'vJPS 16E2Q POLICY
RESEARCH
WORKING
Partners or Predators?
PAPER
1626
How are Indonesiaandother PacificRim economies affected by various scenar-ios
The Impact of Regional Trade Liberalization on Indonesia
of regionalintegratiorn and liberalization? And hov is their trade affected by major
Jeffrey D. Lewis Sherman Robinson
The World Bank East Asiaand Pacific Country Department III Country Operations Division July 1996
realignmentsof international exchangerates(parti ularly yen/dollarmovements(?
|POLICY RESEARCHWORKINGPAPER1626
Summary findings Lewis and Robinson empirically assess the impact on Indonesia and other Pacific Rim economies of various regional integration and liberalization scenarios, including the completed Uruguay Round, further global liberalization, and the creation of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)or APEC free trade areas. They also consider how major realignments of international exchange rates (particularly yen/dollar movements) affect the general pattern of world trade, and Indonesia in particular. In their analysis, they use a multicountry, computable general equilibrium (CGE) model to quantify the impact of trade liberalization on countries, sectors, and factors. The extended APEC-CGE model consists of nine linked country models: Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore (together), the Philippines, Thailand, China (including Hong Kong), Asian newly industrializing countries (Republic of Korea and Taiwan, China), Japan, the United States, and the European UniQn.Each country model has 12 sectors and two labor types and is linked to other countries through explicit modeling of bilateral trade flows for each traded sector. The empirical results lead to several conclusions: * Eliminating tariff and nontariff barriers in industrial countries - especially the phasing out of the Multifibre
Agreement - gives Asian developing countries a significant opportunity to expand their exports and achieve potentially large productivity gains. * Creation of an APEC free trade area gives participants significant benefits, with little effect on nonmembers. Creation of an ASEAN free trade area gives its members little benefit. The ASEAN countries would be better advised to work toward more liberalization under GATT or to hasten the creation of the APEC free trade area rather than to create only an ASEAN free trade area. * All economies, including those in Asia, gain the most from further multilateral liberalization. From an economic perspective, creating a regional free trade area is consistent with a continuing pursuit of global liberalization as well. * Major realignments of exchange rates, such as current yen/dollar movements, significantly affect bilateral trade balances and the volume and direction of world trade. But they have less effect on the sectoral structure of production and trade within countries than does trade liberalization. Sectoral protection and subsidy rates vary greatly and their elimination yields significant efficiency gains. Changes in exchange rates have less effect.
This paper-a product of the Country Operations Division,EastAsia and Pacific, Country Department III-was presented at the conference "Building on Success: Maximizing Gains from Deregulation," April 1995, inJakarta, Indonesia. Copies of this paper are available free from the World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433. Please contact Nancy Mensah, room Q4-058, telephone 202-458-0546, fax 202-522-2475, Internet address
[email protected]. July 1996. (37 pages)
The Policy Research Working Paper Seriesdisseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, evenif the presentationsare less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be used and cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions are the authors' own and should not beattributed to the World Bank, its Executive Board of Directors, or any of its member countries.
Produced by the Policy Research Dissemination Center
Partners or Predators? The Impact of Regional Trade Liberalization on Indonesia
Jeffrey D. Lewis World Bank ShermanRobinson InternationalFood Policy ResearchInstitute
Paper presented to the conference Building on Success: Maximizing Gains from Deregulation, April 26-28, 1995 in Jakarta, Indonesia. The authors acknowledgethe assistanceof Tom Hertel, Glenn Harrison, Will Martin, and Zhi Wang in preparingthe data used in the paper. Addresscommentsto: Jeffrey D. Lewis, World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA.
I
Partnersor Predators? The Impact of RegionalTrade Liberalizationon Indonesia* 1. Introduction After two decades of relatively modestprogress in the area of multilateral trade liberalizationand regionaltradingarrangements,the lastfew years have witnesseda nearstampede. In additionto the muchheraldedconclusionof the UruguayRound Agreementin late 1994, nearly every region of the world has established a bewildering and in some respects conflicting range of preferential trade or integration initiatives. Latin Americaneconomieshave respondedto implementationof NAFTA with a combination of lobbying efforts to gain similar access through NAFTA accession as well as a range of new or revitalizedcompetingregionalagreements,from the Pacto Andinoin the north to Mercosur in the south. EasternEuropeaneconomiesscrambleto affiliatewith the EU, which in turn worries about whetherit is preferableto "deepen"before it "broadens". Australiaand New Zealandpursue implementationof their Close EconomicRelation,and economiesin southernAfrica contemplateregional initiativesthat revolve around the central role played by South Africa, emerging from isolation after almost two decades of confrontationwith its neighbors. Within EastAsia, competingforcesare also apparent. The commitmentmade in Bogor in November 1994by the APECcountriesto createan APECfree trade area by the year 2020 representsonly the most recent regionalintegrationinitiative. Reconsiderationof the potentialrole for the ASEANgroup has been underway for some years, with pressures for expansionto potential new members (such as Vietnam) competingwith the belief that the existinggrouping needs to broaden its scope from traditionalconcerns with politicsand securityto economicissues. Severalyears ago planswere developedfor an ASEANFree Trade Area (AFTA) that would reduce tariffs on most products to a maximum of 5 percent among members by 2008. The pressure of events resulted in an ASEAN decision to broaden the scope and acceleratethe timetable,with major reforms due to be completedby 2003. This trend towardsregionalintegrationand liberalizationrepresentsan importantshift in international policy. Onlya decadeago, the conventionalwisdomwas that the scope for successfulregional free trade initiativeswas relativelylimited,a conclusionsupportedby an intemationallandscapelitteredwith attempts that had fallen short of their original lofty goals. But any conclusionthat this trend representsthe final triumph of free trade doctrinesover insularityand protectionismmust be viewed with suspicion. Many recent initiativesseem motivatedmore by fear of being left behind by one's competitorsthan by any convictionthat the benefits of liberalizationor greater integrationoutweighthe costs. The proliferation of regionalagreementshas also raisedconcernsthat the world tradingsystem will separate into exclusive blocks.' NAFTAhas set off a scramblein the WestemHemisphereamongthose not yet included,and has ' The authors acknowledge the assistance of Tom Hertel, Glenn Harrison, Will Martin, and Zhi Wang in preparing the data used in the paper.
' Hughes Hallett and Primo Braga (1994) assess the implications of increased regionalism on progress towards a more liberal trade order, and conclude that regional arrangementsare unlikely to work as buildingblocs towards a 'perfect' GATT. Instead, they argue that the best approach for developing countries threatened by the growing strength of regional arrangements is to encourage and strengthen the multilateral trade system, particularly the emerging WTO. Empirical work to date on the implications of regional arrangements does not, however, support this pessimistic view of their impact.
1
givenrise to fears in Asia over its potentialtrade diversion(althoughmost empiricalestimatessuggest that the losseswould be small).' There is also disagreementwithin APEC over whether futureliberalization shouldapply to non-members(such as the EU). There is some basis for the concernsvoiced by those who view the process as one of "join or be left behind." The increasingglobalizationand integrationof world markets has generatedpowerfulpressures for change,particularlyas more and more regionsabandon inward-lookingpolicies and look outward for growthand markets. While a developmentstrategyhingingon importsubstitutionand investmentcontrols once provided insulation (albeit costly) from internationaleconomic pressures, the environmenthas changed. Today,with massive(and, as the Mexicanexperiencehas shown, fickle) foreigncapital flows, and increasingcompetitivepressures in export markets, it is not enough for countries simply to make progress towards a more open trade and investmentregime--exportingeconomies must devote equal attentionto what their competitorsare doing. For East Asia, the regionthat has benefittedthe most from the rapid expansionin world trade over the last quarter century, this meansthat those economiesmust run fasterjust to stay in place. The orderly passingof the mantleof export-ledgrowth from Japan to the Asian "tigers" and then to the next tier has been supplantedby a more chaoticscramble for advantage in an increasinglycompetitiveworld. The responseto domestic and trade policy liberalizationfor one countryin Asia depends not only on its own actions, but also on what other countriesdo as well. The impact on the region of China's resurgence, potentialcompetitionfrom Vietnam,and increasedprivate foreigninvestmentflowsaffectregionalpolicies (suchas the ASEANdecisionto accelerateits free trade area timetable)as well as nationalpolicies (such as incometax reform in Indonesiaor infrastructurefinancingin China). Concern over the policy environmentin competitorcountriesmay create momentumtowards a selffulfilling or virtuous circle of liberalization,which is far preferable to the more destructive circle of protectionismand trade wars. In Indonesia,the public rationale for reform packagesin the last year that have loweredcorporatetaxesand dilutedforeignownershiprestrictionshas made specificcomparisonsto the correspondingpolicy environmentin otherAsian economies. But thesecompetitivepressurescan also serve to increase exclusionarypressuresor encourage strategicbehavior that benefit one country at the expenseof the broaderregion.3 In East Asia,these pressuresplay a role in the debate over the proper role of APEC, the ongoingnegotiationover thepre-requisitesfor and timingof China's admissionto the WTO, efforts to maintain a separate role for ASEAN, and even some suggestionsthat any Asian free trade arrangementshould excludethe UnitedStates. The political economy of the reform process generates further pressures on reform-oriented policymakers. Whether unilateral, regional, or multilateralin origin, structuralchangesassociatedwith trade liberalization creates losers among a vocal and often quite powerful group of domestic interest groups. Failure to identify the winnersand quantifythe gains frequentlymeans that reform efforts fail, and policymakersare well aware that there is only a limited public tolerance before reform "fatigue" 2 Using partial equilibrium and gravity flow trade models, Primo Braga, Safadi, and Yeats (1994) estimatethat total NAFTA-induced trade diversion losses could cost East Asian economiesaround $380-700 million, concentratedlargely in sectors where high U.S. trade barriers exist. But as they point out, these losses are less than I percent of the gains that are expected to accrue to this region from successful implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement.
I For example, Hinojosa.Ojeda, Lewis, and Robinson (1995) analyze the potential for welfare-reducing 'prisoner's dilemma" outcomes in an analysis of regional integration options for Central America and the Caribbean after NAFTA.
2
sets in. In this context, it is importantto distinguishinitiativesthat promise large gains to the economy from those that offer relativelylittle. For example,will Indonesiagain more from implementationof a preferentialASEANfree trade area, or from future extensionof the multilateraltariff cuts undertaken in the Uruguay Round? This paper offers a preliminaryempiricalassessmentof the impacton Indonesiaof alternativeregional integrationand liberalizationopportunities: (1)
What is the impactof the Uruguay Round on trade, welfare, and economicstructure in Indonesiaand the other PacificRim economies?
(2)
What are the likely gains from future initiatives,such as implementationof an ASEAN free trade area or furthermultilateralliberalizationalongthe linesof the UruguayRound?
(3) How do major realignmentsin internationalexchange rates (particularlyyen-dollarmovements) affect Indonesiaand the general pattern of trade and growth? We approachthesequestionsusing a multi-country,computablegeneral equilibrium(CGE)model to analyzethe impactof trade liberalizationon countries, sectors, and factors.4 Our extended APEC-CGE modelconsistsof nine linkedcountry models:Indonesia,Thailand,Philippines,Malaysiaand Singapore (together),China (includingHong Kong),Asian NICs (Korea and Taiwan), the US, Japan, and the EU.5 Each countrymodelhas twelvesectorsand two labortypes, and is linkedto othercountriesthroughexplicit modelingof bilateral trade flows for each traded sector. We use the model to simulatea series of alternativescenarios,starting with the impacton Indonesia and other APECeconomiesof the UruguayRoundAgreement,based on detailedcountry tariff schedules preparedby the GATT that reflectthe specificcommitmentson tariff reductionand bindingsmade during the UruguayRoundnegotations. We also analyzescenariosillustratingthe effectsof additionalmultilateral liberalization, the implementationof an ASEANFTA, and the eventualcompletionof an APEC FTA. Finally, we assess the implicationsfor Indonesia of a substantial realignment in the real yen-dollar exchange rate under differentassumptionsregardingIndonesia's exchangerate policyresponse. The next section provides an overviewof the economic structure, trade linkages, and protection structureamongcountriesin the APEC region,whilealso introducingthe data used in our model. Section three presentsthe main featuresof our APEC-CGEmodel. Sectionfour presentsthe empiricalresults, and sectionfive presents conclusions. An appendixcontainsa completedescription of the model.
' An earlierversionof this model(withsix regionsand ten sectors)was usedto analyzethe impactof an APECFTA on regional economies,and assessthe costsof excludingindividualAPEC membersfromthe FTA. See Lewis,Robinson,and Wang(1995). ' Our APEC modeldoes not includeall currentmembersof APEC, of whichthere are now eighteen. Excludedfrom our model are the industrialeconomiesof Australia,NewZealand,and Canada,the smallPacificeconomiesof Bruneiand PapuaNewGuinea, and Mexicoand Chile in LatinAmerica.
3
Table 1: Factor Endowment,IncomeShares,FactorIntensity, and Trade Dependencein APECModelRegions
Thailand
Philippines
Singapore& Malaysia
China
Korea& Taiwan
39.5 32.7 129.5
37.6 43.9 108.3
17.2 17.1 54.4
105.9 104.6 102.3
141.2 157.2 519.9
195.1 164.2 517.9
411.5 322.5 3694.2
576.5 618.6 5898.4
732.0 770.2 6680.4
TradeDependence(percent): 30.5 Export/GDP 25.3 Inport/GDP
34.7 40.5
31.6 31.5
103.6 102.3
27.2 30.2
37.7 31.7
11.1 8.7
9.8 10.5
11.0 11.5
FactorSharein APEC RegionValueAdded (percent): 7.5 4.9 13.6 41.6 21.5 28.9 50.9 73.6 57.5
6.5 39.1 54.4
9.8 53.2 37.0
4.6 53.1 42.3
1.2 58.8 40.0
1.6 64.7 33.7
0.8 65.6 33.7
Indonesia
Japan
USA
EU
GDP and TradeFlows (billionUS$): Exports Imports GDP
Land Labor Capital
Labor Cost (thousandS): 0.5 Averagewage 0.2 Averageagri. wage 0.7 Averagenon-agri.wage
0.6 0.1 1.5
0.8 0.5 1.1
3.8 0.8 4.9
0.3 0.2 0.6
8.5 3.9 9.6
31.3 18.4 32.1
27.9 14.5 28.2
26.8 19.9 27.2
CapitalReturn (percent): 30.4 Averagecapitalrental
26.1
16.3
15.8
11.4
18.4
11.2
11.8
10.6
FactorProportions: Agri. labor/totallabor (percent) 46.7 Capital/laborratio ($000/worker) 3.0 Rental/wageratio (percent/$000) 65.6
63.0 8.1 42.3
45.9 6.1 20.0
25.9 33.8 4.1
65.7 1.9 36.9
19.4 37.0 2.2
5.8 190.1 0.4
2.1 123.5 0.4
5.5 130.0 0.4
Source: APEC modeldatabasederived from GTAPdata (Hlertel,1996)
4
2. EconomicStructureand Trade Patternsin APECEcononiies Our APECmodelis constructedaround a nine-region,twelve-sector,four-factor, SocialAccounting Matrixestimatedfor the year 1992.6This sectionoutlinesthe structureof production, demand, income, taxation and trade patternsin the base year for each economicregion includedin the model, and briefly describes the patterns of protectionamong the relevant regions.7 Table 1 presents data on factor endowments,intensities,and costs for the regions included in the model, and indicatesthe enormousdifferencesin size, role of trade, factor endowmentsand factor cost amongthese regions. Low-incomeAPECeconomies(Indonesia,Thailand,Philippines,and China)as well as Korea& Taiwanexhibitbroad similarities:exportsand importsrepresentaround 25-35percentof GDP, Singapore& Malaysiahavetrade shares over 100 percent,and the much larger OECD economies(Japan, US, and EU) dependon trade for only around 10 percentof GDP. The low-incomedevelopingcountries are more poorly endowed with capital relative to labor: capital-laborratios are lower, the share of agriculturelaborin the total laborforceremainsaround one half, and the rental-wageratio is muchhigher. The pattern is reversedfor Japan, the EuropeanUnion, and the UnitedStates, while Korea & Taiwan and Singapore & Malaysia fall between the advanced industrialcountries and the poorer Asian developing countries. Theiragriculturallaborshare is largerthan that of the industrialeconomies,but is muchsmaller than that in China and ASEAN4. Comparedto Japan, the EuropeanCommunity,and the UnitedStates, they have a lower capital intensityand a higher relative capital-laborprice. Internationaltrade theorygenerallyidentifiestwo differenttypes of internationaltrade. Trade among developed industrialcountrieswith sirnilarendowmentsand technologyis largely "intra-industry," with high exportsand importswithinsectors,whereastradebetweenhigh and low-incomeeconomies(with very different factor endowmentsand technologicalprocesses)is largely inter-industry, with more sectoral 8 With a tremendousrange in factor endowmentsand income levels among the APEC specialization. economies, there is ample scope for Heckscher-Ohlinforces (based on different factor endowments)to influencetrade. Table 2 presentsthe share of each region's exportsand importsin total world trade from the base data used in the model. The OECDeconomiesdominatethe machineryand equipmentsector, whileChinaand Korea & Taiwanare majorparticipantsin the textilesand apparelsectors(alongwith the EU). The export market shares for manufacturedgoods in developing ASEAN economies indicate that Indonesia has significantsharesonly for textilesand apparel (around4 percent) and wood and paper (5 percent), while Thailand is best representedin the food processing,apparel, and othe light manufacturedsectors.
6
The data set is drawn primarily from the GTAP 1992 dataset, version 2, which is described in Hertel (1996).
For model regions that are made up of mnorethan one national economy(Korea & Taiwan, Singapore & Malaysia, China, and EIJ), all figures on exports and imports reported in these tables (and used in the model) refer to trade with economies outside that region, and thus exclude trade that occurs among members of the same region. In constructingthe regional data sets, this "within region" trade is netted out and treated as another source of domestic demand. Thus care must be taken in comparing trade shares and structure with other published sources on regional trade flows that do not adjust for intra-regional trade. I'Intra-industry" in this context refers to the two-way trade between industrieswhich produce commodities that are similar in input requirements and highly substitutable in use, such as similar televisions manufactured by different producers.
5
Table 2: Sectoral Export and Import Shares in World Trade (Percent)
Indonesia
Thailand
Singapore & Philippines Malaysia
China
Korea & Taiwan
Japan
USA
EU
Rest of World
Total
Shares in World Exports: Grains Other Agriculture Forestry & Fishery Energy & Minerals Food Processing Textiles Apparel Other Light Manufact. Wood & Paper Basic Intermediates Machinery & Equipment Services Total
0.1 3.5 3.6 5.0 1.4 3.6 3.5 1.7 4.5 1.0 0.2 0.4 1.2
6.4 3.5 5.9 0.5 3.6 1.7 3.8 2.8 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.2
0.0 1.0 1.2 0.3 1.1 0.2 2.1 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.5
0.0 1.9 7.9 1.9 4.7 1.5 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.1 2.4 3.3
7.4 6.1 4.7 2.4 4.1 10.2 28.5 17.7 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.8 4.4
0.2 3.7 7.5 0.2 2.8 20.6 10.1 16.2 3.9 5.4 7.0 4.4 6.0
0.0 0.5 1.8 0.4 1.3 10.3 0.8 16.4 3.0 10.3 23.8 8.7 12.8
54.0 21.6 17.1 3.9 19.8 9.3 4.4 10.1 18.9 17.3 22.7 17.9 17.9
10.6 9.7 5.4 6.1 29.5 22.4 13.4 17.7 17.4 27.9 23.4 27.5 22.7
21.1 48.4 45.0 79.3 31.6 20.2 30.4 13.5 45.2 31.0 15.1 34.5 30.1
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Shares in World Imports: Grains Other Agriculture Forestry & Fishery Energy & Minerals Food Processing Textiles Apparel Other Light Manufact. Wood & Paper Basic Intermediates Machinery & Equipment Services Total
2.9 1.5 0.1 0.6 0.7 1.8 0.0 0.5 0.6 1.7 1.3 0.6 1.0
0.7 1.4 3.7 1.4 0.9 1.7 0.0 0.8 1.1 2.6 1.8 0.5 1.4
1.3 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.9 1.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.5
3.3 2.5 1.7 2.8 3.0 4.9 0.9 3.0 1.7 4.1 4.4 2.0 3.2
9.9 4.8 4.0 2.2 5.2 16.1 1.3 5.8 4.2 6.9 5.5 3.0 4.9
9.3 7.7 5.2 6.3 4.0 5.1 0.7 2.6 3.8 7.3 5.5 4.1 5.1
20.0 14.0 41.6 21.3 15.8 5.8 10.2 8.1 9.6 8.9 4.3 12.8 10.0
2.5 14.0 14.8 22.0 15.2 10.6 32.4 31.6 20.6 17.0 23.6 12.5 19.2
5.9 37.5 21.9 36.0 22.5 19.4 33.4 25.4 33.2 20.6 19.8 24.8 23.9
44.1 16.3 6.8 6.4 31.9 33.4 20.9 21.9 25.0 30.0 33.3 39.5 30.9
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Note:
Calculated from APEC model data base derived from GTAP data (Hertel, 1996).
6
Aggregationof individualeconomiesintoregionsfor use in the modelinvolvednettingout trade among the combinedeconomies,so that thesedata willnot matchdata from other statisticalsourceson world trade volumes.9 Overall,tradeamongthe APECregionsin the modelaccountsfor 70 percentof totaltrade, with the rest of the world representingthe rest. Data presentedin Table 3 also reveal sizeabledifferencesin structure and internationalcomparative advantage among ASEAN, China, the Asian NICs, and industrialcountries such as Japan, the United States, and the European Union. ASEANdevelopingeconomiesand China are more primary-intensive than the industrialcountries, and their manufacturingsectors, especiallythe labor-intensivetextile and apparel products, are relatively larger than in the advanced countries (with a smaller service sector). Japan, the EuropeanUnion, and the United Statesare dominatedby a large service sector and sizeable intermediateand capital goodssectors. Thesethree sectorsaccountfor 85-90 percent of outputand value addedin theseeconomies,as comparedto only around60 percent in the ASEANeconomies(and even less in China). Trade shares are consistentwith intuitionabout internationalcomparativeadvantage. For example, labor-intensivetextilesand apparelconstitute24 percentof China's total exports, 15 percentfor Indonesia, and 12 percentfor Thailandand Philippines.Capitaland skill-intensivemachineryand equipmentin turn make up 37-43percentof total importsfor thesesame economies. The pattern is reversedfor Japan and the UnitedStates; more than 90 percent of Japaneseexports occur in the intermediate,capital good, and service sectors. Korea and Taiwanare in between, with a lower textile export share but a much higher machineryexportshare thanChina and ASEAN,but a higher textile exportshare and a lower machinery and equipmentexport share than Japan and the UnitedStates. Singapore& Malaysiahas the highesttrade dependence,importing and exportingnearly 40 percent of total output. The exports/outputand imports/absorptionratios for this amalgamatedeconomyprovide a strikingillustrationof the empirical importanceof two-waytrade: in nine of twelvesectors, Singapore & Malaysia export more than one-thirdof sectoral output; in six of these nine export sectors, they also importmorethan one-thirdof total demand. Fifteenyears of market-orientedeconomicreform have also led Chinato becomemore stronglylinkedwith the worldeconomy,especiallyin manufacturingproducts. In 1992,China(includingHongKong)exportedmore than one-halfof its labor-intensiveappareland light manufacturingoutput, and importedone-thirdof its machineryand equipmentfrom abroad. The United Statesand Japanare relativelymore self-sufficient,althoughJapan's poor natural resource base leads it to rely on other countries for nearly half of its total mineral and energy use, while it exportednearly onefourth of its total machineryand equipmentproductionto foreignmarkets. Althoughthe UnitedState has relativelylow trade dependency,at the sectorallevel it exports significantshares of light manufacturing and capitalgoodsoutput,and importslarge amountsof apparel,machineryand equipment,and energyand mineralproducts.
9 For example, the figures for China exclude the enormous trade flows between China and Hong Kong; similarly, the rest of world figures include only trade between the rest of world and other regions in our model, not among the many countries lumped together in our rest of world aggregate.
7
Table 3: Structure of Production, Factor Income, Demand and Trade Patterns for APEC Regions: 1992 Factor Composition of Value Added (percent)
Ratios (percent) Sectoral Comoosition (percentl Output (1)
Value added Final demand (3) (2)
Imports (4)
Exports (5)
Exports/ Output (6)
Imports/ Absorption (7)
Land (8)
Labor (9)
Capital (10)
Total (11)
22.2 19.4 16.6 9.9 25.2 32.6 50.2 27.5 25.0 13.8 29.9 40.8 28.9
46.1 41.9 83.4 36.0 74.8 67.4 49.8 72.5 75.0 86.2 70.1 59.2 57.5
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
11.7 14.7 13.2 11.7 15.1 20.3 34.8 14.2 20.7 13.4 24.6 25.3 21.5
61.5 56.7 86.8 35.3 84.9 79.7 65.2 85.8 79.3 86.6 75.4 74.7 73.6
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
52.2 221. 55.0 33.0 33.3 32.4 41.6 61.0 48.0 42.5 27.5 44.4 40.7 41.6
12.2
100.0 0. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Indonesia Grains Other Agriculture Forestry & Fishery Energy & Minerals Food Processing Textiles Apparel Other Light Manufacturing Wood & Paper Basic Intermediates Machinery & Equipment Services Total
7.8 7.8 2.9 7.8 5.1 4.7 1.1 1.3 3.8 8.8 3.8 45.0 100.0
7.2 11.8 4.4 12.3 2.1 1.5 0.3 0.8 2.7 7.0 2.1 47.6 100.0
8.0 6.7 1.7 0.0 7.3 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.7 2.8 10.8 60.4 100.0
1.9 2.8 0.1 4.3 2.5 4.2 0.0 2.3 2.1 21.6 41.3 16.8 100.0
0.0 5.7 2.9 29.5 4.1 7.0 8.1 6.2 12.9 10.5 5.0 8.1 100.0
0.1 12.8 17.6 65.8 13.7 24.7 90.4 80.6 58.4 20.8 23.0 3.1 16.9
3.4 5.5 0.7 19.0 7.3 13.7 9.9 50.9 15.8 30.2 60.4 5.3 14.5
31.7 38.7
Thailand Grains Other Agriculture Forestry & Fishery Energy & Minerals Food Processing Textiles Apparel Other Light Manufacturing Wood & Paper Basic Intermediates Machinery & Equipment Services Total
4.0 5.3 2.4 2.2 9.2 4.4 4.0 2.9 2.4 7.9 7.2 47.8 100.0
4.3 6.8 3.5 3.4 6.2 2.6 2.3 3.0 1.8 4.7 4.9 56.5 100.0
1.4 3.3 1.9 0.0 9.0 1.0 4.0 1.6 1.0 3.1 20.6 53.1 100.0
0.4 2.1 2.7 7.5 2.3 2.9 0.0 2.5 2.7 24.1 43.1 9.6 100.0
3.7 5.9 5.1 3.1 10.5 3.4 9.2 10.4 2.2 5.4 22.9 18.2 100.0
17.1 20.7 38.9 25.7 21.2 13.6 35.4 65.5 17.0 12.6 59.0 7.1 18.3
2.2 9.3 25.8 45.3 6.2 13.2 0.7 29.9 21.4 38.5 58.4 4.5 19.7
26.8 28.6
Philippines Grains Other Agriculture Forestry & Fishery Energy & Minerals Food Processing Textiles Apparel Otber Light Manufacturing Wood & Paper Basic Intermediates Machinery & Equipment Services Total
6.7 67 8.1 4.9 1.3 13.5 1.2 2.0 1.1 2.3 8.5 5.0 45.3 100.0
6.5 65 11.2 7.1 1.3 9.4 0.7 1.1 0.8 1.4 3.4 2.1 55.0 100.0
4.1 4116 5.3 5.1 0.3 17.6 0.7 1.2 0.6 1.0 3.5 8.7 51.8 100.0
0.2
4.0
8.1 8.0 45.5 9.6 12.2 70.8 80.3 23.6 12.7 75.5 13.6 17.0
2.4 2.2 69.6 7.3 41.2 11.7 50.8 15.8 28.4 70.8 5.3 16.8
35.6 3. 41.0
1.6 1.1 0.6 12.7 5.6 6.0 0.5 2.0 2.0 18.2 37.2 12.6 100.0
0.0 000240 3.7 2.2 3.5 7.4 0.9 11.1 4.9 3.2 6.1 21.7 35.2 100.0
8
54.1
13.6
53.0
4.9
39.9
7.5
4.0 67.0 26.7 67.6 58.4 39.0 52.0 57.5 72.5 55.6 59.3 50.9
Table 3 (continued) FactorCompositionof ValueAdded (percent)
Ratios(percent) SectoralComposition(percent) Output
ValueaddedFinaldemand Imports
Exports
Exports/ Imports/ Absorption Output
Land
Labor
Capital
Total
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
Singaporeand Malaysit Grains OtherAgriculture Forestry& Fishery Energyk Miterals Processing FoodE Textiles Apparel OtherLight Manufacturing Wood& Paper BasicIntermediates Machinery& Equipment Services Total
1.7 2.3 2.0 3.3 4.9 0.9 1.2 2.6 3.3 11.3 26.2 40.2 100.0
2.7 4.2 4.6 7.2 2.0 0.3 0.6 1.2 3.0 8.6 12.8 52.8 100.0
1.6 2.8 1.3 0.2 5.9 2.1 1.1 2.2 1.4 4.7 20.5 56.1 100.0
0.7 1.6 0.5 6.4 3.2 3.6 0.8 4.0 1.8 15.8 45.7 16.0 100.0
0.0 1.1 2.4 4.3 4.9 1.1 2.7 4.4 3.7 14.5 41.9 19.0 100.0
0.0 16.6 44.3 47.6 37.7 47.7 61.9 66.3 42.8 50.3 63.6 18.6 38.9
13.5 24.3 15.3 59.5 29.0 72.2 39.8 62.4 27.3 51.5 64.1 16.2 38.9
35.5 36.5
21.7 22.4 15.3 8.0 27.8 63.2 53.2 33.2 51.6 21.2 42.6 49.3 39.1
42.8 41.1 84.7 36.8 72.2 36.8 46.8 66.8 48.4 78.8 57.4 50.7 54.4
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
China Grains Other Agriculture Forestry&Fishery Enery & Minerals Food Processing Textiles Apparel Other LightManufacturing Wood& Paper Basic Intermediates Machinery& Equipment Services Total
7.6 9.3 1.9 2.6 5.6 5.8 3.5 4.0 2.7 13.0 12.4 31.6 100.0
12.1 17.0 3.4 3.9 2.6 2.7 1.9 2.3 1.8 8.2 7.2 36.9 100.0
7.7 11.2 1.8 0.4 8.5 4.0 2.8 2.6 1.3 2.7 15.8 41.2 100.0
1.4 1.9 0.8 3.4 3.7 7.9 0.8 5.2 3.0 17.9 37.6 16.4 100.0
1.1 2.8 1.1 3.9 3.2 5.6 18.5 17.5 1.9 7.4 19.9 17.0 100.0
1.8 3.7 7.1 18.1 7.0 11.0 53.7 53.6 8.7 7.0 19.7 6.6 11.8
2.4 2.9 6.0 17.3 8.8 16.6 6.0 26.7 14.0 16.6 32.6 7.1 13.3
27.9 29.0
58.2 59.0 80.7 34.4 24.4 42.5 54.6 46.8 45.9 32.5 43.0 58.3 53.2
14.0 12.0 19.3 26.2 75.6 57.5 45.4 53.2 54.1 67.5 57.0 41.7 37.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Korea and Taiwan Grains Other Agriculture Forestry& Fishery Energy& Minerals Food Processing Textiles Apparel Other Light Manufacturing Wood& Paper Basic Intermediates Machinery&Equipment Services Total
2.3 3.5 1.2 1.5 6.7 3.6 1.4 2.7 3.0 17.2 15.2 41.6 100.0
3.5 5.5 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.8 0.8 1.9 2.2 10.6 9.8 57.8 100.0
1.8 2.9 1.2 0.5 11.0 0.5 1.6 0.8 1.0 2.2 15.0 61.3 100.0
1.2 3.0 1.0 9.0 2.7 2.4 0.4 2.3 2.7 18.2 36.1 21.1 100.0
0.0 1.2 1.2 0.2 1.6 8.1 4.7 11.7 2.3 11.3 38.5 19.1 100.0
0.1 5.8 17.7 2.5 4.0 36.7 48.2 70.6 12.5 10.9 42.1 7.6 16.5
5.6 10.4 12.9 46.1 5.5 12.4 6.7 27.2 12.2 14.0 34.7 7.1 14.1
47.2 46.0
42.3 45.3 46.4 53.3 51.7 51.9 73.6 66.5 58.5 37.5 58.3 55.8 53.1
10.5 8.8 53.6 18.7 48.3 48.1 26.4 33.5 41.5 62.5 41.7 44.2 42.3
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
9
55.2
6.5
39.4
9.8
28.0
4.6
Table 3 (continued) Ratios (percent)
Factor Composition of Value Added (percent)
Sectoral Comoosition (percent) Output (1)
Japan
Value added Final demand (2) (3)
Imports (4)
Exports (5)
Exports/ Output (6)
Imports/ Absorption (7)
Land (8)
Labor (9)
Capital (10)
Total (11)
50.0 49.8 54.7 46.5 56.6 73.5 76.9 61.8 67.0 47.1 59.1 59.9 58.8
20.5 20.3 45.3 21.3 43.4 26.5 23.1 38.2 33.0 52.9 40.9 40.1 40.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
38.3 38.0 42.1 25.3 51.0 78.6 82.4 63.8 69.8 69.5 78.4 64.9 64.7
42.1 41.9 57.9 29.9 49.0 21.4 17.6 36.2 30.2 30.5 21.6 35.1 33.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
67.7 68.0 26.9 69.2 58.8 76.2 76.2 74.2 70.7 47.5 79.6 65.7 65.6
21.7 21.0 73.1 12.3 41.2 23.8 23.8 25.8 29.3 52.5 20.4 34.3 33.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.3 1.3 0.7 0.8 5.6 1.0 0.9 1.1 3.7 10.5 15.7 57.3 100.0
1.4 1.8 0.8 0.8 2.4 0.6 0.5 0.8 2.7 6.5 12.3 69.3 100.0
0.7 0.8 0.3 0.0 7.8 0.4 1.8 1.2 1.2 2.2 14.9 68.7 100.0
1.3 2.8 4.2 15.5 5.5 1.4 2.9 3.5 3.4 11.3 14.4 33.9 100.0
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.9 0.2 5.6 0.8 10.2 62.3 18.1 100.0
0.0 0.4 1.1 1.8 0.4 11.2 1.2 30.3 1.3 5.7 23.2 1.9 5.9
4.0 8.6 20.6 48.0 4.2 6.6 12.5 17.5 4.1 4.8 5.1 2.7 4.6
29.5 29.9
Grains Other Agriculture Forestry & Fishery Energy&Minerals Food Processing Textiles Apparel Other Light Manufacturing Wood & Paper Basic Intermediates Machinery & Equipment Services Total
0.5 1.6 0.4 2.4 4.4 0.8 0.7 0.5 3.9 8.8 11.0 65.1 100.0
0.5 1.1 0.3 2.8 2.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 3.1 5.1 9.0 74.4 100.0
0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.4 1.5 1.1 1.9 4.4 11.2 73.6 100.0
0.0 1.4 0.8 8.4 2.7 1.3 4.8 7.2 3.8 11.2 41.0 17.3 100.0
2.0 2.4 1.0 1.6 3.8 1.2 0.7 2.4 3.7 12.2 42.4 26.5 100.0
22.9 8.6 15.4 3.9 5.0 9.2 6.0 27.6 5.5 7.9 22.1 2.3 5.7
1.3 5.6 13.6 18.4 3.8 10.3 30.0 52.3 5.9 7.8 22.2 1.6 6.1
19.6 20.0
Gris EuropeanUnion European Union Grains Other Agriculture Forestry & Fishery Energy & Minerals Food Processing Textiles Apparel Other Light Manufacturing Wood & Paper Basic Intermediates Machinery & Equipment Services Total
0.7 2.7 0.4 3.4 6.9 1.7 0.7 0.8 3.6 10.2 11.1 57.7 100.0
0.6 3.2 0.4 1.9 4.1 1.2 0.5 0.6 2.4 7.7 8.7 68.8 100.0
0.2 0.9 0.2 0.2 8.1 1.7 0.9 1.2 1.9 4.0 9.8 70.9 100.0
0.2 3.1 0.9 11.0 3.3 1.9 4.0 4.6 4.9 10.9 27.7 27.5 100.0
0.3 0.8 0.2 2.0 4.5 2.4 1.7 3.4 2.7 15.5 34.4 32.1 100.0
9.3 2.5 3.7 3.6 4.8 8.8 15.4 26.6 4.9 9.4 20.0 3.6 6.5
1.8 7.2 13.6 18.5 3.2 7.7 30.0 33.6 8.9 7.4 17.3 3.3 6.8
10.6 11.0
Grains Other Agriculture Forestry & Fishery Energy & Minerals Food Processing Textiles Apparel Other Light Manufacturing Wood & Paper Basic Intemnediates Machinery & Equipment Services Total
UnitedSrw.es
10
32.2
1.2
44.8
1.6
18.5
0.8
Table 4: Sectoral Exports, Imports, and Net Trade Flows and Trade Dependence in APEC Model Regions (BillionUS$) Indonesia
Thailand
Philippines
Singapore & Malaysia
China
Korea & Taiwan
Japan
USA
EU
E:eports: Grains Other Agriculture Forestry & Fishery Energy & Minerals Food Processing Textiles Apparel Other Light Manufacturing Wood & Paper Basic Intermediates Machinery & Equipment Services Total
0.03 2.25 1.17 11.64 1.60 2.75 3.14 2.45 5.09 4.17 1.99 3.19 39.46
1.39 2.23 1.90 1.17 3.97 1.28 3.48 3.91 0.83 2.02 8.63 6.86 37.67
0.01 0.64 0.38 0.60 1.27 0.15 1.93 0.84 0.54 1.05 3.72 6.04 17.19
0.0 1.19 2.56 4.57 5.21 1.18 2.91 4.63 3.96 15.39 44.29 20.09 105.97
1.61 3.90 1.52 5.53 4.52 7.83 26.12 24.78 2.73 10.52 28.14 24.08 141.27
0.04 2.39 2.42 0.43 3.17 15.98 9.36 22.78 4.47 22.01 75.07 37.22 195.34
0.0 0.34 0.58 0.96 1.47 7.98 0.74 22.97 3.46 41.96 256.43 74.67 411.58
11.70 13.81 5.51 9.27 22.17 7.08 4.03 14.12 21.54 7029 244.44 152.56 576.51
2.30 6.18 1.73 14.37 32.99 17.24 12.27 24.89 19.80 113.49 251.92 234.83 732.01
Imports: Grains Other Agriculture Forestry & Fishery Energy & Minerals Food Processing Textiles Apparel Other Light Manufacturing Wood & Paper Basic Intermediates Machinery & Equipment Services Toual
0.62 0.93 0.04 1.42 0.81 1.35 0.03 0.76 0.69 7.05 13.50 5.49 32.69
0.15 0.92 1.20 3.29 1.01 1.29 0.04 1.08 1.20 10.58 18.92 4.22 43.91
0.28 0.18 0.10 2.18 0.96 1.03 0.08 0.33 0.35 3.12 6.37 2.15 17.13
0.71 1.63 0.54 6.66 3.34 3.81 0.83 4.14 1.92 16.58 47.78 16.70 104.63
2.15 3.05 1.27 5.28 5.84 12.40 1.18 8.19 4.73 28.10 59.16 25.85 157.22
2.02 4.92 1.68 14.71 4.44 3.91 0.61 370 4.37 29.93 59 28 34.66 164.24
4.34 8.92 13.42 49.97 17.64 4.44 9.34 11.39 10.89 36.39 46.33 10940 322.47
0.55 8.96 4.76 51.68 16.92 8.16 29.66 44.27 23.50 69.36 253.90 106.86 618.60
1.28 23.94 7.06 84.70 25.12 14.93 30.53 35.63 37.81 83.97 213.55 211.69 770.18
Net Trade (Exports- Imports) Grains Other Agriculture Forestry & Fishery Energy & Minerals Food Processing Textiles Apparel Other Light Manufacturing Wood& Paper Basic intermediates Machinery & Equipment Services Total
-0.59 1.32 1.13 10.23 0.80 1.40 3.11 1.69 4.39 -2.89 -11.52 -2.30 6.77
1.23 1.31 0.70 -2.12 2.96 -0.02 3.45 2.82 -0.37 -8.57 -10.29 2.64 -6.24
-0.27 0.46 0.28 -1.58 0.31 -0.87 1.84 0.51 0.19 -2.06 -2.65 3.89 0.05
-0.71 -0.44 2.02 -2.08 1.87 -2.63 2.08 0.49 2.04 -1.18 -3.49 3.39 1.34
-0.54 0.85 0.24 0.25 -1.32 -4.57 24.94 16.58 -2.00 -17.59 -31.02 -1.78 -15.94
-1.99 -2.54 0.74 -14.27 -1.27 12.07 8.75 19.08 0.10 -7.92 15.79 2.56 31.10
-4.33 -8.57 -12.84 -49.01 -16.17 3.54 -8.60 11.58 -7.43 5.57 210.10 -34.73 89.12
11.15 4.85 0.74 -42.41 5.24 -1.09 -25.64 -30.15 -1.96 0.94 -9.46 45.70 -42.09
1.03 -17.76 -5.33 -70.33 7.87 2.32 -18.26 -10.73 -18.01 29.52 38.38 23.14 -38.17
11
Table 4 summarizesthe sectoral net trade flows for the regions in the APEC model. The final line showsthat trade surplus(+) or deficit(-). Japan generatesa $89bsurplus,matchedlargelyby the deficits in the US (-$42b)and EU (-$38b). Amongthe developingcountries,only Chinaand Thailandhave notable deficits, while Indonesiashows a $7b trade surplus. From a sectoral perspective, amongthe advanced countries,mineralsand energyare the major net importsector. Japan generates an enormousnet export ($210b) in the capital goods sector, while the US has the biggest surplus in services and agriculture. Indonesiaexports substantialenergy and minerals, and importscapital goods; China exports apparel and light manufacturing,and importsintermediatesand capital goods. The data on trade and production structure are consistent with intuition based on conventional internationaltrade theory. At one extreme,China and ASEANare major competitorsin labor-intensive nondurable manufacturedexports and an importantcurrent and future importer of capital/technologyintensiveproducts for their industrializationprogram. At the other extreme,Japan, the EU, and the US are major suppliersof capital/technology-intensive goodsand major importersof labor-intensiveconsumer products. AsianNIEsare an intermediatecase betweenthe two extremes. They are importantsuppliers of all manufactured goods to China and ASEAN4, and growing demanders and suppliers of technology/capital-intensiveproducts from Japan, EU, and the United States, while still remaining importantsuppliersof labor-intensivegoods to industrialcountries. Most general equilibriumanalyses of regional economicliberalizationfocus on the removal of ad valorem equivalentprice distortionsagainst imports that arise from existing trade barriers and other sources. This is also the primary focus of the simulationsconductedin this paper, since the pattern and degree of protectionare importantdeterminantsof the impactsof trade liberalization. The larger the initial distortion, the greater the responseto a particular policychange. Table 5 presentsad valoremimportprotection(tariffplus NTB)ratesfor each region by sector, along with other sectoral taxes and subsidieson exports and production. While the GTAP data base contains detailedtariff information,this was compiledprior to the conclusionof the Uruguay Roundnegotiations. The primary sourcefor our tariff data is informationobtainedby the World Bank followingthe Uruguay Round from the GATT on the specifictariff commitmentsmade by each participant. After reconciliation of this informationto the sector and regional aggregationavailablein our model data, the result for each region is a set of sectoral tariff rates by origin (althoughonly the average from all sources is shown in Table 5).'O
1 ' Becauseinformationon tariffs for Taiwan and China was not availablefrom the GATT, the earlier GTAP rates were used for these countries.
12
Table 5: Sectoral Tariffs, Export Taxes, and Production Taxes (Percentad valorem) Indonesia
Thailand
Philippines
0.5 62.8 18.9 0.6 21.8 33.9 43.2 19.0 10.3 6.8 16.2 12.7
8.5 47.9 38.1 17.6 46.4 61.4 79.4 44.7 26.6 27.6 39.6 31.9
10.0 34.4 12.1 10.7 24.7 39.2 49.4 35.4 30.8 19.8 22.2 19.1
Production Taxes(+) and Subsidies(-): -1.8 Grains Other Agriculture -1.7 Forestry & Fishery 0.7 0.6 Energy&Minerals FoodProcessing 7.2 Textiles 1.6 20.7 Apparel 8.7 Other Light Manufacturing 2.6 Wood & Paper -5.5 Basicintermediates Machinery& Equipment 2.3 Services 2.3 1.1 Total
-0.3 -0.3 1.9 8.0 14.6 2.2 5.5 5.0 3.2 7.8 9.5 2.6 4.3
1.5 2.4 4.2 16.3 4.9 2.4 4.8 10.5 2.7 11.8 9.9 3.5 4.4
InrportTanffs and NTBs: Grains Other Agriculture Forestry& Fishery Energy& Minerals Food Processing Textiles Apparel Other Light Manufacturing Wood & Paper BasicIntenrediates Machinery & Equipment Total
Export Tares (+) and Subsidies(-): Grains Grains Other Agriculture Forestry & Fishery Energy& Minerals FoodProcessing 4.2 Textiles 30.4 Apparel Other Light Manufacturing Wood & Paper 0.1 BasicIntermediates Machinery& Equipment Services Total 2.7
4.6 16.6 0.0
4.7 27.2
0.2 1.7
3.1
China
Korea & Taiwan
Japan
0.3 0.7 1.9 0.2 3.3 7.0 5.8 3.5 3.7 4.9 3.5 3.0
0.6 11.4 8.9 5.0 10.6 20.2 8.5 13.0 10.3 9.9 13.0 10.2
309.8 68.0 6.9 4.1 29.1 10.5 15.4 11.3 7.4 9.0 13.5 14.4
327.3 31.8 3.4 0.7 113.7 10.4 61.6 8.2 4.1 87.0 35.2 29.0
4.8 33.2 0.2 0.4 11.3 9.8 20.8 7.5 2.1 8.6 12.1 8.5
69.3 40.8 8.1 0.2 23.9 11.7 13.2 5.6 4.8 9.7 9.0 7.1
0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.8 1.1 0.7 1.4 1.0
2.2 2.7 7.6 8.4 11.8 7.7 12.3 14.5 9.6 12.7 10.4 6.7 7.9
-16.1 -14.8 0.2 0.2 14.5 1.2 2.8 4.2 1.6 1.7 3.7 3.6 2.6
-6.5 -24.8 2.5 2.7 10.6 2.3 1.9 5.2 1.7 6.3 3.9 3.2 3.5
-40.4 4.7 2.5 7.5 4.2 1.0 0.6 1.7 1.3 3.6 1.6 6.0 4.7
-4.8 -28.7 -0.5 0.1 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 0.3
-8.2 -0.0
-200.9 -22.2 -0.1 2.0 -14.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 4.9 0.9 -0.3 -0.4
Singapore& Malaysia
0.8 15.3 7.4 10.2 6.5 6.1 30.8 0.3 4.5 2.6 0.9 1.8 3.3
0.1 -1.3 6.3 18.2
1.4 14.4
0.2 0.9 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.1
0.0 0.6 1.4
3.8
0.9
0.9
c
