing Asia-Pacific
economies, intraregional trade took 53.1% of their imports in 2010.
Imports of Asia-Pacific economies have been gradually shifted away from
developed economies in the region and the United States. The shares of imports from
developed Asia-Pacific economies and the United States decreased by 4.2 and 5.5
percentage points, respectively, while imports from developing Asian economies and
the rest of the world gained the larger share.
Focusing only on developing Asia-Pacific countries, they reduced the share of
imports from developed Asia and the United States by 3.9 and 3.8 percentage points,
respectively. Realignment of sourcing of imports happened across the board with China,
other developing countries in Asia-Pacific and the rest of the world gained the shares by
1.2, 2.1, and 5.1 percentage points, respectively.
16
Table 8. Origins of Asia-Pacific imports
(Percentage share and percentage point)
World
Importers
AP 2000
AP 2008
Developing AP
2000
Developing AP
2008
Developing AP
2010
Change from 2000
(percentage points)
EU25
ROW
13.5
8.2
14.6
14.0
20.8
25.6
1.0
-2.4
1.8
1.6
-5.3
-0.5
4.8
100
53.3
10.5
14.1
28.7
8.0
13.6
25.1
2.1
-4.2
2.3
4.1
-5.5
-1.0
4.3
100
53.7
17.7
11.3
24.6
11.3
14.8
20.3
100
52.7
13.3
12.6
26.8
7.5
14.7
25.1
-1.1
-4.4
1.2
2.1
-3.7
-0.1
4.9
53.1
13.8
12.5
26.8
7.4
14.1
25.4
-0.6
-3.9
1.2
2.1
-3.8
-0.7
5.1
Change from 2000
(percentage points)
100
China
11.9
13.7
US
Total
51.2
52.2
Change from 2000
(percentage points)
Developed
14.7
12.3
Developing
excl. China
24.6
26.2
100
100
Change from 2000
(percentage points)
AP 2010
Asia Pacific
Source: ESCAP calculation based on UNCOMTRADE data, WITS database
To understand the features of the South-South trade within the Asia-Pacific,
Tables 9 and 10 summarize changes of geographical structure of exports and imports for
the developing Asia-Pacific countries and identify the core market in each subregion.
Table 9 shows that trade with developing economies in East and North-East Asia
(ENEA) currently accounts for about a half of intraregional trade by developing AsiaPacific economies. Over the past decade, the share of exports to ENEA increased by 2.4
percentage points, especially exports to China that increased by 4.5 percentage points.
South-East Asia (SEA) remains the second-largest intraregional market accounting for
over 30% of intraregional exports of developing Asia and the Pacific, but its importance
has declined considerably over this decade by more than 9 percentage points. During the
same period, the share of South and South-West Asia (SSWA) increased by almost 5
percentage points from 9.1% to 14%. The rising importance of the subregion mainly
reflected the rising share of India that increased by 3.2 percentage points. Exports to
North and Central Asia (NCA) increased slightly by 1.8 percentage points, and they
accounted for about 6% of the exports. Share of exports to developing economies in the
Pacific remain insignificant throughout the period.
On the import side, the South-South trade within the region appears to be adversely
affected even before onset of the crisis as the share of imports from ENEA and SEA both
dropped in 2008 relative to 2000 and then regained some of the loss but the SEA is still at a
declining trend, and mostly because of the smaller share of Singapore as the origin of imports.
It is also worthy to mention that China plays much larger role as the origin of imports for the
developing Asia-Pacific developing countries than as their destination export market. On the
other hand, both SSWA and NCA increased their role in Asia-Pacific South-South imports
with largest shares going to India and the Russian Federation (Table 10).
17
Table 9. Destination markets of developing Asia-Pacific exports
(percentage share and percentage point)
Developing AP
Exporters
Developing AP
2000
Developing AP
2008
developing ENEA
Total China Rest
SEA
Total Singapore ASEAN5 Rest
Total
SSWA
India SAFTA
excl.
India
Rest
NCA
Total Russian
Federation
Developing
Rest Pacific
100
46.0
13.8
32.2
40.2
13.8
25.0
1.4
9.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
4.2
2.4
1.8
0.5
100
45.9
16.2
29.7
31.4
8.4
21.8
1.1
13.4
5.8
3.0
4.7
8.5
4.4
4.0
0.8
-0.1
2.4
-2.5
-8.8
-5.4
-3.2
-0.3
4.3
2.6
-0.1
1.7
4.2
2.0
2.2
0.3
48.4
18.3
30.0
30.9
7.7
21.9
1.3
14.0
6.3
3.3
4.4
6.0
3.3
2.7
0.9
2.4
4.5
-2.2
-9.3
-6.2
-3.1
-0.1
4.8
3.2
0.3
1.4
1.8
0.9
0.9
0.4
Change from 2000
(percentage points)
Developing AP
2010
100
Change from 2000
(percentage points)
Source: ESCAP calculation based on UNCOMTRADE data, WITS
Table 10. Origins of developing Asia-Pacific imports
(percentage share and percentage point)
Developing AP
Importers
Developing AP
2000
Developing AP
2008
developing ENEA
SEA
Total
SSWA
SAFTA
excl.
India India
Total
China
Rest
Total Singapore ASEAN5 Rest
100
50.4
31.4
18.9
37.0
11.1
25.3
0.6
6.2
2.7
100
48.7
31.9
16.8
32.8
8.8
23.1
0.8
10.0
-1.7
0.5
-2.2
-4.2
-2.3
-2.2
0.2
49.8
31.8
18.0
33.7
8.2
24.8
-0.6
0.4
-1.0
-3.3
-2.9
-0.5
Developing
Pacific
NCA
Russian
Federation
Rest
Total
Rest
0.8
2.7
6.2
4.5
4.4
0.6
5.0
8.4
6.5
1.9
0.2
3.8
1.7
-0.2
2.3
2.1
2.0
0.1
0.0
0.7
9.4
4.5
0.7
4.2
7.3
5.2
0.0
3.2
1.9
-0.1
1.5
1.1
0.7
1.7
0.2
Change from 2000
(percentage points)
Developing AP
2010
100
2.1
0.2
Change from 2000
(percentage points)
0.3
Source: ESCAP calculation based on UNCOMTRADE data, WITS
From the above descriptive statistics, it is clear that the widely diverging growth
performance of the large Asian developing economies and the developed economies of the
world means that intraregional demand will become increasingly important to the exporting
economies of Asia-Pacific. China, for instance, has become the most important export market
for a number of economies in the region and their robust growth of exports to China has
outpaced exports to the sluggish developed economies since the onset of crisis in 2008.
However, some caution is called for here as to whether intraregional demand will provide the
same opportunities for growth as did the once robust import demand of developed markets in
the past.
In the short term, it is expected that intraregional demand will not be as
supportive to exporting economies as it was during early phase of the crisis when the
major economies supported their large domestic demand through significant stimulus
packages. The two largest developing economies in the region, China and India, have
been more concerned with taming rising prices than with maintaining growth which,
though slowing down, remains relatively strong. ESCAP analysis 2 shows that the strong
2
For more details see ESCAP, 2011a, Economic and Social Survey 2011, Chapter 1, p. 11.
18
0.0
growth of China was a key factor in supporting the export recovery of the region after
the onset of the crisis and before the subsequent uptick in demand from the developed
economies. Demand from India was also a factor in supporting growth in the region,
with India notable for its characteristics as an economy with large and growing
domestic consumption which maintains trade deficits with most countries of the region.
In 2010, for example, the ASEAN economies had a trade surplus with India of $13
billion, representing 17% of the total trade surplus of ASEAN, and China had a trade
surplus with India of $21 billion (ESCAP, 2010, p.16). However, in contrast to the start
of the crisis, the policy regimes in both China and India have moved from stimulus to
monetary tightening in order to moderate the respective drivers of domestic demand in
the economies, investment and consumption. It is this two-track nature of growth in the
region, with inflation concerns dominating for the domestic-demand oriented group and
growth concerns for the export-oriented group, which imply that intraregional demand
may well prove less supportive for growth in the short-term than in earlier years.
In the medium to long term, China, which remains the largest domestic market
in the region at present, is gradually rebalancing towards a more domestic demand-led
economy. However, the sector of the domestic economy which is by far the most
important is the investment sector. The import demands of this sector are centered
around natural resources. Therefore, the benefiting economies in the region would tend
to be commodity exporters. On the other hand, manufacturing exporters would need to
rely on the further growth of consumption in China. Furthermore, studies have indicated
that the import content of consumption in China is quite low compared with that of
advanced countries (for example, Akyüz, 2011). This implies that a consumption boom
in China may have a limited impact on export growth of the region. Thus, to become a
sustainable trade locomotive for the region, China will need to raise not only domestic
consumption, but also the intraregional import content of its domestic consumption.3
Other large economies in the region, India and Indonesia, offer a more consumption-led
economy for exporters of manufactured goods. However, the income levels of Indonesia
and India are lower than that of China at present. Another important factor affecting
increase in intraregional trade is supply capacity of firms to reorient their production to
new markets and adjust production and supply to these new markets. Box 1 covers the
most important limitations in this regard.
E.
IDENTIFYING AND TRANSLATING INTRAREGIONAL TRADE
OPPORTUNITIES INTO BUSINESS REALITY
As the recovery from the 2008-2009 global crisis continues with great
uncertainty, the role of emerging economies in changing patterns of competition in
world trade is increasing. The developing countries are becoming important drivers of
the world economy, and South-South and intraregional trade is growing rapidly, as
discussed in the previous section.
Since 1990 South-South trade has grown at almost twice the rate of world trade.
According to UNCTAD, South-South merchandise trade accounted for more than 10% of
world trade imports in 1995 and by 2008, this share had almost doubled to nearly 20%
3
See more details in ESCAP, 2011b, Asia-Pacific Trade and Investment Report 2011, Chapter 1, p. 12.
19
valued at $3.1 trillion (ITC, 2010a). The figures also indicate that more than 70 percent of
South-South trade is attributed to intra-Asian trade. Among Asian developing countries,
39% of trade is with other developing countries. For example, China’s trade with other
developing countries is currently 25% of total trade and is expected to reach 50% by 2020
and 60% by 2027. About 50% of Indonesia’s trade is with other developing countries
mainly in East Asia (ITC, 2011a) and is expected to grow further.
Amidst diversifying markets, changing demographics and consumer driven demand
in developing countries, there is a renewed call for modernization of trade support
mechanisms for developing countries to make the geographical shift in their trade. Some
countries in Asia have already strategically prepared themselves for this shift. Through a
rethink of its trade policy, when other countries had a tendency to concentrate on developed
countries as trading partners, Lao People’s Democratic Republic took advantage of its
geographical proximity to emerging markets and looked at regional markets for trading
opportunities (ITC, 2011b). Lao PDR has demonstrated how developing countries, in
particular least developed countries can take advantage of emerging markets. With a focus
on trading with other countries from the sub-region, Lao PDR now stands to prosper by
being transformed from a ‘land-locked’ to a ‘land-linked’ country.
Some critical policy measures required for all countries in the region to further
utilize the opportunities to enhance intra-regional trade are highlighted below:
Identifying Potential Export Markets
As countries focus towards intra-regional trade, along with geographical shift,
there is necessarily a product shift as taste, preferences, and consumption power in
Asian countries are quite different from Western European and US markets.
About 10 to 15 years ago, trade analysts were taking about the ‘flying geese
pattern’ of shifting export production from one country to other mainly driven by labour
costs as firms search for lower production costs. But a totally different intra-regional
trade pattern in emerging now with a more complex pattern of localization and
specialization. It is no longer just about lower labour costs but about the availability of
supporting industries and the value added and service components that determine the
pattern of trade. Moreover, technology has enabled open access, partly enabled through
telecommunications and the internet. There are global markets for ideas, the exchange
of intellectual property, global access to capital markets and to talent.
Policy makers need to focus on how to ensure a quality business environment
through creating a more favourable investment climate in terms of infrastructure, legal
frameworks and economic and financial incentives.
Trade Support Institutions (TSI) have a role to play in providing strategic
direction, and implementing more focused and specialized programmes for enhancing
intra-regional trade and investment through identifying potential areas for export
development. Managers of enterprises feel the effect of economic uncertainty in their
traditional export markets and struggle to interpret the changing economic climate and
identify opportunities. TSIs can provide a number of support services to assist firms to
successfully identify and translate intra-regional trade opportunities into transactions.
20
The initial step could be to identify products that are currently exported by one
or more countries in the region to the rest of the world, and simultaneously imported by
that same region from the rest of the world. The simple fact that such products are
imported into the region provides an indication of existing demand and those same
products are exported by countries in the world, provides a further indication of existing
supply under competitive conditions. It is critical that results of this initial research are
disseminated to relevant trade related organizations in a given region for a review and
for a ‘short listing’ of products that are important for their national economic
development objectives.
Subsequently, a country may consider organizing intra-regional trade promotion
activities. It may be useful to validate statistical data obtained from the trade flow analysis
through supply and demand surveys. Supply surveys provide information on exporters
and their products, including technical features, packaging, export availability, prices and
commercial conditions. Demand surveys include information on importers, their
requirements, and the dynamics of the markets. It may also be useful to organize trade
forums and seminars to provide platforms for business negotiations and transactions
among importers and exporters of a specific product group. During such meetings,
existing opportunities and obstacles to trade expansion can be identified (Helmers and
Pasteels, 2006).
The use of Internet and social networks has made it easier for small companies
to tackle the challenge of visibility and establish reputation. This trend creates a whole
series of opportunities for SMEs particularly in the technology and outsourcing sectors.
TSIs can provide technical expertise to SMEs to enter target markets, support in market
intelligence, design, packaging, standards and quality, pricing and promotion. Trade
fairs are useful for networking, benchmarking and learning from competitors as well as
meeting distributors and buyers (ITC, 2010b). TSIs also need to assist enterprises to
better meet quality requirements, using the domestic market for research and
development, ensuring that enterprises are sufficiently prepared to obtain financing and
helping exporters find the right slot in global supply chains (ITC, 2011c).
Modifying Export Products According to Market Demands
In certain cases, countries may be able to export the same products within the
region that were exported to developed countries. However, this identity in broad
categories masks heterogeneity. Developing regional markets especially through southsouth trade offers potential to exploit geographical proximity and less demanding
product standards at times. For example, even if one country diverts its exports of
textiles from developed to other countries within a region, which technically fall within
the same category, these textile products can vary significantly in terms of prices and
quality. Given the relatively low incomes of consumers in developing countries, costs
matter more compared to quality. The firms may need to alter cost and quality structure
of existing products, when incomes are low in new markets. It may be beneficial for
companies entering new markets to enter into partnerships to achieve a better position in
new foreign markets.
Since upgrading product qualities and specialization are important for export
success in the long run, it may be advisable for countries to carefully design their
21
geographical diversification strategy. This is especially true due also to the fact that at
times importers from developed countries transfer state of the art technology and
knowhow to exporters to produce better quality products. For example, a USAID funded
project named ‘SPREAD’ in collaboration with Texas A&M University introduced fully
washed coffee techniques to Rwanda in 2000 which enabled it to supply premium quality
coffee to developed countries capturing high end markets. Exporting to developed
countries may also impel them to improve overall efficiency as it requires better planning,
meeting deadlines, better quality control, maintaining product consistency et al. These in
turn lead to modern ways of doing business, product innovation and better ability to
respond to market conditions (Easterly and Reshef, 2010).
Identification of products to be exported to intraregional markets also needs to
take into consideration the impact of changing demographics. For example, in contrast
to China, which is moving towards an ageing population, India and South Asia are
expected to see a decrease in the national median age over the next 10 to 15 years. For
example, 50% of Indonesia’s population is below 29 years of age. This is seen from the
fact that Indonesia is the second largest user of Facebook in the world with 29 million
users and the sixth highest user of Twitter.
Creating Conducive Policy Environment through Trade Facilitation Measures
In a number of cases, trade liberalization was the key factor behind the growth in
exports. In order for private sector firms to successfully seize the opportunity to enter
the intraregional market, it is critical to have an overall conducive trade policy
environment for such an export shift to take place. At the policy level, it is not just a
question of exporting more but linking export growth to employment and enhancement
of the skills of indigenous companies. There is also a need to find innovative new ways
of financing to assist exporters as they shift from traditional markets of developed
countries into new markets and customers. An alternative financing model focusing on
five key stages in the chain: producers, stokers, traders, processors and end-users needs
to be developed (ITC, 2011c).
In addition to trade policy, there are number of administrative barriers which may
act as barriers to trade. Trade costs of many economies of the region have decreased,
largely due to tariff cuts, but much remains to be done to address non-tariff barriers
(NTBs). Given that non-tariff trade costs account for at least 90 percent of overall trade
costs, economies should pay greater attention to addressing NTBs including those arising
from unnecessarily cumbersome procedures and regulations or inadequate logistics
services (ESCAP, 2011b). In this context, trade facilitation measures which are meant to
ensure that liberalization of trade policies get translated into simplified procedures and
formalities are of utmost importance to the countries in the region. Intraregional trade
facilitation performance varies greatly amongst the subregions of Asia and the Pacific.
ASEAN has achieved high levels of international trade efficiency with tariff-equivalent
non-tariff trade costs of only 49% in its largest middle income members (Indonesia,
Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand), on a par with the costs prevalent in developed
country groupings. In comparison, intraregional trade costs in South, North and Central
Asia are more than double those of the ASEAN economies.
22
Trade facilitation measures are wide-ranging starting from simple measures such as
timely publication of trade regulations and procedures; to more advanced measures such as
taking advantage of information and communications technologies (ICT) to develop risk
management systems for inspection and clearance of goods which enable customs to limit
physical inspection of only high risk goods. Many countries have also undertaken the
development of national electronic single windows that enable the electronic exchange of
trade data and documents between traders, customs authorities and other government
agencies. The long term goal is to extend the services to include payment of duties,
receiving authorization, clearance as well as interacting with logistics service providers. The
Republic of Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong, China are world leaders in establishing
national single windows.
The full benefits of Single Windows and other electronic data exchange systems can
not be achieved until it is accepted by authorities in the partner country. The ASEAN Single
Window initiative aims at developing a regional Single Window system for its member
countries by 2012. The third round of negotiations of Asia Pacific Trade Agreement
(APTA) also resulted in a Trade Facilitation Framework Agreement among its six members
(Bangladesh, China, India, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, the Republic of Korea
and Sri Lanka) in 2009.
A long term trade facilitation strategy should also include logistics infrastructure
and services. Facilitating transit trade and enhancing the movement of goods to and
from international sea ports in neighboring economies is also critical for enhancing
intra-regional trade for landlocked countries of Asia-Pacific.
Effectively Utilizing Aid for Trade
Aid for trade can be utilized to facilitate intra-regional trade expansion and
diversification. Aid-for trade include (1) technical assistance for trade policy and
regulations; (2) trade related infrastructure, (3) productive capacity building including
supply side capacity for trade development, (4) Implementing and adjusting to traderelated reform and liberalization, (5) other trade-related needs including smooth
integration into the world trading system and implementation of trade agreements
(WTO and OECD, 2010).
To summarize, the strategic response of Asia Pacific countries to sustainable
intra-regional growth in trade would entail (cf. ITC, 2011c):





Trade support institutions becoming more dynamic and responsive
Entrepreneurs integrating themselves into global supply chains
Policy makers designing innovative trade policy and addressing non-tariff
barriers to trade
The financial service industry providing greater flexibility to firms starting
business in new markets
Utilizing Aid for Trade to enhance capacity to engage in intra-regional trade.
23
2.
TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS IN COMMERCIAL
SERVICES TRADE4
A.
EXPORTS OF COMMERCIAL SERVICES SLOW DOWN AT THE END ON 2011
Asia-Pacific as a region has increased its contribution to world export of
commercial services from 23% in 2000 to 29% in 2011 (values for 2011 are still
estimates based on WTO and UNCTAD joint data on trade in commercial services).
The share of Asia-Pacific in world imports of commercial services remained at a higher
level, rising from 27% in 2000 to 32% in 2011. Despite the exports of commercial
services growing faster than its imports since 2003, the region still generates a deficit in
its services trade with the world (see figure 7).
Figure 7. Exports and imports of commercial services, Asia-Pacific region
Source: Based on data from WTO and UNCTAD, Accessed at WTO International Trade Statistics,
downloaded 23 March 2012.
Commercial services exports and imports from the Asia-Pacific region played an
important role in the recovery phase of the world economy. Leading exporters of commercial
services in 2010 included India (33%), China (32%), Indonesia (29%), Hong Kong, China
(23%), Singapore (20%) and Australia (17%).5 However, their exports in 2011 slowed down
considerably: India (20%), China (7%), or Singapore (12%).6 Apart from a dip during the
2008/2009 crisis, export of commercial services was on an upward trend which halted in the
last quarter of 2011, with export growing at 4% (year-on-year) compared to 8% in the third
4
The lack of data on trade in commercial services remains a problem for many economies in Asia and the
Pacific, in particular with respect to sectoral and regional breakdown of trade flows. Therefore analysis in
this subsection compiles the data from different sources including mirror data but even with this approach
it is not possible to deliver an up-to-date and detail account of intra-regional services trade flows.
5
Some smaller economies experienced very high jump of services export in 2010, also making up for the
loss in 2009, for example: Papua New Guinea (55%), Macao, China (52%), Solomon Island (35%), Sri
Lanka (31), Viet Nam (30%), and Bangladesh (28%).
6
These are preliminary estimates for 2011 released by WTO, Short Term Trade in Commercial Services
Statistics, March 2012.
24
quarter.7 This is consistent with the slowing down of global exports of commercial services,
especially in the last quarter of 2011 when export grew at 3% on year-to-year basis compared
to 13% in the previous quarter (as reported by WTO and UNCTAD, March 2012). In contrast
to exports, imports of commercial services in the last two quarters of 2011 remained strong
across Asia.
Strong imports of commercial services are associated with the “Factory Asia”
phenomenon (discussed in detail in ESCAP 2009 and 2011b) which requires efficient
service sector for effective integration into global and regional production networks.8
While some economies were able to improve their capacities to supply and trade in
various commercial services, many still depend on imports.
B.
SUBREGIONAL AND SECTORAL BRAKEDOWN OF SERVICES TRADE
While services play an increasing role for Asia-Pacific as a whole, their importance
differs widely among individual subregions due to the heterogeneity of the region. Figure 8
compares the importance of each subregion in regional services trade during 1999-2010.9
East and North-East Asia remained the largest contributor to the region’s services trade (just
under 51% in 2010). South-East Asia ranked second providing around one-fifth of the
regions’ trade in services. The largest increase is registered in the regional share of South
and South-West Asia (more than 30%, mostly due to India), but it still remains only the
third largest contributor to regional services trade at 15%. Similarly, North and Central
Asia’s services trade share increased by more than 60%, (mainly because of the importance
of transportation services in landlocked economies) allowing this subregion to pass the
Pacific in fourth position in 2010. The fact that the regional share of Pacific economies’
commercial services trade dropped is particularly worrying as it may reflect a loss in
competitiveness in the supply of tourism and related services which are important driver of
economic growth and employment.10
Similarly, at the individual economy level there are winners and losers in terms
of captured share of total Asia-Pacific and world exports of services. Between 1999 and
2010, India doubled its share to reach 11% of regional exports. Similarly, China
increased its share to 17% of the regional exports of services. Japan’s share, on the other
hand, fell by one-third of its 1999 share and it lost its top Asian ranking to China. The
increase in the services exports by China and India also resulted in a several-fold
increase of their share in world services exports during the period under review; data for
2010 show that China captured 4.6% and India 3.3%, respectively, of world services
exports. These two countries were ranked as the third and sixth leading exporters in
2010.11 Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Thailand currently all contribute
7
This is based on WTO Short Term Trade in Commercial Services Statistics. WTO aggregates the world trade
estimates from individual reporters' quarterly balance-of-payments statistics taken from the IMF and Eurostat,
supplemented with estimates for missing data, as well as national sources. 28 economies from Asia and the
Pacific are included in the dataset with quarterly data. Data for China is available only from Q1 2010.
8
Many of the costs they determine the competitiveness of domestic industries are associated with the
availability and reliability of services.
9
This figure has not been updated due to lack of disaggregate data for 2011 at the time of preparation of
this update (March 2011).
10
But it may also be a reflection of incomplete statistics for this subregion.
11
The rank is based on world trade excluding intra-EU-27 services exports.
25
smaller shares to regional services exports than in 1999. The position of some small
Pacific island economies, such as Fiji and Vanuatu, also worsened.
Figure 8. Commercial services trade – subregional shares in total
Asia-Pacific trade of services
(Percentage)
Source: Calculated by ESCAP based on data downloaded from WTO International Trade
Statistics online, downloaded on 7 April 2011.
Commercial services export at the global level underwent some mild structural
changes, as the share of travel services export dropped by 6.7 percentage points (from
1/3 to ¼ of global exports), and transportation services share also fell slightly by 1.9
percentage points. Box 1 details the recent developments in tourism sector. In contrast,
the share of the residual category, called “other commercial services” increased from
about 45% to just over 53% (these changes are measured along the vertical axis of
figure 9). During the same period, Asia-Pacific increased its share in all three categories
of services exports. The largest percentage point increase was recorded in travel, the
service category which suffered the worst decline globally. Asia-Pacific’s share
increased by almost 10 percentage points, to reach $260 billion in 2010. Asia-Pacific
share in transportation services exports increased by over 4.2 percentage points to $245
billion in 2010. Largest increase in terms of value of exports was recorded in the
category which dominates world services exports – other commercial services. The
region topped $520 billion in 2010 in its exports of other commercial services,
contributing over ¼ of total world export in this category.
26
Figure 9. Repositioning of Asia-Pacific in exports of commercial services (changes
in 2010 over 2000)
Source: Calculated by ESCAP based on WTO International Trade Statistics Database,
Commercial services, accessed online on 23 March 2012.
Other commercial services comprise eight subcategories but the data is not
readily available for all countries and for some the periods for which data are available
are very short (see box 2 for definitions and examples of these services). Based on WTO
International Trade Statistics, Table 11 provides more detail on developments in exports
of these eight categories over 2000-2010 decade. Over this period Asia-Pacific
increased the value of its other commercial services exports by almost fourfold and its
share of world exports of other commercial services rose to over 26% in 2010. Despite
improvements in services trade data collection, still more than half of this category is in
a broad category of “other business services” (see box 2). The remaining half is split
into seven other categories, some of which have recorded marked increase in their
share, such as construction and computer and information services. It is noteworthy that
Asia-Pacific shares in both of these subcategories surpass the average region’s share:
Asia-Pacific exports more than 50% of all construction services and almost 32% of
computer and information services in 2010. Despite almost doubling the value of export
of communication services, its share fell both in Asia-Pacific basket and as a share of
Asia-Pacific in world export of communication services. Similarly export of insurance
and financial services, both closely associated with merchandise exports, increased over
three times in value, but their share remained similar.
27
Table 11. Other commercial services export breakdown
(comparison 2000 and 2010)*
Source: Calculated by ESCAP based on WTO International Trade Statistics Database accessed on 23 March 2012.
Note: * the values of 2000 exports for Asia-Pacific are biased downwards due to lack of data for several Central
Asian economies. For detailed country-by-country data consult WTO International Trade Statistics Database.
Box 1. International tourism remains one of the largest
services sector of Asia-Pacific
International tourism is one of the 12 sectors covered by the WTO General
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and is also often covered in RTAs. 12
However, it does not feature as a self-standing service activity in trade statistics, but is
reflected in travel services. In national accounts it does not often appear as a welldefined category, even though it is an important source of income and employment for
many developing and least developed countries, especially in Asia and the Pacific.
While 2010 brought some recovery in tourist arrivals from the 2009 sharp decline
caused by a combined effect of global economic crisis, pandemic threats, and factors
related to disasters and international security, 2011 again saw slowing down of
demand for tourism services.
According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), in
2011 the number of international tourists increased globally by 4.4%. In that year,
Asia-Pacific’s tourism sector experienced a less dynamic growth than in 2010 (6.1%
compared to 12.9%) (Table Box 2). Asia and the Pacific region captured almost 22%
of total global international tourist arrivals, with more than half of that linked to visits
to North-East Asia, while Oceania’s part fell to just 5% of the region and is now equal
to the share of South Asia. The most dynamic growth in international tourist arrivals
was recorded in Bhutan and Georgia (39%), Sri Lanka (31%), Palau and Myanmar
(26%), Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam (20%). Japan recorded a fall of tourist arrival
of 28% due to triple disaster in 2011.
12
GATS schedules refer to sector 9, known as “Tourism and travel related services”, which is broken
down into four subsectors: hotels and restaurants (including catering), travel agencies and tour operators
services, tourist guides services, and other.
28
Figure Box 2. Recent changes in international tourist arrivals
Source: UNWTO World Tourism Barometer online (downloaded in March 2012).
Note: *Asia-Pacific comprises the following economies: Australia; Bhutan; Cambodia;
China; Cook Islands; Guam; Fiji; French Polynesia; Hong Kong, China; India;
Indonesia; Japan; Kiribati; Macao, China; Maldives; Malaysia; Marshall Islands;
Myanmar; Nepal; New Caledonia; New Zealand; Niue; Northern Mariana Islands;
Pakistan; Palau; Papua New Guinea; Republic of Korea; Samoa; Singapore; Solomon
Islands; Sri Lanka; Taiwan Province of China; Thailand; Tonga; Vanuatu; and Viet Nam.
While there are no detailed and long-term data series on the geographical
breakdown of travel services, this category appears to be contributing towards an
expansion of intraregional trade in Asia. According to WTO (2011b), more than 60% of
China’s travel receipts were sourced from Asian economies, in particular Hong Kong,
China, as well as Japan, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan Province of China. More
than two thirds of the Republic of Korea’s travel exports were destined for other Asian
economies with more than 30% of those exports going to Japan. In the case of Hong
Kong, China, the share of Asia is even higher (more than 84%), with China being the
largest recipient of exports of travel services. Asian economies accounted for around
77% of Japan’s travel exports and 60% of Australia’s travel receipts in 2008. In
reporting Asian economies, travel exports to the European Union-27 represented
between 6% and 9% of the total, while the share of the United States ranged between
5% and 12%.
The prospects for 2012 are relatively positive. In February 2012, UNWTO
forecast reduced growth for all regions, with Asia and the Pacific still expected to
perform well (Table Box 2).
29
Table Box 2. Tourist arrivals - Rates of growth for 2010, 2011 and 2012 (forecast)
(Percentage)
Region
2010/2009
2011/2010
2012 forecast
World
Europe
Asia and the Pacific
6.5
2.9
12.9
4.4
5.8
6.1
3.0-4.0
2.0-4.0
4.0-6.0
Americas
Africa
Middle East
6.4
8.4
14.9
4.2
0.2
-8.4
2.0-4.0
4.0-6.0
0.0-5.0
Source: United Nations World Tourism Organization, Barometer February 2011, available from
http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/pdf/unwto_barom12_01_january_en_excerpt.pdf
Note: 2011 based on over 100 reported countries data by March 2011. 2012 rates are UNWTO forecasts.
Box 2. Definition and examples of commercial services
The WTO provides definition of services statistical data as follows:
The Balance of Payments Manual, 5th edition (BPM5) subdivides “the current account
into goods, services (including government services, n.i.e.), income (investment income
and compensation of employees), and current transfers. The commercial services
category is defined as being equal to services minus government services, n.i.e.
Commercial services is further sub-divided into transportation services, travel, and other
commercial services.
Transportation Services covers sea, air and other including land, internal waterway,
space and pipeline transport services that are performed by residents of one economy for
those of another, and that involve the carriage of passengers, the movement of goods
(freight), rentals (charters) of carriers with crew, and related supporting and auxiliary
services.
Travel includes goods and services acquired by personal travellers, for health, education
or other purposes, and by business travellers. Unlike other services, travel is not a specific
type of service, but an assortment of goods and services consumed by travellers. The most
common goods and services covered are lodging, food and beverages, entertainment and
transportation (within the economy visited), gifts and souvenirs.
Other commercial services correspond to the following components defined in BPM5:
(i) communications services includes telecommunication, postal and courier services.
Telecommunication services encompasses the transmission of sound, images or other
information by telephone, telex, telegram, radio and television cable and broadcasting,
satellite, electronic mail, facsimile services etc., including business network services,
teleconferencing and support services. It does not include the value of the information
transported. Also included are cellular telephone services, Internet backbone services and
on-line access services, including provision of access to the Internet,
30
(ii) construction covers work performed on construction projects and installation by
employees of an enterprise in locations outside the territory of the enterprise (the one-year
rule to determine residency is to be applied flexibly). In addition goods used by
construction companies for their projects are included which implies that the "true"
services component tends to be overestimated,
(iii) insurance services covers the provision of various types of insurance to non residents
by resident insurance enterprises, and vice versa, for example, freight insurance, direct
insurance (e.g. life) and reinsurance
(iv) financial services covers financial intermediation and auxiliary services provided by
banks, stock exchanges, factoring enterprises, credit card enterprises, and other enterprises,
(v) computer and information services is subdivided into computer services (hardware
and software related services and data processing services), news agency services
(provision of news, photographs, and feature articles to the media), and other information
provision services (database services and web search portals),
(vi) royalties and licence fees, covering payments and receipts for the use of intangible
non-financial assets and proprietary rights, such as patents, copyrights, trademarks,
industrial processes, and franchises,
(vii) other business services, comprising trade-related services, operational leasing
(rentals), and miscellaneous business, professional and technical services such as legal,
accounting, management consulting, public relations services, advertising, market
research and public opinion polling, research and development services, architectural,
engineering, and other technical services, agricultural, mining and on-site processing,
(viii) personal, cultural, and recreational services is subdivided into two categories, (i)
audiovisual services and (ii) other cultural and recreational services. The first component
includes services and fees related to the production of motion pictures, radio and
television programmes, and musical recordings. Other personal, cultural, and recreational
services includes services such as those associated with museums, libraries, archives, and
other cultural, sporting, and recreational activities.”
Source: The above text is taken from WTO Statistical data sets – Metadata, accessed at
http://stat.wto.org/StatisticalProgram/WSDBStatProgramTechNotes.aspx?Language=E#Def on 23 March 2012
31
3.
INTRAREGIONAL FLOWS HELP FOREIGN DIRECT
INVESTMENT TO RECOVER
A.
FULL RECOVERY OF FOREIGN DIRECT FLOWS ONLY TO SOME
PARTS OF THE REGION
Inflows
The Asia-Pacific region saw a strong recovery in FDI inflows in 2010 although
in aggregated terms, regional inflows still fell short of the levels witnessed in 2007 and
2008 and performances across countries varied greatly. After suffering a decline of 23%
in 2009, Asia-Pacific developing countries increased their FDI inflows by 19% in 2010.
In contrast, the developed countries in the region, namely Australia, Japan and New
Zealand, continued to witness a decline in their FDI inflows by 13% in 2010, mainly
due to a decrease in FDI inflows to Japan.
As not all countries in the region experienced a similar resumption of growth, FDI
inflows also reacted in very different ways from one subregion to another. FDI inflows
recovered in East and North-East Asia and more remarkably in South-East Asia in 2010
(growing annually by 17% and 109% respectively). In contrast, North and Central Asia
witnessed a slight decrease (2%) in FDI inflows, whereas FDI inflows to South and SouthWest Asia continued to decline notably (by 19%) due to the considerable slump in inflows
to India, which is the subregion’s leading FDI recipient (figure 10).
Figure10. Foreign direct investment inflows by subregion, 2008-201013
200
Billions of United States dollars
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
East and NorthEast Asia
South-East Asia
South and South- North and Central
West Asia
Asia
2008
2009
Developed AsiaPacif ic
2010
Source: ESCAP calculations based on UNCTAD (2011a).
Note: Developed Asia-Pacific countries include Australia, Japan and New Zealand.
13
The Pacific island States registered minimal FDI inflows (average of less than 0.5% of the region’s
total) and are therefore excluded from figure 1.
32
FDI inflows into the Asia-Pacific subregions can be disaggregated into two
groups – one focused on the five regional “giants” (i.e., China, India, Russian
Federation, Singapore and Hong Kong, China) 14 and the second comprising the
remainder of the economies in the region. China, India, Russian Federation, Singapore
and Hong Kong, China - which are economies with either a large domestic market, rich
natural endowments or an advanced level of economic development - are the top FDI
destinations among developing economies in Asia and the Pacific, and accounted for
more than 71% of FDI inflows into the region in 2010. 15 It is therefore helpful to
analyze the developments in those economies separately in order to gain a better
understanding of the drivers of FDI flows and to identify their potential to increase
future FDI (figures 11 and 12).
Figure 11. Foreign direct investment inflows to the regional “giants”, 2008-2010
Billions of United States dollars
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
China
Hong Kong,
China
2008
Singapore
2009
Russian
Federation
India
2010
Source: ESCAP calculations based on UNCTAD (2011a).
These five economies showed an improved but still a mixed picture in 2010.
China posted an 11% recovery of FDI inflows to approximately $106 billion in 2010,
almost regaining the level of 2008. China’s economic growth exceeded expectations in
2010 spurring investment. However, China is experiencing rising wages and production
costs, which continue to shift investment away from low-cost manufacturing to the
service and high-technology sectors. FDI inflows to Hong Kong, China, also increased in
2010 by 32% to $69 billion, surpassing the 2008 level. FDI inflows to Singapore rose
14
Although Australia is the fifth largest FDI destination in Asia and the Pacific, as a developed country it
was not included into the group of “regional giants”.
15
Including FDI to the developed countries in the region, i.e., Australia, Japan and New Zealand.
33
sharply by 153% to reach $39 billion in 2010 after a sharp slump in 2008. Singapore
continues to be the main investment hub of South-East Asia and has benefited greatly
from the increase in investment flows in developing Asia. The Russian Federation also
witnessed an increase in FDI inflows of 13% (to $41 billion), mainly due to a fastgrowing local consumer market, whereas in India inflows decreased by 31% to $25
billion in 2010 following stagnating economic growth, high inflation and continuing
infrastructure bottlenecks (figure 12). Hesitation of the Government of India to liberalize
certain sectors such as retail and insurance may have also affected FDI inflows
(UNCTAD, 2011a; 2011c; Asian Development Bank, 2011).
Figure 12. Foreign direct investment inflows to developing subregions
excluding the five “giants”, 2008-2010
Billions of United States dollars
50
40
30
20
10
0
East and North-East
Asia excl. China and
Hong Kong, China
South-East Asia excl. South and South-West North and Central Asia
Singapore
Asia excl. India
excl. the Russian
Federation
2008
2009
2010
Source: ESCAP calculations based on UNCTAD (2011a).
The changes in FDI inflow into both South-East Asia and East and North-East
Asia have followed a similar trend in trade in goods and services, and growth in general
before and after the global economic crisis (figures 11 and 12). In 2010, South-East Asia
quickly regained the pre-crisis 2007 level of FDI inflows, relatively equally spread among
the economies of the subregion. Malaysia experienced a record jump of more than 500%,
thereby increasing its FDI inflows from $1.4 billion in 2009 to $9.1 billion in 2010.16
Indonesia also benefited from rising FDI inflows which grew by 171% from $4.9 billion
in 2009 to $13.3 billion in 2010. However, Singapore was clearly the lead destination for
FDI in the subregion. The country is ranked as the number one FDI destination in the
16
The Malaysian Industrial Development Authority approved a much larger number of investment
projects (more than 900) in 2010 compared with earlier years (ESCAP, 2011b). In 2011, Malaysia was
ranked 16th in the World Competitiveness Yearbook (IMD, 2011) and also was ranked 18th in the World
Bank Doing Business Report 2012 (World Bank, 2011), particularly with regard to easy access to finance
and a high level of investor protection.
34
world in terms of business environment and had 300 registered projects in 2010 (fDi
Intelligence, 2011). When Singapore is excluded, the subregion loses on average 38% of
FDI inflows in the period 2008-2010. Indonesia accounts for 17% of the subregion’s
inflows, Malaysia for 11%, Thailand for 7% and Viet Nam for 10%. Indonesia
outperformed both Thailand and Malaysia during 2008-2010 partially due to expansion of
export-oriented manufacturing. Indonesia also has an advantage due to the existence of a
relatively large domestic market as well as adequate supply of labour compared with
tightening labour markets in neighbouring countries (Asian Development Bank, 2011).
In contrast, the recovery of FDI in East and North-East Asia was much more
modest. In 2010, FDI inflows into East and North-East Asia increased by 17%, after
witnessing a drop of 13% in 2009. When excluding China and Hong Kong, China, from
FDI inflows into East and North-East Asia, the recovery in 2010 disappears as 93% of
total FDI inflows into this subregion went to China and Hong Kong, China and FDI
inflows to the remaining economies (Mongolia; the Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea; Macao, China; the Republic of Korea; and Taiwan Province of China) continued
to stall in 2010 and dropped slightly by 0.4% in aggregate terms.
FDI inflows into South Asia and South-West Asia have continuously declined since
the start of the global economic crisis. FDI inflows to that subregion reached a peak in 2008
($71 billion) but declined in both 2009 (by 29%) and 2010 (by 19%). India accounted for
70% of subregional FDI inflows in 2009, and its FDI inflows considerably decreased in
2009 and 2010 by 16% and 31%, respectively. As shown in figure 15 when India is
excluded, remaining South and South-West Asia still recorded a large contraction in FDI
inflows in 2009, though those inflows rebounded slightly in 2010.
In North and Central Asia, most FDI is in the natural resources sector,17 and is
therefore of a long-term nature and cannot be suddenly withdrawn (cf., UNCTAD,
2010). This could partially explain why this subregion witnessed a delayed and resilient
reaction to crisis. In 2009, while the Russian Federation, which accounted for 64% of
subregional FDI inflows, experienced a quick drop of FDI inflows (by 51%), other
countries in North and Central Asia only suffered mildly from the global crisis with FDI
inflows falling by just 5%, to $20 billion. Yet, in 2010, FDI inflows fell by 28% to $15
billion. This large drop was mainly because of a fall in FDI inflows to Turkmenistan,
Kazakhstan and Armenia, which recorded declines in FDI inflows of 46%, 28% and
26%, respectively. Kazakhstan accounted for 67% of the subregion’s FDI inflows in
2009 as well as in 2010 (excluding Russian Federation).
17
North and Central Asian countries, many of which are landlocked are relatively rich in natural resources.
The abundance of natural resources ensures a steady flow of foreign exchange to these countries. In addition
to oil and gas, this subregion is also rich in gold and other precious metals such as silver and platinum, and
some base metals such as copper, molybdenum, lead and zinc. As a result, the region is highly resourcedependent. In Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, for example, hydrocarbons and minerals account for more than
50% of their exports, while oil and gas account for more than 25% of their fiscal revenue. This resource
abundance has attracted considerable FDI inflows to the subregion; a nine-fold increase was recorded during
1993-2008, two-thirds of which went to the energy sector (OECD, 2011). High trade costs, especially
transportation, are the biggest challenge for traders and investors in the subregion. The subregion needs to
improve its roads, rail system, pipelines and communications infrastructure to reduce trade costs. Although
tariff barriers in the region are low, non-tariff barriers associated with customs clearance, transits, trade
permits and “unofficial payments” must reduce (ESCAP, 2011b).
35
Table 12 ranks the top-10 FDI destinations in Asia and the Pacific based on
three indicators of FDI performance in terms of inward FDI stock. Firstly, destinations
with high FDI inward stock are those that received large FDI inflows in the period
2007-2010. They are typically middle- to high-income economies with middle- to largesized domestic markets (e.g. China and India) or free-port economies with a quality probusiness environment (i.e. Hong Kong, China; and Singapore). Secondly, economies
which successfully accumulated large FDI inward stock per capita include those that
have opened their markets to trade and investment or have relatively rich natural
resources (or have relatively small population, such as three Pacific island States that
are ranked in the top-10). Thirdly, when the size of FDI inward stock is compared with
the size of economy (i.e., FDI inward stock as percentage of GDP), many small
economies rank among the top-10 because of disproportionately small size relative to
other economies (such as five Pacific island economies which enter the list suggesting
that FDI plays a major role in their development). Hong Kong, China topped the
rankings in all three categories.
Table 12. Top-10 Asia-Pacific economies by three indicators of the foreign direct
investment inward stock, 2010
FDI inward
stock 2010
(Millions of
United
States
dollars)
FDI inward
stock per
capita 2010
(Millions of
United States
dollars)
Economy
Average FDI
inward stock
as percentage
of GDP
2008-2010
Hong Kong,
China
437
92,378
Singapore
196
Brunei
Darussalam
27,577
Tuvalu
115
469,871
Macao, China
26,912
Palau
97
Russian
Federation
423,150
Australia
22,818
Maldives
89
6
Japan
214,880
New Caledonia
21,340
7
India
197,939
New Zealand
16,055
8
Turkey
181,901
Northern
Mariana Islands
12,589
9
Thailand
127,257
Palau
10
Republic of
Korea
127,047
Rank
Economy
1
Hong Kong,
China
2
China
578,818
Singapore
3
Australia
508,123
4
Singapore
5
Regional
Average
Median
1,097,620
78,228
4,760
Economy
Hong Kong,
China
155,620
Brunei
Darussalam
New
Caledonia
86
70
Fiji
65
6,292
Mongolia
64
Kazakhstan
5,076
Solomon
Islands
64
Regional
Average
7,446
Regional
Average
40
Median
1,074
Median
20
Source: ESCAP, based on data from the UNCTAD (2011a).
Notes: Regional average and median calculated based on data for 53 economies in Asia and the
36
Figure 13 presents the most recent trends in FDI inflows for selected developing
countries in Asia and the Pacific based on available data for the year 2011.18 In SouthEast Asia, FDI inflows to Indonesia and Malaysia continued to maintain momentum in
2011 with 21% growth during the first eight months for Indonesia and 16% growth
during the first six months of 2011 for Malaysia after these two countries had already
experienced a significant recovery in inflows in 2010. A ranking by A.T. Kearney of the
world’s most attractive investment destination for 2012 ranked Indonesia 9th and
Malaysia 10th (China, not surprisingly was at number 1 and India at number 2).
Coupled with the large size of its domestic market and its rich natural resources,
Indonesia’s efforts to improve the business environment and reduce political instability
have succeeded in attracting investment (EIU, 2011a). The Government of Malaysia has
taken steps towards attracting more FDI to the country as detailed in the Economic
Transformation Programme. 19 Reforms include administrative improvements and
facilitating investors’ access to investment opportunities. These reforms coupled with a
strong infrastructure will continue to attract FDI to the country according to the Central
Bank of Malaysia (2011). In contrast, Thailand suffered a sharp decline (32%) in
inflows during the first eight months of 2011 partially due to political instability. This
decline is expected to continue as a result of Thailand’s wide-spread flooding in the
second half of 2011, which inundated a number of major industrial estates. Similarly,
Viet Nam’s weak growth in FDI inflows of 3% in 2010 has turned negative with a
decline of 23% over the first ten months of 2011. The main factors discouraging
investment to Viet Nam include lack of human capital, heavy bureaucracy and
discriminative policies against foreign firms although the country has taken steps to
reduce these impediments (EIU, 2011a; WEF, 2010).
In East Asia and North-East Asia, FDI inflows to China and the Republic of
Korea have continued to grow in 2011 by 16% (as of end of October) and by 4% (as of
end of September), respectively. China remains the engine of growth in the region and
is expected to maintain growth momentum due to its large domestic market (UNDESA,
2010). Such a positive outlook is expected to attract increasing flows of FDI to China in
the future as well.
In other subregions, there are signs of patchy recovery. In India, FDI inflows
grew by 57%, in the Russian Federation by 30% and in Kazakhstan by 7% during the
first half of 2011.
18
Because of the limited availability of data for 2011 from traditional sources (in particular, IMF and
UNCTAD), the analysis in this section relies on country data obtained from the CEIC database.
19
The Economic Transformation Programme is a joint effort by the Government of Malaysia and the
country’s private sector to elevate Malaysia to the level of high-income country by the year 2020. The
plan focuses on several sectors identified as national key economic areas such as oil, gas and energy;
financial services; tourism; and palm oil. The goal is to transform the economy into a service-based
economy, create jobs and increase the standard of living in a sustainable manner. In order to reach these
goals Malaysia is implementing policy measures relating to, for example, market liberalization, human
resource development, enhanced public finance and business environment reform. (Malaysia,
Performance Management and Delivery Unit, 2010)
37
Figure 13. Percentage change of FDI inflows in selected Asian economies,
2009/2008, 2010/2009 and 2011/2010
India
Russian Federation
Indonesia
Malaysia
2008-2009
China
2009-2010
Kazakhstan
2010-2011
Republic of Korea
Viet Nam
Thailand
Pakistan
-75%
-50%
-25%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Source: ESCAP calculations based on data from CEIC Data Company Limited (2011).
Notes: Growth rates for 2010/11 are until end of June 2011 for India, Kazakhstan, Malaysia and Russian
Federation, until the end of August for Thailand, until the end of September for Indonesia, Republic of
Korea and Pakistan and until the end of October for China and Viet Nam. There is a large discrepancy
between the figures provided by CEIC and UNCTAD in the case of growth of FDI inflows to Thailand in
2009/10. According to UNCTAD (2011a), inflows to Thailand increased only by 17% in 2009/10.
In South Asia, India continues to attract most of the FDI inflows to the
subregion. During the first ten months of 2011, India attracted $33 million in greenfield
FDI, the highest in South Asia (fDi Intelligence, 2011). According to the Asian
Development Bank (2011) foreign investors in India have struggled with issues relating
to land acquisition and obtaining environmental clearances. In addition, as mentioned
above, the Government of India has reviewed its intention to liberalize certain sectors
such as retail and insurance and the liberalization of FDI in the retail sector is currently
the focus of intensive debate. 20 Opponents fear a severe backlash to the country’s
domestic small-scale grocery stores. Pakistan continues to struggle and has witnessed a
further decline in FDI inflows in 2011. In 2009, FDI inflows to the country decreased
by 57% and in 2010 by 14%. Most recently, the year-on-year decline in FDI inflows
until September 2011 is recorded at 36% (UNCTAD, 2011). The sectors experiencing
the largest declines in FDI inflows to Pakistan include communication, especially
telecommunications, petroleum refining, the paper and pulp industry and chemicals. On
the bright side, the financial services sector experienced year on year growth of 24.3%
over the June-April 2010-11 period. However, according to the Asian Development
20
To maintain the trend, India has to further relax restrictions on FDI in some key sectors (especially
services such as retailing), simplify FDI procedures and remove other bottlenecks (EIU, 2011b). India is
expected to continue strong growth of real GDP and take economic liberalization measures, resulting in a
growing need for both public and private investment (especially in infrastructure and industrial
development). Thus, a more investor-friendly climate needs to be established in order to attract higher
FDI inflows, as was clearly indicated by the Doing Business Survey 2012 (World Bank, 2011) in which
India was again ranked relatively low at 132.
38
Bank (2011) power shortages and security issues will continue to dampen growth
prospects for the country, which will have a negative impact on FDI inflows.
Recent data on FDI in the Pacific island States are very difficult to find and
generally speaking, FDI is very limited to begin with though some countries in this
subregion could benefit from FDI in the services sector. In Papua New Guinea, FDI is
concentrated in the natural resources sector. In a most recent development, an Exxon
Mobil-led consortium has embarked on a $15 billion Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
project in the Southern Highlands with production to begin in 2014. Other foreigninvested LNG projects are in the pipeline.21 In Fiji, net FDI inflows are rising mostly in
the tourism and hotel industry and textiles, garments and footwear industry.
In general, FDI inflows to various countries of the Asia-Pacific region are
increasing as a result of the comparatively healthy growth prospects in these countries.
However, in general terms FDI inflows to the region continue to be volatile and sensitive
to global cycles as well as national factors (e.g., related to security concerns, impact of
natural disasters, and/or weak national economic fundamentals) as evidenced by the
unusually large fluctuations in growth rates of FDI inflows. Moreover, financial
instability and increased risks of another economic downturn, mainly caused by the
ongoing Euro debt crisis, are expected to affect FDI inflows to the region particularly
from the developed countries, which have been the traditional FDI sources to the region.
Evidence of this could already be observed in the second half of 2011 which witnessed a
sudden slump in FDI, especially in the form of cross-border mergers and acquisitions
M&A, in the world (UNCTAD, 2011b).
Outflows
Trends in FDI outflows resemble those of inflows.22 While global FDI outflows
recovered by 13% to reach just over $1,300 billion in 2010 after declines in 2008 and
2009, this amount was still some 10% below the pre-crisis average (2005-2007) and
40% below the 2007 peak. Similarly, having decreased in 2008 by 16% and in 2009 by
45%, FDI outflows from developed countries showed improvement in 2010, increasing
by 10% to $935 billion. The United States as well as the European Union increased FDI
outflows in 2010 by 16% and 10%, respectively, after witnessing slumps both in 2008
and 2009. FDI outflows from Japan, however, have not recovered. Since hitting a peak
of $128 billion in 2008, FDI outflows from Japan have declined by 42% in 2009 and
25% in 2010 reaching a level of $56 billion. In developing countries, aggregated FDI
outflows increased by 21% from $271 billion in 2009 to $328 billion in 2010.
Although developed economies continued to account for the biggest share of
global FDI outflows (71% in 2010), developing countries are becoming increasingly
important investors as their share in global FDI outflows grew to 25% in 2010 from
14% in 2007. As developed countries are still grappling with the effects of the crisis as
evidenced by the present debt crisis in Europe and North America, many TNCs in
developing countries are investing in other emerging markets where recovery is strong
21
http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Countries/Pacific/Papua-New-Guinea.php.
The statistical data on FDI outflows were calculated by ESCAP based on UNCTAD (2011a) unless
otherwise specified.
22
39
and the economic outlook is better. In 2010, 70% of investment by developing countries
was directed towards other developing countries, while 50% of FDI from developed
countries flowed into developing countries (UNCTAD, 2011c).
FDI outflows from the Asia-Pacific region decreased by 17% in 2009 but started
to recover in 2010 posting a 13% rise. At the same time, the share of Asia-Pacific FDI
outflows in global outflows almost doubled to 28% in 2010 from 15% in 2007. It is
noteworthy that FDI outflows from Asia-Pacific developing countries remained more or
less stable in the crisis year of 2008 but grew by 2% in 2009 and by 21% in 2010 which is
a clear sign of the rebounding dynamism of the region. In 2010, FDI outflows from East
and North-East Asia grew by 22%, from South-East Asia by 25% and from North and
Central Asia by 27% (figure 14). FDI outflows from South and South-West Asia,
however, continued to stagnate in 2009 and 2010 due to a persistent slump in India.23 The
FDI outflows from the regional developed economies declined by 8% in 2010 mostly due
to falling FDI outflows from Japan. FDI outflows from East and North-East Asia
maintained the largest share of regional FDI outflows (47%), followed by Asia-Pacific
developed economies and North and Central Asia, accounting for 22% and 16%,
respectively. FDI outflows from South-East Asia and South and South-West Asia had
shares of 11% and 4%, respectively.
Figure 14. Foreign direct investment outflows by subregion, 2008-2010.24
200
Billions of United States dollars
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
East and North- South-East Asia
East Asia
South and
South-West
Asia
2008
2009
North and
Central Asia
Developed
Asia-Pacif ic
2010
Source: ESCAP calculations based on UNCTAD (2011a).
Note: Developed Asia-Pacific countries include Australia, Japan and New Zealand.
23
However, Indian enterprises are showing increasing interest in investing in foreign markets (fDi
Intelligence, 2011). India’s FDI is expected to grow in the mid- to long term, despite the country’s
decreases in FDI outflows in 2009 and 2010 with 18% decline in 2009 and 8% decline in 2010 reaching a
level of $14,626 million (UNCTAD, 2011a). In the first six months of fiscal year 2011-2012 outward
investments by Indian companies already reached $19,000 million a significant jump from the year 2010
(India Brand Equity Foundation, 2011).
24
The Pacific island States registered minimal FDI outflows (average of less than 0.1% of the region’s
total) and have thus been excluded from figure 14.
40
Based on these figures support the claim that the developing countries of the AsiaPacific region are gaining significance as sources of FDI. This strong success was partly
due to the dynamism of TNCs from emerging developing economies within the region and
their increasing aspiration to compete in new markets (ESCAP, 2009b), thus leading to
growth in intraregional FDI flows as outward FDI from traditional sources (i.e., developed
countries) have yet to return to their pre-crisis levels.
B.
INTRAREGIONAL FLOWS OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT ON
THE RISE
Economic integration in Asia and the Pacific has been partly driven by the
emergence of regional and global value chains, which has led to increasing intraregional
flows of trade and FDI. The developing economies of Asia and the Pacific have gained
importance as sources of FDI in the region, complementing traditional sources of FDI
from the developed countries in the region. The attractiveness for enterprises based in
developing countries to invest in other developing countries is based on traditional
reasons, such as cost advantages in terms of lower wages or prices and the availability
of specific resources. But these enterprises are likely to have specific advantages over
competitors from developed countries as well because their technologies and knowledge
fit the factor endowments and market characteristics of the recipient developing
countries better. In particular, a smaller technology gap between the origin and the
recipient countries may put these firms in a good position to transfer and diffuse
technology and knowledge (ESCAP, 2011b).
1. South-East Asia (ASEAN)
The increased importance of intraregional flows of FDI is noticeable in the case
of South-East Asia, as defined by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN). As shown in Table 13, FDI inflows to ASEAN countries from ASEAN+6
countries (ASEAN, Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and Republic of
Korea) increased from 15% of the total in the period 1998-2000 to 41% in the period
2008-2010. In contrast, inflows from the United States and the European Union
decreased between these two periods from 54.9% to 30.7%.
Japan is a major provider of FDI in the ASEAN subregion and is the largest Asian
investor in many ASEAN countries. For instance, Japan was the largest foreign investor
in Thailand in 2010 with $3.16 billion invested during the year, followed by Singapore
($640 million), China ($546 million) and Hong Kong, China ($410 million). In that year,
the total investments from other ASEAN countries in Thailand amounted to $767 million.
Japan was also the largest foreign investor in Malaysia and the Philippines in 2010,
investing $1.3 billion in each of these countries (Malaysian Investment Development
Authority, 2012; Philippines National Statistical Coordination Board, 2012). Singapore
invested $700 million in Malaysia in 2010, mostly in the electrical, petroleum and basic
metal sectors. Singapore, Japan and Hong Kong, China, are also leading investors in
Indonesia. In 2010, FDI from these three countries in Indonesia amounted to,
respectively, $5 billion, $712 million and $566 million (Indonesia Investment
Coordination Board, 2012).
41
Table 13. Major sources of FDI inflows to ASEAN, 1998-2000 and 2008-2010
averages
Economy/Grouping
United States
European Union
Japan
ASEAN
Australia
New Zealand
China
Republic of Korea
India
Others
ASEAN+3
ASEAN+6
Average flows to
ASEAN
1998-2000 Average
In millions of
United States Share (%)
dollars
5,466
22.4
7,943
32.5
2,042
8.4
1,759
7.2
-513
-2.1
49
0.2
74
0.3
194
0.8
71
0.3
7,356
30.1
4,068
16.6
3,676
15.0
24,441
2008-2010 Average
In millions of
United States
dollars
5,394
11,036
5,426
8,926
1,109
91
2,834
2,279
1,319
15,157
19,465
21,985
Share (%)
10.1
20.6
10.1
16.7
2.1
0.2
5.3
4.3
2.5
28.3
36.3
41.0
53,572
Source: ESCAP calculations based on ASEAN Investment Report 2011 (ASEAN Secretariat, 2011) and
Statistics of Foreign Direct Investment in ASEAN (ASEAN Secretariat, 2006).
Note: European Union consists of EU27; ASEAN+3 comprises the ten ASEAN countries plus China,
Japan and Republic of Korea; ASEAN+6 comprises ASEAN+3 plus Australia, India and New Zealand.
The recent data also shows that the low-income ASEAN members, Cambodia,
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar and Viet Nam - the so-called CLMV
countries - have experienced growing FDI inflows from other ASEAN countries (Table
14). This provides some evidence in support of the “flying geese” view of the process of
industrialization in less developed economies. 25 Foreign investors are attracted to the
CLMV countries because of their relatively low wages and access to natural resources.
FDI inflows to Cambodia increased by 45% in 2010 to $783 million, and those to
Myanmar increased by 31% to $756 million (UNCTAD, 2011a). According to official
sources, China is the largest investor in Cambodia, followed by the Republic of Korea,
Hong Kong, China; Taiwan Province of China, Malaysia and Thailand, with most
investment targeting the booming garment industry. 26 FDI outflows from Cambodia
amounted to $17 million in 2010. According to IMF (2011c), Thailand and Singapore
have reported receiving FDI flows from Cambodia. In addition, China has been a major
recipient in 2010.
25
See for a detailed analysis, the Asia-Pacific Trade and Investment Report 2010 (ESCAP, 2010), pp. 4142, available from www.unescap.org/tid/publication/aptir2590.asp.
26
http://www.caminfoservices.com/cdc/investors-information/fdi-trend.html. FDI in the garment industry
has recently declined as a result of the global economic crisis.
42
Table 14. Share of intra-ASEAN FDI inflows of total FDI inflows to ASEAN
countries, 2008-2010
(Percentage)
Country
2008
2009
2010
Brunei Darussalam
0
1
14
Cambodia
30
32
45
Indonesia
36
28
44
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
21
18
41
Malaysia
23
-20
6
Myanmar
11
3
n/a
Philippines
9
0
0
Singapore
8
14
10
Thailand
6
27
7
Viet Nam
28
6
16
TOTAL INTRA-ASEAN
20
14
16
CLMV
27
8
20
Source: ESCAP calculations based on ASEAN Investment Report 2011 (ASEAN Secretariat, 2011).
Note: CLMV stands for Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar and Viet Nam
According to official sources, Viet Nam has been the largest foreign investor in
Lao People’s Democratic Republic during the period 2000-2010, investing a total of
$2.77 billion, closely followed by China with $2.71 billion. 27 Most investment in Lao
PDR is directed to the hydroelectricity and mining/resources sectors. The Government
amended the Law on Foreign Investment in early 2010 to attract FDI in the non-resources
sector. During the period 1990-2010, as a share of total cumulative investment, Taiwan
Province of China was the largest investor in Viet Nam followed by the Republic of
Korea, Singapore, Japan and Malaysia.28 China has emerged as the largest investor in
Myanmar targeting the electricity, oil and gas and mining sectors. China’s pledged
investment soared to a total of $20 billion during the 2010-2011 fiscal year (April-March)
compared to just $300 million a year before according to official data.29
2. South Asia (SAARC)
The share of FDI from Asia-Pacific economies in India’s total FDI inflows
increased from 11% in 2003 to 22% in 2010, 57% of which came from South-East
Asia 30 and 37% from East and North-East Asia. However, India’s South Asian
neighbours accounted for less than 1% of FDI inflows to India. 31 India is actively
looking to expand its presence abroad and gain access to new markets and resources
(India Brand Equity Foundation, 2011b). For instance, in November 2011 the
Afghanistan Ministry of Mines (2011) announced that a consortium consisting of
several Indian companies was awarded mining rights to the Hajigak iron ore deposit in
27
http://www.business-in-asia.com/laos/fdi_in_laos.html
http://www.vietpartners.com/Statistic-fdi.htm
29
As reported by Reuters: http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/06/09/myanmar-investmentidINL3E7H90ZW20110609
30
Singapore has dominated South-East Asia’s FDI to India, i.e., accounting for 81% in 2010.
31
This issue may be revisited to examine if India’s neighbouring countries may also use Mauritius as an
intermediary to facilitate their investment to India. In addition to India, Mauritius holds the double tax treaties with
four South Asian countries, i.e., Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (LOWTAX, 2011).
28
43
Afghanistan. According to the Ministry, the Hajigak is the largest unmined deposit in
Asia and the project is expected to bring in not only new technologies and expertise but
also create thousands of jobs in the country. The Ministry estimates that the value of
investments will amount to billions of United States dollars.
Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand are the most significant suppliers of greenfield
FDI in Pakistan. In 2010, Singapore made a $91 million investment in electronic
components in Pakistan, the largest FDI inflow during that year. During the 2005-2010
period Malaysia was the biggest supplier of FDI ($2.8 billion), followed by Singapore
($428 million) and Thailand ($25 million) (fDi Intelligence, 2011). In 2010, FDI inflows
to Bangladesh increased by 30% to $913 million. According to the Bangladesh Board of
Investment (2012), the largest contributors of FDI in 2009-2010, in terms of proposed
investments, were Saudi-Arabia, Republic of Korea and China. FDI outflows from
Bangladesh decreased by 47% to $15 million in 2010. According to the IMF (2011c)
most FDI from Bangladesh is targeted towards India (39%). Within the Asia-Pacific
region also Sri Lanka and Pakistan receive FDI from Bangladesh. Finally, Sri Lanka has
benefited from increased investment from India and is expecting increasing flows of FDI
from other Asia-Pacific countries as it recovers from its prolonged conflict.
3. North-East Asia
As China is by far the largest FDI destination in the Asia Pacific region (and the
world), it is interesting to note that most investment in China was sourced from East and
North-East Asian economies. Table 15 presents the shares of source economies in total
FDI inflows to China in 2000 and 2010. Total FDI inflows to China more than doubled
in the period 2000-2010 to $106 billion (UNCTAD, 2011a)., The main sources of FDI
are Hong Kong, China;32 Japan; the Republic of Korea; and Taiwan Province of China
(39.3%, 11.1%, 7.3% and 7.0%, respectively, accounting for 64.8% of total FDI inflows
to China in 2010). North America33 and Europe followed East and North-East Asia with
each having a less than 10% share of total FDI inflows to China in 2010. Overall, 72%
of the FDI flows to China were sourced in the Asia-Pacific region in 2010, up from
62.3% in 2000.
Although the United States and the European Union are the main sources of FDI
in the Republic of Korea, Asia-Pacific countries have gained ground. In particular, China
has increased its investments in the Republic of Korea by 251% year-on-year in the first
half of 2011. During the same period, the combined FDI from Hong Kong, China;
Malaysia; Singapore and Taiwan Province of China in the Republic of Korea increased by
55% to $449 million – and FDI from Japan increased 44% to $891 million. In addition,
FDI outflows from the Republic of Korea have been significantly larger in absolute terms
32
The high level of FDI flows from Hong Kong, China to China could be at least partly explained by
traditional indirect investment made by TNCs from third countries to China through Hong Kong, China (e.g.
‘greenfield’ investments from Taiwan Province of China). Investment funds can also be recycled from
China to Hong Kong, China and then back again in a process called round-tripping. Compared with the
2000 share of 45%, Hong Kong, China’s share in FDI inflows to China in 2010 dropped slightly (see table
2.9). As regards inflows to Hong Kong, China on average 27% of FDI came from China in 2008 (EIU,
2011d), which accounted for 69% of China’s aggregate FDI outflows (Ministry of Commerce, China, 2009).
33
The United States was the fourth largest source of FDI in China with a share of 9%.
44
than FDI inflows to the country in recent years, amounting to $19 billion in 2010
(UNCTAD, 2011a) and growing in 2011 to a level of $44.5 billion. The growth in FDI
outflows in 2011 is mainly explained by increased investment in the natural resources
sector, especially in mining in North American and Oceania. (Republic of Korea,
Ministry of Strategy and Finance, 2012) In 2010, the top destinations for FDI outflows
from Republic of Korea were the United Kingdom, the United States and China, which
together represented almost 42% of the total. FDI outflows from Republic of Korea to
ASEAN countries increased by 156% to $3.7 billion (ASEAN Secretariat, 2011).
Table 15. Major source economies of foreign direct investment in China,
2000 and 2010
(Percentage shares)
Region/economy
2000
2010
Asia and the Pacific
62.3
72.0
East and North-East Asia
54.5
64.8
Hong Kong, China
38.0
39.3
Japan
7.2
11.1
Republic of Korea
3.7
7.3
Taiwan Province of China
5.6
7.0
South-East Asia
7.0
6.2
Singapore
5.3
4.5
Malaysia
0.5
0.7
Philippines
0.3
0.4
Thailand
0.5
0.4
Indonesia
0.4
0.3
Viet Nam
0.0
0.0
Australia
0.8
0.8
New Zealand
0.0
0.1
Russian Federation
0.0
0.1
North America
11.4
9.1
Europe
11.3
8.8
Others
15.0
10.1
Total
100.0
100.0
Source: ESCAP, based on data from EIU (2011c).
Notes: Europe comprises Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands,
Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. North America comprises
Canada, Mexico and the United States of America.
4. Central Asia
According to UNCTAD’s World Investment Reports in recent years (UNCTAD,
2010; 2011c), the Russian Federation has proved to be a dominant investor in Central
Asia. For example, in 2009, the Russian Federation accounted for 68% of Central Asia’s
subregional FDI inflows. In addition to the Russian Federation, a significant amount of
FDI inflows to the subregion used to come from Turkey as well as from a handful of
developed European countries, such as France, the Netherlands and the United
Kingdom. In recent times, however, a gradually larger portion of FDI inflows has come
from nearby developing countries, notably China and the Islamic Republic of Iran, and
economies in East Asia such as Japan and the Republic of Korea.
45
In 2010, the subregion’s FDI inflows fell by over 50% to about $6.8 billion, which
was the worst performance of any subregion in Asia and the Pacific. Most FDI inflows to
the subregion target the natural resources sector, such as oil and gas, and minerals,
including gold, silver, platinum and other precious and base metals. This sector witnessed
a nine-fold increase in FDI inflows between 1993 and 2008, two thirds of which went to
the energy sector (OECD, 2011). This is hardly surprising as Central Asia provided about
10% of world gas exports (CIA, World Fact Book, 2011), and oil production in the
subregion is expected to grow substantially in the next 20 years following the
development of new oilfields, and much of the additional oil is expected to be exported.
With the growing demand for energy in nearby developing countries, in particular China
and India, TNCs in the energy sector from these two emerging economies have
proactively been pursuing joint ventures (JV), as well as other forms of investment
collaboration in Central Asia (box 3).
Box 3. China’s rising investment in Central Asia
China initiated its investment in Central Asia with the signing in April 1996 of
general economic and security agreements with Central Asian economies. Since then,
Chinese FDI in the subregion has increased dramatically. Chinese firms built two oil
and gas pipelines from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to China (inaugurated in 2006 and
2009 respectively), laying the ground for large-scale exploration and development of oil
and gas fields. In Turkmenistan, the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) is
the only foreign company possessing an onshore contract for oil and gas exploration. In
Kazakhstan, the China Investment Corporation bought a 14.5% stake in KazMunaiGas,
and CNPC bought a 49% share of Mangistaumunaigaz for $2.6 billion, both in 2009. In
the electricity industry, China’s Tebian Electric Apparatus is building power
transmission lines and substations in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, and has acquired the
right to extract gold, silver, copper and tungsten in the latter. Another company, XD
Group, is modernizing the electricity system in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. In nuclear
energy, CNPC formed a JV with Kazatomprom, a Kazakhstan state-owned enterprise, to
invest in uranium production in the Central Asian country, while an affiliate of the
China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corporation has entered into a JV to develop blackshale uranium in the Navoi Province of Uzbekistan.
Source: UNCTAD (2011c)
According to UNCTAD (2011c), intraregional FDI links between Central Asian
countries and other developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region are gaining
momentum. The share of developing countries, including those from Asia and the
Pacific, in greenfield investment projects in Central Asia rose from 9% in 2004 to 21%
in 2010, or from $6 billion to $11 billion. These South-South investment links are,
however, concentrated in a handful of countries in the subregion such as Kazakhstan
and Turkmenistan, who are the main targets and the most popular destinations for FDI
in the subregion, due to their vast energy and natural resources
.
46
5. Pacific Islands
Intraregional FDI in the Pacific mainly consists of FDI from Australia, New
Zealand, Japan and, increasingly, China to the Pacific Island countries. Australian
companies are the most active in developing Papua New Guinea's mining and petroleum
sectors. According to information from the United States State Department, China is
increasing its investment in Papua New Guinea, including development of the $1 billion
Ramu nickel mine.34 FDI in Fiji targets the hotel and tourism industry and the textiles,
garment and footwear industries. Australia has traditionally been the largest foreign
investor though FDI has declined since the political unrest in the country. FDI in Pacific
Island countries benefit from the Australian S-TCF scheme, which facilitates duty free
access to Australia for textiles, clothing and footwear products manufactured in Forum
island countries. The scheme had been due to expire on 31 December 2004, but was
further extended until 31 December 2011. In the latest development, a Chinese investor
group acquired 6000 acres of land on Fiji’s main island of Viti Levu with the purpose of
establishing a hotel, residential lots, medical facilities, golf course, shopping facilities
and agricultural developments according to the group.35
The LCDs located in the Pacific region, apart from Tuvalu, were able to increase
their FDI inflows in 2010. The Solomon Islands and Samoa topped the list with FDI growth
rates of 99% and 94%, which amount to $238 million and $2 million, respectively. In the
Solomon Islands mining is expected to draw in foreign investment in the future (Asian
Development Bank, 2011). In Samoa tourism plays an important role in the economy. In
addition, the country has been a leader in liberalizing telecommunications in the subregion,
which has spurred investments (Wesley, 2011). Though experiencing less growth in FDI
flows, 21% in 2010, Vanuatu is a major destination of FDI flows among the Pacific islands
with $39 million invested in 2010. Australia is the largest foreign investor in Vanuatu
accounting for over one-third of the total value of FDI in the country in 2010 and
contributing to up to 46% of total proposed local employment during the year. Of the
approved FDI in 2010, 37% came from Australia, 18% from France, 13% from China and
12% from New Zealand showing the importance of Asia-Pacific FDI to Vanuatu.36
6. Least Developed Countries
In 2010, 14 economies in the Asia-Pacific region were defined as least
developed countries (LDC). FDI flows to these countries remain small: in 2010, the
LDCs accounted for 1% of total FDI inflows to the Asia-Pacific region reaching a level
of $3.6 billion. 37 Though experiencing a dip in 2009, FDI inflows to these countries
grew in 2010 by 36%. Most of the FDI inflows to the LDCs in the Asia-Pacific region
are captured by a few countries. Bangladesh, Cambodia and Myanmar combined
attracted 67% of all FDI inflows to the LDCs in 2010. These countries have also
experienced significant growth in FDI inflows.
34
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2797.htm#econ
http://www.pacifictradeinvest.com/wp/?p=278
36
http://www.investvanuatu.org/vipa/reports/2010%20Annual%20Rpt-final%20with%20cover.pdf
37
ESCAP calculations based on UNCTAD (2011a).
35
47
FDI outflows from the LDCs remain at low levels, with several countries
posting no outward investments in 2010. The share of FDI outflows from the LDCs was
only 0.01% of total FDI outflows from the Asia-Pacific region in 2010. What is more,
FDI outflows from the LDCs dropped by 20% in 2010 down to $42 million from $52
million in 2009. Bangladesh and Cambodia accounted for over 77% of all outward FDI
flows from the LDCs in 2010, though both countries experienced declines in outflows
compared to 2009.
C.
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
Despite the remarkable increases in FDI flows within the Asia Pacific region,
there is still potential for intraregional FDI flows to grow. Sectors such as services,
infrastructure and climate-smart goods and technologies continue to offer opportunities
for investment (ESCAP, 2011). Advances in technology have facilitated trade in
services and the sector has emerged as one of the most important providers of
employment and income especially in South Asia (De, 2011; Ghani and Kharas 2010).
Ghani and Kharas (2010) argue that two factors will continue to promote the
globalization of services. Firstly, services make up more than 70% of global GDP and
secondly, technology now allows services to be sold across borders without sellers
actually crossing the borders e.g. via the Internet. There is very little data available on
FDI flows in services. According to the World Trade Organization (WTO) about 50%
of trade in services takes place through commercial presence, i.e. Mode 3 of the General
Agreement on Trade in Services. Mode 3 is one of the four modes describing the
delivery of services across borders. It is defined as the services provided within a
country by a foreign supplier and represents FDI in services (WTO, 2005). According to
UNCTAD (2011), overall service exports from developing Asia Pacific countries
reached a level of almost $890 billion in 2010 up from $250 billion in 2000. Based on
these data, there has been significant growth in FDI in services as well.
Apart from services, infrastructure development not only facilitates and sustains
economic growth, but it also plays a large role in poverty reduction as well as in
increasing connectivity and economic integration of countries and regions. Thus far
infrastructure in the Asia Pacific region has been developed to serve the purpose of
establishing global production networks and supply chains. However, after the global
economic crisis the focus has shifted to infrastructure projects that support domestic as
well as regional demand. Despite large investments in infrastructure, there are still huge
opportunities for increased investment. Not only is there a need for basic infrastructure,
but there is also a growing need for investing in the maintenance of existing
infrastructural assets. Bhattacharyay (2010) estimates that within a period of ten years,
from 2010 to 2020, developing countries in the Asia Pacific region38 will need to invest
over $740 billion annually in national infrastructure projects. Of this 68% will be needed
for new projects whereas 32% will go to maintenance. Most investment is required in
38
Countries include Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Fiji,
Georgia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Marshall Islands,
Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sri
Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tonga, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu and Viet Nam.
48
energy and transport. For regional projects, i.e. projects affecting two or more countries,
the estimated need of annual investment is $29 billion over the period 2010-2020. Again
improvements in energy and transport infrastructure account for the bulk of investment
needs. Securing financing remains a challenge. Infrastructure offers huge opportunities
for the private sector and FDI. However, according to Fung, Garcia-Herrero and Ng
(2011), in order to reap all the benefits, especially from transnational infrastructure
projects, investment should be a coordinated effort between private and public players.
Trading and investing in climate-smart goods and technologies (CSGTs) has been
attracting growing interest. Recently, large portions of stimulus packages adopted in
response to the global economic crisis in various countries, including China, have targeted
industries producing CSGTs. In addition, as most of the future infrastructure development
needs are within the energy sector, there will be a growing demand for a variety of
sustainable energy solutions. Presently, China and Japan dominate intraregional exports in
CSGTs, together accounting for 67% of total exports. These countries with the addition of
Republic of Korea also absorb over half of the regional imports in CSGTs. Though only a
few countries have developed competitive advantages in CSGTs, there are many
opportunities for other countries to participate in regional climate-smart value chains. It is
estimated that during the period 2010-2050 the Asia Pacific region will need to invest
$600 billion in mitigating climate change on top of what is currently invested in order to
reach international emission reduction targets (i.e. 450 ppm CO2). Depending on the
nature of environmental policies that are adopted and the degree to which they are
enforced, CSGTs can potentially offer huge opportunities for business (ESCAP, 2011).
Emerging market transnational corporations (TNCs) are becoming increasingly
important as sources of investment funds. Especially, in their home markets these
companies enjoy a number of advantages compared to TNCs from developed countries.
First and foremost, emerging market TNCs are familiar with the specific needs and
preferences of local consumers and have a keener sense of the type of technologies that
are most appropriate for developing country conditions. They also know how to operate in
politically and economically unstable environments. In addition, emerging market TNCs
are often better able to reduce costs than developed country TNCs. Due to these
advantages Ramamurti (2011) argues that emerging market TNCs are able to expand their
investments in other emerging markets and eventually in developed markets as well.
Following the identification of investment opportunities in CSGTs, noted above, climatesmart technologies are among the sectors where emerging market TNCs are gaining an
increasingly stronger foothold. For example, companies in China such as Suntech and
Sunergy are looking to become leaders in solar energy; while the Indian company Suzlon
is one of the top-five wind energy companies in the world (Ramamurti, 2011).
An interesting feature of many TNCs from developing countries is their small
size. In fact, an increasing number of corporations start out as small and medium sized
enterprises (SMEs) and grow through participating in regional or global value chains,
acquiring foreign companies or engaging in FDI. SMEs can draw significant benefits
from internationalization, including gaining access to markets and resources otherwise
unavailable to them, and enhancing revenue as well as competence and skills. Due to
their small size and flexibility, SMEs are also in a better position, compared to larger
companies, to channel the benefits derived from internationalization into local
communities, especially in terms of technology and knowledge transfer (UNCTAD,
2005). By increasing their participation in global value chains, SMEs can reap the
49
benefits of globalization and increased integration in the Asia Pacific region and further
contribute to the growth and development of the region (Lim and Kimura, 2010).
Though overall FDI flows in the Asia Pacific region have grown tremendously,
obstacles to further growth remain. There is great variation between countries in terms
of the processes and regulations that affect FDI. According to the World Bank Doing
Business (2012) rankings, which rank countries according to how conductive their
regulatory environments are to doing business, the Top 3 countries are all located in the
Asia Pacific region, namely Singapore, Hong Kong, China and New Zealand. These
countries perform well in terms of the ease of starting a business, dealing with
construction permits, protecting investors and providing an overall investment climate
that is attractive to foreign investors. Unfortunately, not all countries in the Asia Pacific
region fare as well. Several countries rank above the 100s (out of 183 countries) due to
difficult trade procedures, lack of investor protection and failure to enforce contracts.
Many also struggle with providing adequate access to energy.
Measuring the actual costs of FDI is fairly difficult, but analyzing trade costs can
shed some light to the magnitude and prevalence of costs related to trade-related FDI.
According to Duval and Utoktham (2010) trade costs between Asian countries are high,
though there are notable variations between subregions. Intraregional trade costs are the
highest in North and Central Asia39 amounting to 253% tariff equivalent and the lowest
in ASEAN, where they reach 175% tariff equivalent. Within the Asia Pacific region the
main focus has been on the reduction of tariffs whereas less attention has been paid to
the reduction of non-tariff barriers. Duval and Utoktham (2010) estimate tariff costs to
range from 0% to 22% compared to non-tariff barriers which vary from 66% to 350%.
As tariff costs account for only about 10% of the total costs to trade, the effect of nontariff barriers on trade remain significant. Efforts to lessen non-tariff barriers such as
simplifying procedures and harmonizing regulations, decreasing the amount of red tape
and improving infrastructure would also be a step towards addressing the problems and
obstacles foreign investors face.
D.
THE ROLE OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS IN PROMOTING
INTRAREGIONAL FDI
The Asia-Pacific region is home to several agreements and treaties aiming at
increasing cooperation in trade and investment. Figure 15 shows FDI inflows to major
trade groupings in Asia and the Pacific, i.e., the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA),
ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (AFTA), Economic Cooperation Organization Trade
Agreement (ECOTA) and South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) for the years 2000,
2005 and 2010. 40 When combining the four regional trade groups, 28 countries
39
Here North and Central Asia is defined as consisting of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan and the Russian Federation.
40
APTA has six member countries, i.e., Bangladesh, China, India, Republic of Korea, Lao People’s
Democratic Republic and Sri Lanka. AFTA covers all 10 ASEAN member countries. ECOTA has 10
member countries both from North and Central Asia and from South and South-West Asia, i.e.,
Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkey,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. SAFTA was signed by all eight South Asian countries. See
ESCAP (2011a) APTIAD for more details of regional free trade agreements at
www.unescap.org/tid/aptiad/agg_db.aspx.
50
participate in one or two trade agreements. Unsurprisingly, APTA had the highest FDI
inflows of any trade grouping, as it comprises some of the region’s major FDI
destinations, including China and India. Despite the global economic crisis, aggregate
FDI inflows to all regional trade groups showed positive trends throughout the 20002010 decade.
One of the factors supporting this trend has been the addition of investment
provisions concerning e.g. investment promotion, protection, liberalization and
cooperation in many regional trade agreements (RTAs). These provisions assume
special importance among all other areas of expanded coverage of RTAs as investment
has traditionally been a sensitive area and all attempts to forge a multilateral agreement
on investment have failed. Of those RTAs involving an ESCAP member State, more
than 50 have investment provisions.
Figure 15. Foreign direct investment inflows by regional trade agreement
Source: ESCAP calculations based on the UNCTAD (2011a).
The ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA)41 , which entered
into force in 2010, is probably the most advanced regional investment agreement in
force among developing countries anywhere in the world. It combines the ASEAN
Investment Area and ASEAN Investment Guarantee Agreement and has provisions for
investment cooperation, promotion, liberalization and protection. Investment is defined
broadly and includes foreign portfolio investment. ACIA is innovative in the sense as it
41
However, ACIA is a separate agreement from the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) or ASEAN Trade
in Goods Agreement (ATIGA) and is part of the actions undertaken towards establishing the ASEAN
Economic Community by 2015.
51
includes more comprehensive and clearer definitions of concepts, and contains
provisions for dispute settlement between States and investors that are among the most
comprehensive found in any investment agreement. However, its effectiveness in
promoting intraregional investment and linking it to initiatives aimed at closing
development gaps within ASEAN has yet to be demonstrated (ESCAP 2011b).
The ASEAN-China Investment Agreement was signed in 2009 as a last in a series
of three agreements that set out to form the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement. The
other two agreements include the Agreement on Trade in Goods and the Agreement on
Trade in Services. The Investment Agreement includes 27 provisions that aim to increase
the transparency of investments as well as promote the liberalization and facilitation of
investments (China FDI Network 2009). In comparison to the other investment treaties
China has signed with individual ASEAN members, the ASEAN-China Investment
Agreement notably raises the standards of investment protection (Xiao, 2010). For both
China and ASEAN, the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement is also the first agreement
of its kind that they enter into with foreign countries. Investment flows between ASEAN
and China have increased significantly in recent years and the Agreement is expected to
further boost these flows (China FDI Network 2009).
The Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA) has also made progress in the area of
investment. APTA Participating States have all signed the framework agreement on the
promotion, protection and liberalization of investment, which is currently in the process
of ratification. The framework agreement provides a mandate for the negotiation of an
APTA agreement on the promotion and protection of investments. Participating States are
presently discussing implementation modalities and time frames of the four schedules
contained in the Framework Agreement, i.e., cooperation and facilitation, promotion and
awareness as well as liberalization and protection (ESCAP 2011b).
52
4.
TRENDS IN PROTECTIONISM
Previous issues of APTIR focused on issues of contemporary use of protection
because the 2008-2009 economic crisis was expected to open the door for new or
increased protectionism globally and regionally. Indeed a number of protectionism
measures were identified as being introduced in combination with policies and measures
set to ease shocks of the crisis and unfortunately no countries were found to have
abstained from using additional protectionist measures, including against other
developing or least developed countries (see details in ESCAP 2011b, 2010 and 2009).
While the worst of the crisis had passed through, the lingering risks of financial
instabilities and weak economic conditions in most developed economies keep the fear of
rise of protectionism alive. This volume however does not explore the incidence of new
protectionist measures, but instead explores the type and level of border and behind-theborder trade barriers currently used.
Traditionally, border barriers in international trade include tariffs and non-tariff
barriers. Tariffs or taxes on trade are known as the most transparent barriers to
international trade as they are typically expressed in per cent of the value of the traded
goods (so-called ad valorem tariffs) and are payable when goods are crossing the
borders of customs territories. Over six decades of multilateral negotiations first through
GATT and then WTO have led to a significant reduction of tariff rates, more clarity
about types of tariffs (e.g. specific tariffs) and predictable rules on level of tariffs to be
used or valuation of dutiable goods and other issues. All members of WTO commit to
transparency in publishing tariff data, and WTO (in addition to some other agencies)
makes the data on tariffs available to public.42
In addition to tariffs, countries impose various non-tariff barriers (NTBs) to
constraint imports or exports. Deardorff43 defines NTBs as “any measure that interferes
with exports or imports other than a simple tariff, prominently including quotas and
voluntary export restraints”. Often a term of non-tariff measures (NTMs) is used with a
similar intention to describe obstacles to trade other than tariffs. Deardorff defines the
non-tariff measures as “any policy or official practice that alters the conditions of
international trade, including ones that act to increase trade as well as those that restrict
it. The term is therefore broader than non-tariff barrier, although the two are usually
used interchangeably.” Indeed, the examples provided in WTO Glossary online for
NTBs, include quotas, import licensing systems, sanitary regulations, prohibitions, and
others, and they are also given for the NTMs. Literature has tried to differentiate NTBs
from NTMs by describing NTBs as preventing trade flows, while NTMs are perceived
as having a potential to do so (as they can potentially have an economic effect on trade
by changing quantities or prices, or both). This is a very thin line of differentiation and
increasingly experts merge this category as NTMs. What is more important is the way
these measures affect trade flows. In contrast to tariffs which are direct tax on prices of
tradables, most NTMs act as entry barriers to markets by increasing fixed costs of
producers/exports. They are often in form of regulation and thus are imposed “behind-
42
See for example Tariff Profiles, Tariff Analysis Online or Tariff Download Facility at www.wto.org.
Deardorff’s
Glossary
of
international
Economics
available
at
http://wwwpersonal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/n.html
43
53
the-border”. The following sections address some selected issues related to use of
protectionist measures and trade costs.
A.
EXTENT OF USE OF ZERO MOST-FAVOURED NATION TARIFF RATES
Multilateral trade negotiations have been focused on the following objectives
with respect to tariffs as an instrument of protection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Converting non-ad valorem duties into ad valorem duties,
Reducing the level of so-could bound duties,
Reducing the number of tariff lines with tariff peaks, and
Increasing the binding coverage of tariff lines.
Each member of the WTO when agreeing on the terms of the negotiated tariff
liberalization or on accession terms commits to apply these terms according to the mostfavoured nation (MFN) principle without discrimination (except as allowed by the
rules). Equally, countries are allowed to apply better than negotiated tariffs again only
by following the MFN clause and its exceptions. Because of that, the tariff rates which
countries apply are often much lower than the ones they have accepted as ceiling
(bound) rates. However looking at the level of bound rates and coverage of bindings
provides good idea about the scope of potential protectionism threat as well as potential
magnitude of further liberalization. Namely, if a country has already bound many of its
tariff lines at zero rate tariffs (so-called duty-free access), then such country has not
much scope to provide any further preferential treatment in terms of market access to
any of its trading partners (unless they are not members of the WTO).
This section explores the features of bound MFN tariff lines for the AsiaPacific economies. The analysis reveals that in general a small proportion of tariff
lines of Asia-Pacific countries are bound at a level of zero duty. However, it seems
that a country’s readiness to commit to duty-free imports is partly associated with
either income per capita or an entrapôt nature of the economy. There is a significant
share of bound duty-free lines observed in relatively high income economies such as
Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Macao, China; and Hong Kong, China. It also appears
that agricultural products are given more protection as fewer agricultural tariff lines
have bound duty-free MFN rates relative to non-agriculture goods. For most countries,
non-agriculture tariffs lines have a larger proportion of bound zero duty than
agriculture lines. An exception holds for five regional economies: Australia, Malaysia,
New Zealand, Hong Kong, China and Macao, China (see figure 16).
54
Figure 16. Share of bound duty-free tariffs in total tariff lines
100
AG duty-free bound
NAG duty-free bound
60
50
40
20
rm
G eni
In eorg a
d
Sr one ia
i
Ph La sia
n
So ilipp ka
l o Mo i n
m n es
on go
Pa
pu
I li
a N slan a
ew In ds
G di
V uin a
i et e a
P a N am
ki
st a
K
n
yr
gy
Ca zs
B a mb ta n
ng od
lad ia
es
h
M
ya
nm
N e ar
pa
l
A
M F
al iji
di
ve
s
Th
ai
lan
Ch d
To ina
ng
a
al
ay
sia
M
Tu
rk
ey
0
M Au
ac s
ao tra
H
, C lia
on
g
Ko hina
ng Jap
, a
Br N Sin Chi n
un ew ga na
Re ei D Z p o
pu ar eal re
bl us an
ic sa d
of lam
Ko
re
a
Per cent of tariff lines
80
Countries are ordered by real GDP per capita
Source: Tariff data from WTO Tariff Profiles 2011 and real GDP per capita data from ESCAP Statistical
Yearbook 2011.
While countries are not yet ready to extensively commit to duty-free bound
MFN tariff lines, they actually apply a large number of duty free lines. Figure 17 shows
that the proportion of applied zero tariffs is high for a number of Asia-Pacific
economies. There are 13 economies that applied zero duty to more than 50% of the nonagriculture tariff lines. These include Macao, China;, Hong Kong, China; and
Singapore, where the duty-free share is 100%, followed by Cook islands (99%),
Georgia (97%), Papua New Guinea (83%), Brunei Darussalam (78%), New Zealand
(62%), Japan, Malaysia and Tuvalu at about 57% each, Sri Lanka (54%), and
Kyrgyzstan (52%). For agriculture products, there are 10 countries that applied zero
duty to over 50% of the agriculture tariff lines. The ratio is as high as 100% for Macao,
China; Hong Kong, China, and Singapore, followed by 98% for Brunei Darussalam,
91%for Cook islands, 75% for Australia and Malaysia, 71% for New Zealand, 62% for
Palau, and 57% for Tuvalu. The large difference between bound and applied duty-free
shares reflects that Asia-Pacific countries generally preserve the flexibility to invoke
duty on most of the tariff lines for which they currently impose no duties.
55
Figure 17. Share of applied duty-free MFN tariffs in all tariff lines
AG MFN DF applied
NAG MFN DF applied
100
60
50
40
20
Countries are ordered by real GDP per capita
Source: Tariff data from WTO Tariff Profiles 2011 and GDP data from ESCAP statistical yearbook 2011
Comparisons across subregions are shown in figure 18 and 19. Developing
countries in South and South-West Asia and the Pacific have a relatively insignificant
proportion of tariffs bound as duty-free (figure 18). However, zero duty is actually
applied to a considerable extent of tariff lines in most small Pacific countries, SouthEast Asian countries, and North and Central Asian countries (figure 19). Based on the
applied duty-free ratio, countries in South and South-West Asia appear to be relatively
more protective than developing countries in other region in general with an exception
of holding for Sri Lanka. Such pattern is more obvious in the case of tariffs on
agriculture than non- agriculture tariff lines
56
l
ep
a
N
Ta
jik
ist
an
0
M A
a c us
ao tra
H
on
, C lia
g
hi
K
on J a na
g, pa
Br N Sin Chi n
un ew ga na
Re ei D Z por
pu ar eal e
b l us a n
ic s d
Co of alam
ok Ko
Is rea
lan
Ru
ss
Pa ds
ia
n Tu lau
Fe rk
de ey
M rat i
K ala on
az y
ak sia
hs
ta
n
M F
a
A ld iji
ze iv
rb e
Th aija s
ai n
la
C h nd
To ina
T u n ga
V val
an u
ua
tu
G
e
In o rg
d
Sr one i a
i
Ph La sia
ili nk
So
p a
lo Mo pi n
m n es
on go
Pa
pu
Is lia
la
a
n
N
ew In ds
G dia
V u in
ie e
t a
P N
U a ki a m
zb st
K ek an
yr ist
g y an
zs
ta
n
Per cent of tariff lines
80
Figure 18. Share of bound duty-free tariffs by Asia-Pacific subregions
Source: Tariff data from WTO Tariff Profiles 2011 and GDP data from ESCAP statistical yearbook 2011.
57
Figure 19. Share of applied duty-free MFN tariffs by Asia-Pacific subregions
Source: Tariff data from WTO Tariff Profiles 2011 and GDP data from ESCAP statistical yearbook 2011.
In contrast to exploring the share of duty-free market access based on share in
total tariff lines, it is also possible to explore how much of imports is actually covered
by zero duties. The comparisons between the share of duty-free access in total imports
and in total tariff lines reveal interesting information about actual liberalization taking
place. It can happen that duty-free market access is actually very low even though the
respective country has a large proportion of applied duty free tariff lines. Such situation
happens when the country intends to give zero tariffs to its irrelevant import products
(that is, imports that often do not exist or is very small in value terms) while keeping
positive tariffs on other imports. Figure 20 and 21 examine the situation for AsiaPacific countries for which data are available. It can be seen from figure 21 that for nonagriculture products, the share of duty-free imports is relatively large when compared to
the share of duty-free tariff lines.44 Some countries such as Japan, Malaysia and China
have actually high shares of duty-free imports and the shares are significantly greater
than those of applied duty-free tariff lines.
44
The unsurprising exception are countries that have been already applying zero duty to nearly all lines
(Macao, China;, Hong Kong, China, Singapore, and Georgia) and Maldives which is on the other
extreme.
58
Figure 20. Share of applied duty-free access in terms of tariff lines and imports:
non agricultural products
Applied duty-free MFN
100
Duty-free imports
60
50
40
20
0
A
M ust
ac ra
ao lia
,C
hi
H
na
on
g
K Jap
on
g, an
C
Si hin
ng a
N
a
Re ew por
pu Ze e
bl
a
ic lan
of d
K
Ru
or
ea
ss
T
ia
u
n
r
Fe key
de
ra
t
M ion
al
a
K
y
az sia
ak
hs
tan
F
M i ji
al
d
Az ive
er s
ba
i
Th jan
ai
la
nd
Ch
i
G na
eo
In rgia
do
n
Sr esi a
iL
Ph ank
ili a
pp
in
es
In
Vi dia
et
N
Pa am
k
K ista
yr
gy n
zs
ta
n
N
ep
al
Per cent
80
Countries are ordered by real GDP per capita
Source: Tariff data from WTO Tariff Profiles 2011 and GDP data from ESCAP statistical yearbook 2011.
More variations are observed in the case of agriculture products (figure 22).
There are countries where the shares of duty-free imports are significantly lower than
the shares of duty-free tariff lines. The countries include Australia, New Zealand, and
Kyrgyzstan, where the share of duty-free agricultural tariff lines are 75%, 71%, and
29% , while actual duty free imports account for only 49%, and 21% of agriculture
imports. This implies that important imports of those countries are not granted zero
tariffs. In contrasts, more than 65% of Indonesian agricultural imports are duty free
while less than 14%of the agriculture lines are given zero duty. A significant positive
difference is also observed in the case of Azerbaijan, Viet Nam, Pakistan, and Japan.
59
Figure 21. Share of applied duty-free access in terms of tariff lines and imports:
agriculture goods
Shares of applied free duty in tariff lines and imports: agriculture
100
Applied duty-free MFN
Duty-free imports
60
50
40
20
0
A
M ust
ac ra
ao lia
,C
hi
H
na
on
g
Ko Jap
ng an
,C
Si hin
a
n
N ga
Re ew por
pu Ze e
a
bl
ic lan
of d
K
Ru
or
e
ss
ia Tu a
n
r
k
Fe
e
de y
ra
t
M ion
a
K lays
az
ak ia
hs
tan
F
M i ji
al
d
A ive
ze
rb s
ai
Th j an
ai
lan
d
Ch
in
G a
eo
In rgi a
do
n
Sr esia
iL
Ph ank
ili a
pp
in
es
In
V dia
ie
tN
a
Pa m
ki
s
K
yr tan
gy
zs
ta
n
N
ep
al
Per cent
80
Countries are ordered by real GDP per capita
Source: Tariff data from WTO Tariff Profiles 2011 and GDP data from ESCAP statistical yearbook 2011.
The above analysis is relevant for the investigations of the potential benefits of
expansion of preferential trade agreements (PTAs), especially among the countries in
the region. The main purpose of PTAs in the area of merchandise trade liberalization is
to grant a PTA partner(s) with better than MFN access (which is allowed due to
exemptions such as GATT Art. XIV and Enabling Clause). However, if countries have
already committed to zero bound tariff rates for large shares of their tariff lines (or
imports), no further concessions could be achieved through PTAs, at least not in terms
of tariff elimination. WTO (2011) claimed that “half of world trade is already subject to
zero MFN tariff rates” (p.7) making the PTAs less effective with respect to removing
tariff obstacles to merchandise trade.45 As above analysis shows, the extent of bound
zero MFN tariffs for Asia-Pacific economies averages around 50% but there are still
many economies, especially lower-income ones, which bind no tariffs at zero level (or
do not bind any tariffs). Therefore, negotiations of PTAs with or among these
economies would bring more preferential access (provided that PTAs would include all
45
In fact, the WTO report argues that despite expansion of number of PTAs, still around 84% of global
merchandise trade takes place under non-discriminatory MFN terms (p.7). In addition to high share of
zero MFN tariffs, the Report argues that PTAs tend to exempt high MFN-tariff items from tariff
reductions reducing further share of trade conducted under preferential terms.
60
trade). Unfortunately, often PTAs do not include these economies, leaving them to rely
on either multilateral or unilateral tariff reduction. 46
B.
NON-TARIFF BARRIERS
There is much less data on NTBs which prevents comparisons across countries
or over time. WTO provides regularly updated information on so-called antidumping
(AD) measures through its semi-annual reports on antidumping and on technical
barriers to trade (TBT) through the publicly accessible database (TBT_IMS). Despite
these two categories of NTMs being very often on the menu of the non-tariff
protectionist actions, there are many more measures which should be monitored. While
there have been many attempts to organize comprehensive inventories of NTMs, none
of these initiatives have (as yet) produced databases equivalent to tariff schedules.47
Based on information available on 23 countries from Asia-Pacific region, they
currently implement 623 AD measures and 3614 TBTs (figure 22). The number of NTBs
varies across subregions (figure 23). Four countries in East and North-East Asia (ENEA)
are imposing 2,082 measures (144 AD measures and 1,938 TBTs). South-East Asia (SEA)
follows with 1,077 measures (48 AD and 1,029 TBTs) implemented by seven countries in
the subregion. South and South-West Asia (SSWA) ranked third in terms of imposing
NTBs with the number of 603 (394 AD and 209 TBTs). Four Pacific and three North and
Central Asian (NCA) countries are implementing 319 and 156 measures, respectively. The
Pacific islands have imposed 37 AD and 282 TBTs, while NCA used only TBTs.
Figure 22. NTBs implemented by Asia-Pacific region
(in force and initiation)
Source: For AD the WTO semi-annual reports on antidumping and for TBT the public TBT-IMS database.
46
It needs to be noted that PTAs offer other areas of trade liberalization, in addition and above tariff
reductions so their benefits are not exhausted only by reduction or elimination of tariffs on merchandise.
47
Among the earliest initiatives is UNCTAD’s TRAINS which is accessible through the World Bank’s
WITS software application but it has not been regularly updated. A multiagency initiative (MAST) was
started in 2006. A report on pilot studies was issued in 2009.
61
Technical barriers to trade in principle are non-discriminatory and apply to all
trading partners. But anti-dumping measures are applied in respect of particular
exporting countries (and in this sense are discriminatory). According to the WTO data,
the AD measures applied by Asia-Pacific countries are mostly aimed at other AsiaPacific countries. South and South-West Asia, for example, have 271 anti-dumping
measures in force on other Asia-Pacific countries, and 123 measures in force on
countries outside the region. Other subregions (apart from North and Central Asia
which have very few measures in force) have similar approaches (figure 23). Countries
in East and North-East Asia mostly target countries in their own subregion, while other
sub-regions mostly target other subregions.
Figure 23. Anti-dumping practices implemented by Asia-Pacific region
(in force and initiation)
450
400
350
Measures
300
250
ADP to nonAP countries
200
ADP to AP
countries
150
100
50
0
ENEA
NCA
Pacific
SEA
SSWA
Source: For AD the WTO semi-annual reports on antidumping and for TBT the public TBT-IMS database.
Looking further into ADPs affecting countries in Asia and the Pacific, it is found
that SSWA, SEA, and the Pacific are mainly imposing ADPs to countries in different
subregion (figure 24). In contrast, the majority of ADPs imposed by ENEA countries is
targeted at countries within the same region. This is a reflection of the fact countries in
the ENEA subregion are a major target of those ADP measures.
62
Figure 24. Intraregional Anti-dumping practices of Asia-Pacific region
(in force and initiation)
350
300
Measures
250
200
ADP to different
subreion
150
ADP to same
subregion
100
50
0
ENEA
NCA
Pacific
SEA
SSWA
Source: For AD the WTO semi-annual reports on antidumping and for TBT the public TBT-IMS database.
5.
MEASURING COMPREHENSIVE TRADE COSTS FOR THE
REGION
A.
SHIFTING FOCUS TO BEHIND-THE-BORDER BARRIERS
As indicated above, during the past two decades import tariffs have decreased
significantly and the importance of non-tariff measures aimed at further reducing
international transaction costs, i.e. trade facilitation, has become more apparent. Even if
international shipping and other non-tariff costs are excluded, costs associated with
completing documentary and other import and export procedures for international trade
can account for up to 15% of the value of traded goods (ADB/ESCAP, 2009). Enabling
firms to move goods more efficiently from the factory floor to foreign buyers’
warehouses has become essential to capturing and creating new trade opportunities.
With the shifting of growth potential away from developed countries to economies
within the Asian and the Pacific region, increased attention to intraregional trade
facilitation is needed.
Measuring trade facilitation performance precisely, including the costs of
international trade transactions, remains a challenging exercise, not least because of the
lack of a precise definition and agreement on the various cost components that should
be included in the measurement. Comprehensive trade cost estimated by ESCAP
account for all additional costs involved in conducting a transaction across borders
rather than within borders. Therefore, comprehensive trade cost is a very broad
63
aggregate measure of international trade costs including, inter alia, direct and indirect
costs related to fulfilling regulatory import and export requirements as well as costs
resulting from differences in currencies, languages, culture and geographical distance.
Domestic and international shipping and logistics costs associated with imports and
exports are also included.48According to that definition, apart from Singapore and Hong
Kong, China, the top-ranked economies in the ESCAP Trade Cost Database are
Malaysia, the United States, China, the Republic of Korea and Thailand, with Japan and
Germany following closely.49 However, trade cost performance of a given country varies
significantly depending on trading partners, as well as they type of goods traded.
Overall, trade costs of many economies of the region have decreased, but much
remains to be done to address non-tariff barriers (NTBs). In fact, although ESCAP
estimates reveal that many economies of the region have made significant progress in
reducing costs over the past decade, they also show that in many cases nearly half the
cost reduction may be attributed to tariff cuts.50 However, tariff trade costs typically
account for no more than 10% of overall trade costs. This is illustrated in Figure 25,
which shows that while tariff costs still do affect relative trade cost ranking of selected
ESCAP countries with the USA, they often account for a very small portion of overall
trade costs. As tariffs continue to fall – in part due to implementation of free trade
commitments under the multitude of bilateral and regional agreements that have
recently entered into force-, countries aiming to maintain their competitiveness will
have to increase their attention to non-tariff trade costs, including those arising from
unnecessarily cumbersome procedures and regulations or inadequate logistics services.
At the sectoral level, the costs associated with trading agricultural products
across borders are found to generally far exceed those involved in trading manufactured
goods, as illustrated in Figure 26. This is partly explained by the nature of the products
(e.g., perishability), which can make them harder to trade across borders, as well as the
higher level of regulations these products attract for food safety or food security
reasons.51 The fact that the cost premium for trading agricultural goods vary so widely
from country to country suggests that significant scope for reduction exist in many
countries of the region.
48
The comprehensive trade cost estimate is an objective measure based on macroeconomic data rather
than perception survey data.
49
For details, see Duval and Utoktham, 2011.
50
ESCAP (2011b), “Facilitating Intraregional Trade”, Asia-Pacific Trade and Investment Report 2011,
Chapter 6, p.89-100, United Nations, Thailand.
51
For more details on this issue, see ESCAP (2011d), “Facilitating Agricultural Trade in Asia and the
Pacific”, Trade and Investment Studies No. 74.
64
Figure 25. Comprehensive Trade Costs (CTC) and CTC excluding tariff costs of trade (NT-CTC) between selected economies and the USA.
Comprehensive Trade Costs (CTC) and CTC excluding tariff costs of trade (NT-CTC)
of Selected ESCAP Economies with the USA
Germany
Malaysia
United Kingdom
Japan
Korea, Rep.
China
France
Australia
Philippines
Thailand
New Zealand
Vietnam
India
Russian Federation
Turkey
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Bangladesh
Cambodia
Fiji
Georgia
Mongolia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Tonga
Maldives
Kyrgyz Republic
Afghanistan
Vanuatu
Bhutan
NT-CTC
CTC
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
Tariff-equivalent trade costs (percent)
Source: ESCAP Trade Cost Database (version 2)
65
Figure 26. Agricultural and Manufacturing Non-Tariff Comprehensive Trade Costs between Selected Economies and Japan
NT-CTC of Selected ESCAP Economies with Japan
Korea, Rep.
United States
Thailand
Australia
Vietnam
China
Philippines
Indonesia
Manufacturing
Malaysia
Agriculture
United Kingdom
Germany
Russian Federation
Sri Lanka
India
France
Maldives
Turkey
Fiji
Pakistan
Mongolia
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Vanuatu
Kazakhstan
Georgia
Cambodia
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
Tariff-equivalent trade costs (percent)
600%
700%
800%
Source: ESCAP Trade Cost Database (version 2)
66
1. Intraregional trade cost remain high52
Intraregional trade facilitation performance varies greatly among the subregions
of Asia and the Pacific. However, the non-tariff costs of trade by economies in the
region with each other often still exceed those faced when trading outside the region.
According to the latest estimates available, 53 non-tariff comprehensive trade
costs between China, the Republic of Korea and Japan (East Asia-3) are among the
lowest in the world, averaging less than 50% tariff-equivalent in 2007-2009. This is
particularly remarkable given the absence of free trade agreements between those
countries during that period. ASEAN has also achieved high levels of international
trade efficiency among its largest middle-income members (i.e. Indonesia, Malaysia,
the Philippines and Thailand, or ASEAN-4), but average trade costs among the
larger ASEAN membership, including in particular its two least developed countries,
is still more than double those among East Asia-3. Intraregional trade costs among
North & Central Asia, at 149%, are highest in the region, followed by those among
South Asian countries, at 113%.
Comprehensive intraregional trade costs are usually expected to be lower than
interregional trade costs due to the geographic proximity between countries of the same
region as well as similarities in languages and culture. Table 16 shows that this holds true
among Asian subregions, with one small exception: comprehensive trade costs of ASEAN4 with East Asia-3, and China in particular, are found to be slightly lower than ASEAN-4
intraregional trade costs. However, the costs of trade between Asia-Pacific economies of
different subregions are higher than those with non-Asia-Pacific economies or subregions.
For example, the non-tariff costs of trade between ASEAN and SAARC are on average
nearly double the costs of trade between ASEAN and the USA. Similarly, the costs of trade
between North & Central Asia and South Asia are more than twice those between North &
Central Asia and the European Union.
52
Here “regional” refers to more narrowly defined subregions within Asia and the Pacific, such as SouthEast Asia (or ASEAN), South Asia, North & Central Asia etc.
53
ESCAP Trade Cost Database (Version 2) released in Dec. 2011. For details, see Duval and Uthoktham
(forthcoming), “Trade Costs in Asia and the Pacific: New bilateral and Sectoral Estimates”.
67
Table 16. Non-tariff intra- and extra- regional trade costs in Asia and the Pacific,
2007/2009
Region
ASEAN-4
East Asia-3
North &
Central Asia
SAARC-4
AUS-NZL
EU3
USA
ASEAN-4
East Asia-3
North & Central Asia
SAARC-4
AUS-NZL
EU-3
USA
79%
73%
291%
134%
90%
97%
77%
(-9.5%)
(-5.9%)
(-14.2%)
(2.1%)
(-12.3%)
(-4.9%)
(3.0%)
73%
47%
187%
119%
78%
70%
53%
(-5.9%)
(-21.1%)
(-32.7%)
(-2.8%)
(-15.7%)
(-19.0%)
(-13.5%)
291%
187%
149%
270%
270%
149%
165%
(-14.2%)
(-32.7%)
(-20.5%)
(-22.4%)
(-22.2%)
(-26.0%)
(5.0%)
134%
119%
270%
113%
130%
101%
99%
(2.1%)
(-2.8%)
(-22.4%)
(5.0%)
(-2.7%)
(-3.2%)
(5.9%)
90%
78%
270%
130%
45%
89%
82%
(-12.3%)
(-15.7%)
(-22.2%)
(-2.7%)
(-23.5%)
(-17.0%)
(-11.1%)
97%
70%
149%
101%
89%
32%
51%
(-4.9%)
(-19.0%)
(-26.0%)
(-3.2%)
(-17.0%)
(-32.6%)
(-18.2%)
77%
53%
165%
99%
82%
51%
(3.0%)
(-13.5%)
(-17.3%)
(5.9%)
(-11.1%)
(-18.2%)
Source: ESCAP Trade Cost Database (version 2).
Note: Trade costs may be interpreted as tariff equivalents. Percentage changes in trade costs between
2001/2003 and 2007/2009 are in parentheses. ASEAN4: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand;
East: China, Japan and Korea; NC (North and Central Asia): Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyz Republic, and Russian Federation; SAARC4: Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka; AUS/NZL:
Australia and New Zealand; EU3: France, Germany, and the United Kingdom; Percentage change in
parentheses relative to 2001/2003.
All subregions in Asia and the Pacific made progress in reducing non-tariff trade
costs with at least two other subregions between 2001/2003 and 2007/2009. North and
Central Asia, the subregion with the highest international trade costs, made significant
progress in reducing both its intra- and extraregional non-tariff trade costs during that
period. Interestingly, trade costs decreased by nearly 34% between East Asia-3 and
North & Central Asia during the period reviewed, the highest improvement among all
pairs of subregions reviewed. Although its trade costs are significantly lower than those
of North & Central Asia, South Asia made least improvements overall and is the only
Asian subregion that is found to have made no significant progress in cutting non-tariff
trade costs.54
Barriers to trade are being reduced at and behind the border
Improving at-the-border and behind-the-border procedures is at the core of trade
facilitation, as defined in the ongoing WTO negotiations on that subject. The time it
takes to complete all trade procedures involved in moving goods from factory to ship at
the nearest seaport – or vice versa – in Asian and Pacific developing economies
decreased on average by more than 18% between 2005 and 2011. South-East Asia made
the most progress, cutting its average time for completing trade procedures to 20 days.
Cambodia and Thailand cut their time by more than 40% during the same period. India
and Pakistan achieved improvements of a similar magnitude, although trade procedures
54
Taking into account tariff costs, it did make improvements in cutting overall trade costs from 152% in
2001/3 to 139% in 2007/9.
68
in South and South-West Asia still take 50% more time to complete than in South-East
Asia (30 days). No significant progress was made in the Pacific. The mainly landlocked
economies of North and Central Asia, made some small improvements, but the time
taken by most of the economies of that subregion to clear procedures for moving goods
to a seaport remains lengthy (50 days on average).55
Overall, while significant progress has been made, it still takes three times
longer to complete trade procedures in Asia-Pacific developing economies than in AsiaPacific developed economies (Australia, Japan and New Zealand), suggesting that there
is considerable room for improvement.
The direct cost of completing procedures for moving goods from factory to
seaport increased marginally in most Asia-Pacific economies between 2005 and 2011,
ranging from $642 per container in South-East Asia, to more than $2,300 in North and
Central Asia. This may be partially attributable to an increase in the cost of labour,
increased demand for logistics and transport services as trade volumes increase, and
exchange rate fluctuations in some cases. During 2005-2011, average costs increased
the most in economies of South and South-West Asia, rising by 22%. In North and
Central Asia, the costs of completing trade procedures increased by an average of 15%.
Interestingly, no significant differences are found between export time or cost,
and import time or cost in most economies of the region. 56 This suggests that most
Governments now recognize the benefits associated with import facilitation, an often
essential component of strategies aimed at increasing the participation of local firms in
production networks and higher-value exports. Import procedures still tend to cost more
than export procedures in most economies of the region, arguably because of the
regulatory controls applied to imports. However, as of 2011, import time is found to be
equal or shorter than export time in as many as 26 economies in the region, including in
Malaysia, Pakistan, Kazakhstan and Solomon Islands, suggesting that those countries
have taken steps to enhance border clearance procedures.
B.
IDENTIFYING POLICY PRIORITIES FOR REDUCING TRADE COSTS
How can further improvements be made in reducing trade costs? What measures
and policies would be most effective in doing so? A wide range of factors affect the level
of trade costs between two partner countries, which makes it particularly difficult to
answer these questions.
Some of the cost factors are inherent to the location, culture or history of the
trading partners and may be difficult to address through policy, at least within a
reasonable time frame. These costs are sometimes called “natural” trade costs. Other
cost factors, such as tariff rates, the availability of logistics infrastructure and services, a
favorable exchange rate, a conducive business environment, or transparent and
streamlined border procedures, may be influenced by policy makers. Research
55
Importers and exporters also often face cumbersome business and investment procedures at home, which
sometimes have an even larger adverse effect on trade than the trade-specific procedures (Duval and Utoktham,
2010b).
56
E.g., see the import/export cost and time ratios presented in APTIR 2011, Part III, Table 23.
69
undertaken by ESCAP suggests that tariff trade costs in Asia and the Pacific generally
account for 0 to 10% of bilateral comprehensive trade costs, while other policy related
trade costs (i.e., of a non-tariff nature) account for 60 to 90% of bilateral trade costs.
Natural trade costs vary widely depending on the partner countries considered, but
account on average for more than 20% of trade costs.
Figure 27. Contribution of Various Policy-Related Factors to Changes in
Trade Costs
Tariff Trade Costs
0-10%*
6-7%
Direct Behind- & At-the border Trade
Costs
Availability/use of ICT Services
6-7%
Business (Regulatory) Environment
1%
60-90%*
Policy-Related
Non-Tariff Trade Costs
Natural Trade Costs
(Geographical and Cultural
Factors)
16-18%
Maritime Connectivity/Services
52-57%
Other Trade Costs
- Indirect cost of trade procedure
- Currency fluctuation
- Other non-tariff barriers
10-30%*
Source: Duval and Uthoktham (2011),
Note:*illustrative based on casual observation of the data only. Natural trade costs for landlocked
countries may be outside the range shown for natural trade costs.
Figure 27 shows the estimated contribution of various policy related factors to
changes in trade costs, based on an econometric analysis of ESCAP comprehensive trade
cost data. The results strongly suggested that improving access to efficient maritime
services (liner shipping connectivity) as well as to information and communication
technology facilities are essential to making progress. This is likely to be challenging in
many least developed countries given the financial cost associated with the development of
the required hard infrastructure. However, policies aimed at liberalizing logistics and
information technology services and increasing competition among service providers
should be readily considered, with a view to maximizing efficiency at any given level of
hard infrastructure development. Establishment of public-private partnerships to accelerate
the development of the national information technology and the transport and logistics
infrastructure may also be actively pursued. For landlocked countries, close cooperation
with transit neighbors will remain essential in improving access to maritime services and
bringing its trade costs to more competitive level.
The analysis also confirmed that, given limited resources available, focusing on
improving the overall business environment may be often more effective in facilitating
trade than implementing soft measures solely targeted at speeding up movement of goods
between factory and the port (or vice-versa). Measures to facilitate access to trade finance
70
and financial services were found to be of particular importance in reducing trade costs and
may therefore be prioritized.
Interestingly, the direct cost of moving goods from/to factory to/from ship
deck, including inland transportation, customs clearance and preparation of
documents, is significant but ultimately only accounts for about 1% of the variation in
non-tariff policy-related trade costs overall. The result highlights that what matters
most is not the direct cost of completing the procedures, but the indirect and hidden
costs associated with them (e.g. the reluctance to engage in trade in new, more
regulated, or perishable products because of uncertainties regarding the time and costs
of the trade process or the lack of transparent procedures). Disentangling these
indirect and hidden costs remains a challenge. However, the fact that more than 50%
of the changes in non-tariff policy-related trade costs across economies were not
captured by the relatively wide-ranging trade cost factors included in the study
suggests that they play a crucial role in trade facilitation.
71
6.
ASIA-PACIFIC AND TRADE AGREEMENTS
As discussed in the previous APTIR issues, Asia-Pacific region appears to be
fragmented into several areas which have distinct geographical, political, cultural and
historical features. Each subregion also enjoys different level of intraregional trade and
economic integration which is often not proportional to a number of preferential trade
agreements among the economies in a subregion. For example, the most intensive intraregional trade is among economies of East and North-East Asia, which do not have any
agreement connecting all of them. 57 In contrast, other subregions have at least one
regional trade agreement connecting all subregional economies. However the intensity
of intraregional trade among the partners of these agreements in general is low and also
varies a lot among the agreements (see Table 17).
Table 17. Share of intraregional exports in total exports of selected PTAs
(Percentage)
APTA
ASEAN
CISFTA
ECOTA
EurAsEC
PACER
PICTA
SAFTA
2009
11.7
25.0
18.5
7.4
10.6
7.5
11.2
5.6
2010
12.2
26.6
18.0
6.7
9.3
6.8
9.4
6.3
Source: ESCAP's calculation based on UN COMTRADE data downloaded from WITS.
A.
STYLIZED FACTS
As of end of March 2012, Asia-Pacific economies have put in force a total of 142
trade agreements at bilateral and plurilateral or regional levels. These are some of the
interesting “factoids” on Asia-Pacific regionalism:
 Economies of Asia and the Pacific are associated with almost 219 agreements, of
which 142 are in force, and the rest are at various stages of negotiations.
 There are currently 112 bilateral trade agreements in force, 45 of which are
signed with an economy outside Asia and the Pacific. Turkey has the largest
number of trade agreements with “non-regional” partners, followed by Central
Asian economies. Other Asian countries, when signing agreements with partners
outside the region, target mostly partners in Latin America.
 Number of average trade agreements under implementation is 7.1; 50 out of 58
regional members and associate members of ESCAP have already put in force at
least one trade agreement. Singapore now shares the top rank with Turkey with
57
This may soon change as the three largest economies from that subregion, China, Japan and the
Republic of Korea have been sending signals about starting negotiations of the tripartite FTA.
72
the largest number of agreements under implementation (20) followed by India
(17) and Thailand (16). Not all of these are notified to the WTO.
 There are 15 regional and plurilateral trade agreements, and the average number
of countries per agreement is 8.1 (maximum is 15, and minimum 3).
 Most of the agreements (71 out of 142) are declared as free trade agreements
covering only goods liberalization, and another 41 cover goods and services
liberalization. Only 17 are declared as having partial scope.
 There are only 3 customs unions, one of which is between a country and another
regional block (Turkey-EU).
 Noodle bowl gets fuller fast, as more and more countries add agreements with
same partners (in different configuration) and there has been no initiative
towards consolidation of agreements, to reduce the number of those with the
same membership.
More information on types and scope of Asia-Pacific regionalism is provided in the
attached tables and figures.
Table 18. Number of agreements by type showing “depth” of liberalization
Type of agreement
Free trade agreement /area
Free trade agreement and Economic integration
agreement58
Partial scope agreement2
Framework agreement
Customs union
Total in force
71
Share (%)
50
41
29
17
10
3
142
12
7
2
100
Number
58
Economic Integration Agreement is agreement covering services trade liberalization (using WTO
terminology). Partial scope agreements are typically South-South agreements notified (or meant to be
notified) under the Enabling Clause (and thus implicitly meaning that they might not meet one or all of
the conditions of the GATT Article XIX). It is also necessary to note that some FTA are notified under
the Enabling clause.
73
Figure 28. Break-down of trade agreements by type and scope
60
60
BTA
RTA
Country-bloc
50
40
37
30
20
9
10
5
6
6
6
3
1
2
0
3
1
2
1
0
Free trade agreement
Free trade agreement and
Economic integration
agreement
Customs union
Framework agreements
Partial scope agreements
Table 19. Number of members in plurilateral and regional trade agreements
Regional /plurilateral trade
agreements
D-8 PTA
PTN
APTA
ASEAN
BIMSTEC
CISFTA
ECOTA
EURASEC
GUAM FTA
MSG
PICTA
CU RUSSIA-KAZAKHSTANBELARUS
SAFTA
SPARTECA
Trans-Pacific SEP
Average number of members
Number of
members
8
14
6
10
7
11
10
5
4
4
12
3
8
15
4
8.1
74
Table 20. Number of agreements in force and under negotiations per economy59
59
Number of agreements in force and in total includes the GSTP (a global agreement), which was not taken into
account in the previous tables. American Samoa, French Polynesia, Guam, New Caledonia, Northern Mariana
Islands and Timor-Leste do not report any trade agreements. Total number of agreements also includes pending
agreements when they exist. Average calculated only for economies with 1 or more agreements.
75
Afghanistan
Armenia
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Brunei
Cambodia
China
Cook Island
Fiji
Georgia
Hong Kong, China
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Japan
Kazakhstan
Korea, Rep. of
Kiribati
Kyrgyzstan
Lao PDR
Macao,China
Malaysia
Maldives
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Myanmar
Nauru
Nepal
New Zealand
Niue
Pakistan
Palau
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Russian Federation
Samoa
Singapore
Solomon Islands
Sri Lanka
Tajikistan
Thailand
Tonga
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Viet Nam
Figure 29. Number of agreements per Asia-Pacific economy
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Agreements in force
Agreements under negotiation
Pending country ratification
76
Figure 30. Asia-Pacific “noodle bowl”
77
B.
TRADE FACILITATION PROVISIONS IN TRADE AGREEMENTS
While it is now widely acknowledged that trade facilitation begins at home, it
has long been recognized that additional benefits could be reaped through bilateral and
regional cooperation on trade facilitation. The full benefits of Single Windows and other
electronic trade data exchange systems cannot be achieved until electronic data and
documents in a national Single Window is accepted by authorities in the partner
country. While international standards have been developed to address technical issues
related to cross-border data exchange, little progress has been made in developing an
appropriate international legal framework for the cross-border electronic exchange of
trade data and documents. Indeed, the pioneering ASEAN Single Window initiative,
which aims at developing a regional Single Window environment for its member
countries by 2012, has struggled to establish the necessary legal basis for electronic
exchange among participating member countries.
Most preferential trade agreements – and economic partnership agreements –
among economies of the region now include trade facilitation provisions (figure 33 and
chapter 8 in APTIR 2011). The latest ASEAN Agreement on Trade in Goods, which
came into force in 2010, includes an entire chapter on trade facilitation. The third round
of negotiations of APTA also resulted in a Trade Facilitation Framework Agreement
among its six members (Bangladesh, China, India, the Lao People’s Democratic
Republic, the Republic of Korea and Sri Lanka) in 2009.
Figure 31. Number of bilateral/regional trade agreements with trade facilitation
provisions in Asia and the Pacific
Source: Duval (2011)
A comparative study of recent RTAs conducted by ESCAP found that all
agreements commit to increasing transparency, including through an obligation to
publish laws and regulations affecting trade. They all also recognize the importance of
using international standards for trade facilitation. Other measures that appear to be
78
increasingly common include those on automation/use of ICT, risk management,
advance ruling and Single Windows.60
Transit facilitation measures are, in general, not specifically covered in trade
agreements, although they are essential, particularly with regard to intraregional trade
facilitation. While separate bilateral and regional transit agreements are often in place
among developing economies of the region, the extent to which they are implemented –
as well as their consistency with existing multilateral trade commitments (e.g. WTO,
GATT Article V) – is not always clear. Significant barriers to transit trade remain in
place in South and Central Asia. South-East Asia has made more progress in facilitating
transit trade through a mix of bilateral, subregional and regional agreements and
initiatives. However, reports from logistics operators that the comprehensive GMS
Cross-border Transport Agreement is still not fully operational, although it was signed
more than half a decade ago, shows how difficult it is to facilitate cross-border trade and
transit. Apart from political will, a main issue impeding implementation of effective
transit systems is the lack of collaboration between trade, transport and/or customs
authorities and the limited involvement of local (at-the- border) public and private
stakeholders at early stages of negotiations.
Overall, in most agreements, trade facilitation provisions in RTAs are still of a
“best endeavour” nature, making it difficult to assess the extent to which they are
implemented. Short of making trade facilitation measures unconditional, advancing
trade facilitation as part of an RTA may best be done by setting a strong institutional
mechanism through which procedural issues will be identified and addressed, after an
agreement enters into force on a regular basis. Action plans and peer reviews would
then be part of the institutional framework put in place, as would be the establishment or
designation of a national trade facilitation body/committee – which would ideally be the
same for all RTAs that a particular economy enters into. The ASEAN Agreement on
Trade in Goods and its detailed commitment to implement a Trade Facilitation Work
Programme is interesting in this regard, as it provides a specific way forward in order to
ensure that progress is made in actual implementation of the many trade facilitation
measures mentioned in the agreement.
At least in the initial stage of bilateral or regional cooperation on trade
facilitation, a pragmatic approach may be most effective. In the case of neighbouring
countries, for example, a starting point can be informal meetings between customs
officials on both sides of the border to agree on common operating hours and days. As
trust builds up, this may then be followed by discussions on more advance border
measures, such as an agreement to adopt single-stop customs clearance procedures at
the border – with inspection and clearance of shipments being carried out jointly at one
place and one time – instead of separately on each side of a border. Such advanced trade
facilitation measures, however, are often difficult to put in place, highlighting the need
for coordinated support from regional organizations in this area.
60
For more details see Duval, 2011.
79
REFERENCES
Akyüz, Y. (2011) Export Dependence and Sustainability of Growth in China. China &
World Economy, 19: 1–23.
Arkolakis, C., A. Costinot, and A. Rodriguez Clare (forthcoming) New Theories, Same
Old Gains?" American Economic Review.
ASEAN Secretariat (2011). ASEAN Investment Report 2011: Sustaining FDI Flows in a
Post-crisis World. Available from http://www.aseansec.org/20440.htm
Asian Development Bank (2011). Asian Development Outlook 2011: South-South
Economic Links. Available from
http://beta.adb.org/publications/search/1083%2C4761?keyword=asian%20devel
opment%20outlook%202011
Asian Development Bank/Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
(2009). Designing and Implementing Trade Facilitation in Asia and the Pacific.
Manila: Asian Development Bank. November. Available from
www.unescap.org/tid/publication/adbescapbook.asp
Baldwin, Richard (2006). Multilateralising Regionalism: Spaghetti Bowls as Building Blocs on the
Path to Global Free Trade. NBER Working Papers 12545, National Bureau of Economic
Research, Inc. Available from http://www.nber.org/papers/w12545.pdf
Baldwin, Richard (2011). 21st century regionalism: filling the gap between 21st century
trade and 20th century trade rule. WTO Economic research and Statistics
Division Working Paper, 11-08, April.
Baldwin, Richard (2011a). Trade And Industrialisation After Globalisation’s 2nd
Unbundling: How Building And Joining A Supply Chain Are Different And
Why It Matters. NBER Working Papers 17716, National Bureau of Economic
Research, Inc. Available from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17716.pdf
Bhattacharyay, Biswa Nath (2010). Estimating Demand for Infrastructure in Energy, Transport,
Telecommunications, Water and Sanitation in Asia and the Pacific: 2010-2020. ADBI
Working Paper 248. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. Available from
http://www.adbi.org/files/2010.08.09.wp248.infrastructure.demand.asia.pacific.pdf
Caliendo, L. and F. Parro (2010) Welfare gains from changing partners in a trade bloc:
The case of MERCOSUR" in J. Gilbert New Developments in Computable
General Equilibrium Analysis of Trade Policy Volume 7 in Frontiers of
Economics and Globalization, Emerald.
Central Intelligence Agency (2011). World Fact Book 2011. Available from
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
China FDI Network (2009). ASEAN-China FTA Investment Agreement Signed. Available from
http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/enarticle/enasean/chianaseannews/200911/1473_1.html.
De, Prabir (2011). Assessing Barriers to Trade in Services in India. Research and
Information System for Developing Countries. Discussion Paper No. 173.
Available from http://www.ris.org.in/images/RIS_images/pdf/dp173_pap.pdf.
80
Decreux, Yvan and Lionel Fontagné (2011). Economic Impact of Potential Outcome of
the DDA. Working Papers 2011-23, CEPII Research Center.
Dee, P. (2010) Quantifying the Economy-wide E_ects of Behind-the-border Reforms in
Trans-port, Energy and Telecommunications in APEC Economies" Paper
prepared as a contribution to the project The Impacts and Benefits of Structural
Reforms in Transport, Energy and Telecommunications Sectors, commissioned
by the APEC Policy Support Unit.
Duval, Yann (2011). Trade facilitation in regional trade agreements: recent trends in Asia and the
Pacific. Trade and Investment Division Staff Working Paper No. 02/11, March.
Bangkok: ESCAP. Available from www.unescap.org/tid/publication/swp211.pdf.
Duval, Yann, and Chorthip Utoktham (2010a). Intraregional trade costs in Asia: a
primer. Trade and Investment Division Staff Working Paper 01/10. Bangkok:
ESCAP. Available from www.unescap.org/tid/publication/swp110.pdf
Duval, Yann and Chortip Uthoktham (2010b). Beyond trade facilitation: impact of the domestic
business environment on export competitiveness in Asia and the Pacific., In Rising
Non-tariff Protectionism and Crisis Recovery. Bangkok: ESCAP. ST/ESCAP/2587.
Available from www.unescap.org/tid/publication/tipub2587.asp.
Duval, Yann and Chortip Uthoktham (2011). Trade facilitation in Asia and the Pacific:
which policies and measures affect trade costs the most? Trade and Investment
Division Staff Working Paper No. 01/11, February. Bangkok: ESCAP.
Available from www.unescap.org/tid/publication/swp111.pdf.
Duval, Yann and Chortip Uthoktham (forthcoming).Trade Costs in Asia and the Pacific:
New bilateral and Sectoral Estimates. Trade and Investment Division Staff
Working Paper 01/10. Bangkok: ESCAP. Available from
http://www.unescap.org/tid/publication/swp511.pdf
Eaton J. and S. Kortum (2002) Technology, Geography and Trade" Econometrica
70:1741-79.
Easterly, William and Arrif Reshel (2010) “African Export Successes: Surprises,
Stylized Facts and Explanations”, National Bureau of Economic Research
(NBER) Working Paper Series, No 16597, December.
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (2007a). Linking Greater
Mekong Subregion Enterprises to International Markets: the Role of Global
Value Chains, International Production Networks and Enterprises Clusters.
Studies on Trade and Investment No.59. Bangkok. ST/ESCAP/2439. Available
from http://www.unescap.org/tid/publication/indpub2439.pdf
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (2007b). Enhancing the
Competitiveness of SMEs: Subnational Innovation Systems and Technological
Capacity-Building Policies. Bangkok. ST/ESCAP/2435. Available from
www.unescap.org/tid/publication/indpub2435.asp.
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (2007c). Statistical
Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific 2011. Sales No. E.11.II.F.1.
81
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (2009a). Asia-Pacific Trade
and Investment Report 2009. Sales No.E.09.II.F.19.
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (2009b). Globalization of
Production and the Competitiveness of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in
Asia and the Pacific: Trends and Prospects. Sales No. E.09.II.F.23.
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (2010). Asia-Pacific Trade and Investment
Report 2010. Bangkok. Available from www.unescap.org/tid/ti_report2010/home.asp.
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (2011a). Economic and
Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific 2011. Sales No. E.11.II.F.2.
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (2011b). Asia-Pacific Trade
and Investment Report 2011: Post-Crisis Trade and Investment Opportunities.
Sales No. E.11.II.F.8.
Economic and Social Commission of Asia and the Pacific (2011c) Statistical Yearbook for Asia
and the Pacific 2011. Available at http://www.unescap.org/stat/data/syb2011/index.asp
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (2011d). Facilitating
Agricultural Trade in Asia and the Pacific. Studies on Trade and Investment
No.74. Bangkok. ST/ESCAP/2616. Available from
http://www.unescap.org/tid/publication/tipub2616.asp
Elm, Deborah and C.L. Lim (2012). The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)
Negotiations: Overview and Prospects. RSIS Working Paper No.232. Available
from http://www.rsis.edu.sg/publications/workingpapers/wp232.pdf
fDi Intelligence (2011). FDI Global Outlook Report 2011: Manufacturing Makes a Comeback.
London: Financial Times Ltd. Available from www.fdiintelligence.com.
Ferretti, Marco and Adele Parmentola (2010). "FDI knowledge spillovers and host
government policies: the Iranian experience", European Business Review, Vol.
22 Iss: 2, pp.175 – 194.
Fontagne, L., A. Guillin and C. Mitaritonna (2010) Estimations of Tari_ Equivalents for
the Services Sectors" (mimeo, CEPII).
Francois, J. and W. Martin (2010) Ex Ante Assessment of the Welfare Impacts of Trade
Reforms with Numerical Models" in J. Gilbert New Developments in Computable
General Equilibrium Analysis of Trade Policy Volume 7 in Frontiers of Economics
and Globalization, Emerald.
Fung, Kwok-Chiu, Alicia Garcia-Herrero and Francis Ng (2011). Foreign Direct
Investment in Cross-Border Infrastructure Projects. ADBI Working Paper 274.
Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. Available from
http://www.adbi.org/files/2011.04.01.wp274.fdi.crossborder.infrastructure.proj.pdf
Gilbert, John. (2012). The Economic Impact of New Regional Trading Developments in
the ESCAP Region. Background study prepared for ESCAP. Mimeographed.
Gilbert, John. and Thomas Wahl (2002) Applied General Equilibrium Assessments of
Trade Liberalization in China" World Economy 25(5):697-731.
82
Ghani, Ejaz, and Homi Kharas (2010). “The Service Revolution in South Asia, An Overview”,
in Ejaz Ghani ed. The Service Revolution in South Asia. World Bank, Oxford.
Available from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETTRADE/Resources/
Helmers, Christian and Jean Michel Pasteels (2006) “Assessing Bilateral Trade
Potential at the Commodity Level: An Operational Approach” International
Trade Centre, ITC Working Paper, November.
Hoekman, Bernard (2011). Harnessing services trade reform for inclusive growth:
Lessons from the 1980s vs. the 2000s. Chapter 1 in Service Sector reforms:
Asia-Pacific Perspectives edited by Pierre Sauve, Gloria Pasadilla and Mia
Mikic, Bangkok: ADBI-ARTNeT.
ITC (2010a) “New World Order: Shifting markets in trade, investment and opportunity”,
International Trade Forum Issue 2/2010 accessed at
http://www.tradeforum.org/New-Order-Shifting-Markets-in-Trade-Investmentand-Opportunity on 22/11/2011, International Trade Centre
ITC (2011a) “New Market Opportunities in Emerging Markets”, Mari Pangestu,
Minister of Trade, Indonesia January 15, 2011, Accessed at
http://www.tradeforum.org/New-Market-Opportunities -in-Emerging-Markets
on 22/11/2011, International Trade Centre.
ITC (2011b) “Laos from Land-Locked to Land Linked – A Case Study in the benefits
of South-South Trade for Least Developed Countries”, Sirisamphanh Vorachith,
Deputy Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Industry and Commerce, Lao People’s
Democratic Republic, January 15, 2011, Accessed at
http://www.tradeforum.org/Laos-from-Land-Locked-to-Land-Linked---A-CaseStudy on 22/11/2011, International Trade Centre.
ITC (2011c) “World Export Development Forum-Renewed Optimism for Export-led
Growth in the Post-crisis Era”, International Trade Forum, Editorial, January
15, 2011, Accessed at http://www.tradeforum.org/2010-World-ExportDevelopment- Forum--Renewed on 22/11/2011, International Trade Centre.
ITC (2010b) “Trade Support Responding to Shifting Markets”, International Trade
Forum Issue 2/2010. Accessed at http://www.tradeforum.org/Trade-SupportResponding -to-Shifting-Markets on 22/11/2011, International Trade Centre
Lim, Hank, and Fukunari Kimura (2010). The Internationalization of Small and
Medium Enterprises in Regional and Global Value Chains. ADBI Working
Paper 231. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. Available:
http://www.eaber.org/sites/default/files/documents/ADBI_Lim_2010.pdf
LOWTAX (2011). Mauritius: Double Tax Treaties. Tortola, British Virgin Islands.
Available from www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/jmu2tax.html#2tax
Martin, will and Aaditya Mattoo, 2010. "The Doha Development Agenda: What's on the table?,"
Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, vol. 19(1), pp. 81-107.
McKensey Global Institute (2011). Internet matters: The net’s sweeping impact on
growth, jobs, and prosperity. Available from
83
http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/MGI/Research/Technology_and_Innovation/
Internet_matters
Melitz, M.J. (2003) The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate
Industry Productivity" Econometrica 71(6):1695-725.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011). Central Asia: more
diversified and competitive economies would attract investors. Available from
www.oecd.org/document/63/0,3746,en_21571361_44315115_46975551_1_1_1_1,00.html
Ramamurti, Ravi (2011). “Impact of the crisis on new FDI players: past, present and
future of sovereign wealth funds, private equity and emerging market
transnational corporations”, Transnational Corporations, Vol. 20, No. 1, April
2011. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Available from:
http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/unctaddiaeia20114a_en.pdf
Trejos, Alberto (2005) Bilateral and regional free trade agreements, and their relationship
with the WTO and the Doha Development Agenda, Global Economy Journal, vol
5, Issue 4, Article 18
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2011). Statistics Overview.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Available from
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx.
World Bank (2011). Doing Business 2012: Doing Business in a More Transparent World. Washington
D.C. Available from http://www.doingbusiness.org/reports/global-reports/doing-business-2012
World Trade Organization (2011) International Trade Statistics 2011. Available at
http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2011_e/its11_toc_e.htm
World Trade Organization (2005) International Trade Statistics 2005. Available from
http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2005_e/its05_toc_e.htm.
Word Trade Organization (2011) World Trade Report 2011- The WTO and preferential
trade agreements: From co-existence to coherence, Geneva, WTO.
WTO and UNCTAD (2012) “World exports of commercial services slowed sharply in
the fourth quarter of 2011“ Online report accessed on 20 March 2012 at
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news12_e/stts_20mar12_e.htm
WTO and OECD (2010) AID for Trade at a glance 2009, Maintaining Momentum,
Geneva and Paris: WTO and OECD.
Xiao, Jun (2010). “The Asean-China Investment Agreement: A Regionalization Of Chinese New
Bits. Society of International Economic Law Online Proceedings” Working Paper No.
2010/09. Available from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1629202.
84