Analyzing the Trade Flows for BRICS

** Assistant Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Kanpur * Undergraduate Student, IIT Kanpur

Analyzing The Trade Flows For Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS)

Arshpreet Singh*, Rajesh Dhania*, Rohit Upasani* and Somesh K Mathur**

Abstract:

This paper attempts to investigate the bilateral trade flows between the countries of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India,

China, South Africa by analyzing various trade flow indices namely Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA), Trade

Intensity, Trade Complementarity, Export Share, Market Share, Regional Orientation and Competitiveness through

data collection and rigorous evaluation of the trade flow charts. The time period for which the trade indicators have

been calculated is 2001-2010. The data for the calculation of these trade indices has been collected from World

Integrated Trade Solution (WITS) Database and UNESCAP. A broad definition of a trade indicator is that it is an

index or a ratio that can be used to describe and assess the state of trade flows and trade patterns of a particular

economy or economies and can be used to monitor these flows and patterns over time or across economies/regions.

BRIC still remains a non-formal group but there are tendencies for further cooperation in various fields. We are going

to discuss the idea of forming BRICS as a union under a preferential trading agreement (PTA) and its implications for

India. Thus, we discuss the methodology for preparing a negative list (In an international agreement, a list of those

items, entities, products, etc. to which the agreement will not apply, the commitment being to apply the agreement to

everything else) of trade that is the items which if imported would result in a loss in welfare for both the parties under

the agreement mainly focused on India. Our analysis shows that there is a general increase in the values of almost all

the indices for most of the countries in the BRICS group. This advocates the setting up of a preferential trading

agreement (PTA) between the BRICS countries so that the area thrives as a major economic power in context of the

rest of the world. Further, the RCA indices for various commodities lead to the creation of negative lists of trade for

all the BRICS countries.

Keywords: BRICS, Revealed Comparative Advantage, Trade Intensity, Trade Complementarity, Export Share, Market

Share, Regional Orientation, Competitiveness, WITS, UNESCAP, Preferential Trading Agreement

Introduction:

It has been nearly ten years since the analysts of Goldman Sachs introduced the forecast for BRIC (Brazil, Russia,

India, and China) emerging markets and pointed out their potential for future economic growth. It is obvious that

BRIC countries have been increasing their economic as well as geopolitical power especially after the world economic

recession since their economies recovered at a much faster rate than the developed countries. Nevertheless, each of the

countries aims to remain economic/political power, at least regionally, thus making it difficult to create close relations.

BRIC still remains a non-formal group but there are arising tendencies for further cooperation in various fields already

stimulated by three summits. BRICs‟ rapid economic growth is based on their specialization enhanced by large

endowments of factors of production with a comparative advantage which combined could spur their mutual

cooperation and development. BRIC economies are considered highly integrated in global trade. Their trade with the

world has increased more than five times since 1999 and their share of world trade in the past decade nearly doubled,

currently being around 14%. Moreover, BRIC to BRIC annual growth rate of trade is about 32%. It is a mark of the

shift in the global economic power away from the G7 economies in terms of the international trade and policies. Thus

this demographic diversification would generate superior risk-adjusted returns for long-term global economy thus

capturing emerging markets of Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America.

INDIA’S RISING GROWTH POTENTIAL

From a long-term perspective, the post-industrial economic decline of India (and China) is a historical aberration,

driven to some extent by a lack of openness. After independence in 1947, India followed inward-looking and state-

interventionist policies that shackled the economy through regulations, and severely restricted trade and economic

freedom. The result was decades of low growth. Since 2003, India has been one of the fastest-growing major

economies, leading to rapid increases in per capita income, demand and integration with the global economy this is

due to the structural increase in productivity (by which we mean total factor productivity, or the manner in which all

inputs are combined to achieve more output) has surged. For the economy to sustain these high rates, the key

underlying assumption is that the government will continue to implement growth-supportive policies. A turnaround in

manufacturing productivity since 2003 has been crucial. The proximate cause is the increase in efficiency of private-

sector firms in the face of growing competition. The gradual opening up of the economy introduced a competitive

dynamic, which forced the private sector to restructure during the relative slowdown in growth and corporate

profitability during 1997-2002. The re-allocation of land, capital and especially labour from low-productivity

agriculture to high-productivity industry and services is an essential dynamic behind sustained productivity growth.

Critical to sustaining growth: Financial deepening, Openness to trade, Rural-to-urban migration, Capital deepening,

education and environment.

Economists use statistical data and indicators in all branches of economics. Sometimes indicators are used as leading

indicators (when they have predictive power), sometimes to describe what has happened in the past (lagging

indicators). Indicators are the result of using statistical data and as such are the most available, or often the only

available, input for so-called evidence-based policy making.

Trade indicators are used in the analysis of international or foreign trade, at the national, regional or global level.

Indicators are grouped in the following categories:

Trade and economy (trade dependence index, marginal propensity to import, import penetration, export

propensity, trade per capita).

Trade performance (growth rate of trade (exports/imports), normalized trade balance, export/import

coverage).

Direction of trade (trade intensity, intra-regional trade shares, trade entropy).

Sectoral structure of trade (major export category, index of export diversification, revealed comparative

advantage, intra-industry trade, trade overlap, complementarity index, export similarity index, competitiveness

index).

Protection (average applied/bound tariffs, weighted average tariffs, dispersion of tariffs, effective rates of

protection).

Review of Literature:

BRICs was coined by Jim O‟Neil in the global Economics Paper „Building Better Global economies BRICs‟

published on November 30, 2001 published by Goldman Sachs Inc. This shows the rise in the equity market and a

combined 15% GDP of the global economy contributed by the BRICs. A work on the rise in the growth potential of

India indicates a chance for India‟s debt capital market. The earlier state-interventionists policies have now given way

to openness with globalization leading to structural increase due to productivity growth thus increasing the world

demand growth.

Of greatest relevance to the data collection is the work done by Mia Mikic and John Gilbert. This is a handbook of

commonly used trade indicators and indices. It lists a whole variety of trade indicators carrying varied utilities and

also discusses how to calculate such indicators. It discusses the relevance of these widely used indices in the process

of policy making.

Another paper from Goldman Sachs titled „Dreaming With BRICs: The Path to 2050‟ by DominicWilson and Roopa

Purushothaman maps out GDP growth, income per capita and currency movements in the BRICs economies until

2050.

Another paper in this regard is written by Dominic Wilson, Alex L. Kelston and Swarnali Ahmed titled 'Is this BRIC's

Decade?‟. The last decade saw the BRICs make their mark on the global economic landscape. Over the past 10 years

they have contributed over a third of world GDP growth and grown from one-sixth of the world economy to almost a

quarter (in PPP terms). Looking forward to the coming decade, we expect this trend to continue and become even

more pronounced.

Trade adjustment study done by Veena Jha gives a broad overview of trade reforms based on an evaluation of various

macroeconomic factors, these study examines the impact of trade liberalization on a number of performance indicators

in the manufacturing sector, such as output, labour productivity, total factor productivity, employment and wages .

The paper on Trade Cooperation Indicators: Development of BRIC Bilateral Trade Flows by Tereza De Castro studies

the evolution of trade intensity among BRIC within the period 1995-2009. Calculations are based on the trade

intensity index as well as with a closer look at the trade complementary index.

„Trade in Goods and Services between the EU and the BRICs‟, written by Peter Havlik, Olga Pindyuk and Roman

Stöllinger, deals with the analysis of the global position of the EU and the BRICs in world trade (using the IMF DOT

and UN COMTRADE databases) and moves subsequently to a more detailed analysis of regional (individual EU

countries‟ trade with the BRICs), commodity and industry-specific trade specialization patterns, using the Eurostat

Comext database.

Peter Havlik and Roman Stöllinger in their paper, „EU‟s trade with the BRICs and competitiveness challenges‟,

analyze the external trade in goods between the EU and the BRICs. We start with the global position of the EU and the

BRICs in world trade, and move subsequently to a more detailed analysis of regional, commodity and industry-

specific specialization patterns of EU-BRICs trade.

Methodology:

We have calculated some of the indicators pertaining to the regional trade between the BRICS countries i.e. Brazil,

Russia, India, China and South Africa. The measures of changing trend patterns in trade among BRIC countries are

applied. Data series from 2001 to 2009 were selected for measurement of Trade indices. These trade indicators would

inform us on the level of and changes in the regional pattern or direction of trade flows. Also, these indicators reflect

directly or indirectly the competitive ability of a country‟s or region‟s economic sectors or activities.

The following trade indicators so as to accomplish our targets:

Revealed Comparative Advantage

Trade Complementarity

Trade Intensity

Export Share

Regional Market Share

Competitiveness

Regional Orientation Index

Revealed Comparative Advantage

• Revealed comparative advantage indices (RCA) use the trade pattern to identify the sectors in which an

economy has a comparative advantage, by comparing the country of interest‟s trade profile with the world

average.

• The RCA index is defined as the ratio of the share of a country‟s total exports of the commodity of interest in

the total exports and the share of world exports of the same commodity in total world exports.

Where s is the country of interest, d and w are the set of all countries in the world, i is the sector of interest, x is the

commodity export flow and X is the total export flow.


• The complementarity index measures the degree to which the export pattern of one country matches the

import pattern of another. A high degree of complementarity is assumed to indicate more favourable prospects

for a successful trade arrangement. Changes over time may tell us whether the trade profiles are becoming

more or less compatible.

• The sum of the absolute value of the difference between the import category shares and the export shares of

the countries under study, divided by two. The index is converted to percentage form.

Where d is the importing country of interest, s is the exporting country of interest, w is the set of all countries in the

world, i is the set of industries, x is the commodity export flow, X is the total export flow, m the commodity import

flow, and M the total import flow.

Trade Intensity

• This index tells us whether or not a region exports more (as a percentage) to a given destination than the world

does on average.

• The trade intensity statistic is the ratio of two export shares. The numerator is the share of the destination of

interest in the exports of the region under study. The denominator is the share of the destination of interest in

the exports of the world as a whole.

Where s is the set of countries in the source, d is the destination, w and y represent the countries in the world, and X is

the bilateral flow of total exports.

Export Share

• The export share tells us how important a particular export partner is in terms of the overall export profile of

an economy. Changes in the export share over time may indicate that the economies in question are becoming

more integrated.

• The export share is the percentage of exports from the region under study (the source) to the region of interest

(the destination) in the total exports of the source region.

Where s is the set of countries in the source, d is the set of countries in the destination, w is the set of countries in

the world, and X is the bilateral total export flow.

Regional Market Share

• The regional market share statistic tells us the relative importance of the members of a trade bloc in the intra-

regional trade of the bloc.

• It is defined as the proportion of total exports of a given member(s) of a trading bloc to other members of the

bloc, in the total intra-regional exports of the bloc.

Where s is the set of source countries under study, b and d are the set of members of the trade bloc under study (the

destinations), and X is the bilateral flow of export from the source to the destination.

Competitiveness

• Competitiveness in trade is broadly defined as the capacity of an industry to increase its share in international

markets at the expense of its rivals.

• It is the share of total exports of a given product from the region under study in total world exports of the

same product.

Where s is the country of interest, d and w are the set of all countries in the world, I is the sector of interest, and x is

the commodity export flow. In words, it is the share of country s‟s exports of good i in the total world exports of good

i.

Regional Orientation

• The regional orientation index tells us whether exports of a particular product from the region under study to a

given destination are greater than exports of the same product to other destinations.

• It is the ratio of the share of a country‟s exports of a given product to the region of interest in total exports to

the region and the share of exports of the product to other countries in total exports to other countries.

Where s is the country of interest, d is the set of countries in the regional bloc, w is the set of all countries not in the

bloc, i is the sector of interest, x is the commodity export flow, and X is the total export flow.

Data Sources:

The United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database (COMTRADE), the International Monetary Fund (IMF)

Direction of Trade statistics, the World Trade Database (WTD) maintained by Statistics Canada, and the GTAP

database from Purdue University, WITS (World Integrated Trade Solution) by the World Bank (WB), the United

Nations Statistical Division (UNSD), the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the UNCTAD Handbook of Statistics,

the International Trade Centre (ITC).

Data Analysis:

Analysis for RCA

From Fig 1.1, we can see that RCA of Russia in arms and ammunition for the year 1999, 2000 was 9.14, 9.34

respectively but it remained low (below 1) for the years 2001-2010. South Africa has a comparative advantage

over other countries but it is gradually falling. On the other hand, Brazil‟s RCA has been constantly rising over the

past four years.

Fig 1.2 shows that the RCA of India has more than doubled over the last decade. As we can see, South Africa and

Brazil have a visible comparative advantage over the other countries of the group. China, on the other hand, has a

very low RCA index but it has an RCA index above 2.9 for the years 1998-2007 for the production of railway,

tramway, locomotives and parts.

As depicted by Fig 1.3, Brazil‟s RCA has remained almost the same for this period i.e. 12. India on the other hand

has witnessed a constant decline in its RCA index for the same time period from 10.1 in 2001 to 3.8 in 2009.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 1.1 Arms and ammunition

RCA(Brazil) RCA(China)

RCA(India) RCA(Russia)

RCA(South Africa)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Fig 1.2 Vehicles other than railways, tramways etc



RCA(South Africa)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Fig 1.3 Coffee, Tea, Mati and Spices



RCA(South Africa)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Fig 1.4 Cotton



RCA(South Africa)

Fig 1.4, on the other hand conveys that India, China and Brazil all have an RCA index above 1. India has a very

high revealed comparative advantage ranging between 6 and 9.

From Fig 1.5, India has a comparative advantage in the production of drugs and pharmaceutical products over the

other countries in BRICS although its less than the index value of 1.

From Fig 1.6, South Africa and India have a relative comparative advantage over the other countries with their RCA

indices ranging between 6 and 10 over the time period ranging between 2001 and 2010.

Fig 1.7 clearly shows that all the countries in BRICS excluding china have RCA indices above 1. South Africa

enjoys a greater advantage over the others with an RCA index around 4. India has maintained an RCA index value

of just above 1 for this time period.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 1.5 Pharmaceutical products



RCA(South Africa)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 1.6 Pearls, precious stones, metals



RCA(South Africa)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 1.7 Iron and steel



RCA(South Africa)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 1.8 Mineral fuels, oils and distillation products



RCA(South Africa)

Fig 1.8 conveys the fact that Brazil has the greatest RCA index among these countries with an index value above 5

for most of these years. India has expanded its RCA index to above 1 for the years 2006-2009.

From Fig 1.9, China has the highest RCA index among the BRICS countries. It has enjoyed a constant increase in

the RCA index value over the past decade. Its RCA index value has almost doubled from 0.8 in 2001 to 1.5 in

2010.

Fig 1.10, on the other hand, shows that India is the only country in the group with an RCA index value above 1

and it has had gradual growth in this index value for almost all the years.

From Fig 1.11, Brazil is the only country with an RCA index above 1 but it is declining continuously over the

years. While India had an index value near 1 for the years 2001-2006, it has since witnessed a decreasing trend

with the index falling to 0.7 for the year 2009. On the other hand China has had a smooth increase in its RCA

index value from 0.6 in 2001 to 0.9 in 2009.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 1.9 Nuclear reactors, boilers, machinery



RCA(South Africa)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 1.10 Organic chemicals



RCA(South Africa)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 1.11 Rubber and articles thereof



RCA(South Africa)

0

5

10

15

20

25

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 1.12 Sugars and sugar confectionary



RCA(South Africa)

From Fig 1.12, Brazil and South Africa have their RCA indices above 1 for the whole period between 2001 and

2010. Brazil has an average RCA index greater than 15 for the present time period while South Africa has an RCA

index ranging between 2.3 to 4.9. Excluding the years 2004, 2005 and 2009, India has had an average RCA index

around 3.

Fig 1.13 suggests that Brazil, India and South Africa have their RCA indices above 1. Brazil has witnessed a

gradual increase in its RCA index over the past decade.

Fig 1.14 shows that China has a much higher RCA index in this category which ranges between 3.5 and 5.

However, its index has been declining continuously over the past ten years.

Analysis for Trade Complementarity

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 1.13 Tobacco



RCA(South Africa)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 1.14 Toys, games, sports requisites



RCA(South Africa)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 2.1 Brazil

Partner(China) Partner(India)

Partner(Russia) Partner(South Africa)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 2.2 China

Partner(Brazil) Partner(India)


Fig 2.1 shows that Brazil has a high degree of complementarity with China and it has seen a continuous rise in its

value over the past decade. The level of complementarity of Brazil has seen an increase with all the countries as

compared to the levels prevailing in 2001.

While Fig 2.2 shows that China has a high trade complementarity level with Brazil. The complementarity levels

for China with Brazil and India have seen a gradual rise over the years. China‟s complementarity with Russia

shows a general decline from the levels in 2001 while its complementarity with South Africa has witnessed a

general increase in the past few years.

Fig 2.3 shows that India‟s complementarity level with China has seen a major rise in the past decade increasing

from its value of 32.5 % in 2001 to 40.7 % in 2009. India had achieved a high degree of complementarity with

Russia during the period between 2003 and 2006 with its value touching 46 % in 2006. Afterwards, it has seen a

sharp decline in the complementarity percentage to as low as 36 % in 2009. India had previously low levels of

complementarity with Brazil and South Africa but their degrees have been rising over time.

On the other hand, Fig 2.4 shows that Russia has a high level of complementarity with China which has been

increasing continuously over the last decade. Russia has shown a general decline in its degrees of

complementarity with Brazil and South Africa over the years. Russia‟s complementarity with India, although low,

indicates a gradual rise in its level from 2001 to 2009.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 2.3 India

Partner(Brazil) Partner(China)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 2.4 Russia


Partner(India) Partner(South Africa)

Meanwhile, Fig 2.5 suggests that South Africa has a high degree of complementarity with China with its value

depicting a continuous increase since 2001. We also see a continuous growth in the complementarity level of

South Africa with India from 2001 to 2009. Its complementarity percentage with Brazil which touched a value of

42.3 % in 2006, has witnessed a constant fall since then. South Africa‟s complementarity with Russia has more or

less remained the same with 2006‟s level of 32.2 % being the exception.

Analysis for Trade Intensity

Fig 3.1 shows that the intensity of trade with India is maximal in the BRICS nations and shows a constant increase

from 2001-2010. China, Russia and South Africa have moderate intensities which do not show large variations but

in the years of recession the trade intensities have increased in comparison to trade earlier.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 2.5 South Africa


Partner(India) Partner(Russia)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 3.1 Brazil

Partner(China) Partner(India)


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 3.2 China

Partner(Brazil) Partner(India)


Fig 3.2 shows a high intensity for trade with Brazil and South Africa in 2009 from a constant increase in the latter

years. Russia had a high trade intensity value with China in the early years of the decade but has fallen from

therein while with India the trade intensity has remained constant on an average in this decade.

Fig 3.3 indicates that the Trade intensity with Russia was high in the early years of the decade but that has been

neutralized in years to come. The trade intensity is highest with South Africa in the BRICS nations and is now

constant with China in the years of 2008-2010. However the intensity had declined in the years of recession for all

the countries.

Fig 3.4 suggests that the trade intensities with all the countries show a decline from 2001-2010. In the early years

the trade had been maximized with India and Brazil. The trade with South Africa is almost negligible showing the

averseness between the nations and wiling to explore elsewhere in the economies.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 3.3 India



0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 3.4 Russia


Partner(India) Partner(South Africa)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009



Partner(India) Partner(Russia)

Fig 3.5 suggests that India has maintained a High level of trade intensity with South Africa which maximized in 2006

but due to recession it shows a decline in the coming years. The intensity is steadily increasing for the case of China

and we could predict an increase in the trade share of these trading partners. While the intensity is almost negligible

for the case of Russia indicating that Russia explores other areas of world economy far more than the African nations.

Analysis for Market Share

Fig 4.1 shows that India has shown a significant growth from almost nothing to 1.8 % from 2001 – 2008 but a

little decline during 2008-2010. South Africa showed a significant decline in market share initially but in 2004 it

also started improving its share. China had maintained an increasing growth from 0.6% to 1.3 % while Russia

hardly showed any improvement.

Fig 4.2 indicates that Brazil, India and South Africa show a positive increase in market share with china from 2%

to 10%. However, Russia maintained a constant market share of 6% with China.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 4.1 Brazil

MS China MS India MS Russia MS South Africa

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 4.2 China

MS Brazil MS India MS Russia MS South Africa

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 4.3 India

MS Brazil MS China MS Russia MS South Africa

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fig 4.4 Russia

MS Brazil MS china MS India MS South Africa

Fig 4.3 suggests that India has shown a great market share with South Africa which rises from 1.5 to 3.8 during

2000-2010 but in an uneven manner. Russia also increases its market share significantly in initial years but later

shows a heavy decline during 2003 to 2007 probably due to recession. However, China shows a continuous

improvement in market share during whole decade. Brazil‟s market share remained almost constant but rapidly

improves from 2008-2010.

From Fig 4.4, we can infer that Brazil and China both had significant market share with Russia during this decade.

Unfortunately, India shows a continuous decline in market share from 2% to 0.5%. South Africa had almost

negligible market share with Russia during 2000-2010.

From Fig 4.5, India shows a quite significant growth in market share in earlier years but later, probably due to

recession, it also declines in 2006-2010. Brazil and China maintained a constant market share and stayed where

they were in earlier years. Russia had almost negligible market share with South Africa during whole decade.

Analysis for Export Share

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


MS Brazil MS China MS India MS Russia

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2000 2005 2010 2015

Fig 5.1 Brazil

ES China

ES India

ES Russia

ES SouthAfrica

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

2000 2005 2010 2015

Fig 5.2 China

ES Brazil

ES India

ES Russia

ES SouthAfrica

From Fig 5.1, Brazil‟s export share with China has also increased thrice from 4% to 12% but it has significantly

increased in last 2 years. Then again, with other BRICS nations, it again remained constant.

Fig 5.2 indicates that among all BRICS Nations, export share of China is highest with Brazil. But it has increased in

an uneven manner. Export share with Russia, India and South Africa has remained constant during last decade.

Fig 5.3 suggests that the Export Share of India in Brazil has increased more than double in the last decade. Similarly

with China, it is increasing. However, unlike Brazil and China, India‟s export share remained almost constant with

Russia and South Africa during 2000-2010.

Fig 5.4 indicates that the Export share of Russia with Brazil has been tripled rising from 4% to 12% during the time

period of 2000-2010. While with India, South Africa and China, it almost remained same.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2000 2005 2010 2015

Axi

s Ti

tle

Axis Title

Fig 5.3 India

ES Brazil

ES China

ES Russia

ES SouthAfrica

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2000 2005 2010 2015

Fig 5.4 Russia

ES Brazil

ES China

ES India

ES SouthAfrica

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2000 2005 2010 2015


ES Brazil

ES China

ES India

ES South Africa

Fig 5.5 shows that with Brazil, its Export Share has gone up from 4% to 12%. However, it is almost constant with

China, India and Russia.

TRADE

COMPLEMENTARITY

Brazil China India Russia South Africa

Brazil -------- High TC with

a continuous

rise

Rise in TC as

compared to

values in 2001

Rise in TC as

compared to

values in 2001

Rise in TC as

compared to

values in 2001

China High TC with

a gradual rise

-------- Gradual Rise General

decline

General

increase in the

latter years.

India Low levels but

have shown an

increase in

later years

Major rise in

the past decade

--------- Rise till 2006

decline later

on

Low levels but

have shown an

increase in

later years

Russia General

decline

High TC with

a gradual

increase

Although Low

shows a

gradual rise

--------- General

decline

South Africa Constant Fall

since 2006-10

Continuous

increase since

2001

Gradual

Growth

More or less

remained the

same.

---------

TRADE

INTENSITY


Brazil -------- Moderate

Intensity which

does not show

large variations

also in

recession

Constant

Increase and

maximal

among BRICS

Nations.

Moderate

Intensity which

does not show

large variations

also in

recession

Moderate

Intensity which

does not show

large variations

also in

recession

China High TI with a

steady increase

---------- Constant on an

average from

2001-10

Initially High

TI now steep

decline

High TI with a

steady increase

India Decline in the

years of

recession

Constant on

average in

2008-10

---------- High TI earlier

now

neutralized

Maximal

among BRICS

nations

Russia Decline Maximized in

the early years

now declining

Maximized in

the early years

now declining

----------- Almost

negligible

South Africa Variable

Intensity

Steady

Increase

High Level TI

maximized in

year 2006

Almost

Negligible

---------

MARKET

SHARE


Brazil ----------- Increasing

growth

Significant

increase in MS

Hardly any

significance

Initial decline

but from 2004

it showed an

increase

China Steady increase ------- Steady increase Constant

market share of

6%

Steady increase

India MS almost

constant but

rapid increase

from 2008-10

Continuous

improvement

in the whole

decade

------- Sharp decline

during 2003-

2007

Variable

increase

Russia Significant MS Significant MS Continuous

decline in MS

-------- Almost

negligible

South Africa Maintained a

constant MS

Maintained a

constant MS

Quite

significant

growth in the

earlier years

but later

declined

Almost

negligible

--------------

EXPORT

SHARE


Brazil ------ Significant

increase in

2009-10

Almost

Invariant

Almost

Invariant

Almost

Invariant

China Maximal

among BRICS

nations but

increase in

uneven manner

---------- Almost

Invariant

Almost

Invariant

Almost

Invariant

India More than

double increase

in ES

Gradual

Increase

------ Almost

constant from

2000-10

Almost

constant from

2000-10

Russia Tripled in the

time period

Almost

Invariant

Almost

Invariant

------- Invariant

South Africa Tripled in the

given period

Almost

Invariant

Almost

Invariant

Almost

Invariant

----------

Negative list of imports with RCA as the only parameter

The mechanism used is: For a particular commodity, if the RCA is maximum for a country and is >1, then the country

should not trade that particular good in this block/region and if RCA is maximum for a country but <1 then the whole

block/region must export the commodity from ROW and not from internal trade.


Arms and

ammunition

Cotton

Organic Chemicals Pharmaceutical

Products

Pearls, precious

stones, metals

Coffee, Tea, Mati

and Spices

Pharmaceutical

Products

Coffee, Tea, Mati

and Spices

Iron and steel

Iron and steel

Cotton

Nuclear reactors,

boilers etc.

Iron and steel

Mineral fuels

Vehicles other than

railway

Pharmaceutical

products

Toys

Pearls, precious

stones, metals

Mineral fuels, oils,

distillation products

Pharmaceutical

products

Iron and steel Cotton Arms and

ammunition

Rubber and articles

thereof

Pharmaceutical

products

Sugars and sugar

confectionary

Tobacco

Hypothesis:

These trade indicators when analyzed collectively would help us to predict whether a preferential trading agreement

(PTA) between the BRICS countries would be beneficial for the region. This will generally lead to a net positive

change in the net welfare of the country and will lead to a net gain for the region/bloc as a whole.

Conclusions:

Our analysis of all the trade indices show that there is a general increase in the values of almost all the indices for the

majority of the countries in the BRICS group. This advocates the setting up of a Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA)

between the BRICS countries so that the area thrives as a major economic power in context of the rest of the world.

The Trade Complementarity and Trade Intensity indices show an increasing trend in the past decade for almost all the

countries in the BRICS bloc with Russia being the prime exception.

The Market Shares and Export Shares depict rising trends for all the BRIS nations suggesting greater trade in the

region as a whole.

The RCA indices for the various commodities show that Brazil has a comparative advantage over the countries in a

major of the goods. This is because Brazil is abundant in a wide range of resources which is probably the major reason

for its significance to the BRICS bloc.

Russia has become averse to trade with the other BRICS nations in the latter years of the decade to achieve

macroeconomic stability and for economic integration. Russia lays great importance to its trade with the EU

(European Union) which may be the reason for its lower levels of trade with other BRICS countries. Also the trade

between Russia and South Africa is negligible.

References:

Kowitt, Beth, "For Mr. BRIC, nations meeting a milestone", CNNMoney.com. , June 17, 2009

Wilson, D. and Purushothaman, R., “Global Economics Paper No. 99, Dreaming with BRICs”, Goldman Sachs

Research Paper, October 1, 2003

O‟Neill, J., “Global Economics Paper 134, How Solid Are the BRICs?”, Goldman Sachs Research Paper, December 1,

2005

O‟Neill, J., “BRICs and beyond”, Goldman Sachs Global Economic Research, November 23, 2007

Lakshman, N., “BRICS open revolt against European grip on IMF”, The Hindu, May 26, 2011

Mikic, M. and Gilbert, J. “Trade Statistics in Policymaking – A handbook of commonly used trade indices and

indicators”, UNESCAP, 2009

Tereza De Castro “Trade Cooperation Indicators: Development of BRIC Bilateral Trade Flows”

Peter Havlik, Olga Pindyuk and Roman Stöllinger ” Trade in Goods and Services between the EU and the BRICs”

using the IMF DOT and UN COMTRADE databases

Batra A., Khan Zeba “Revealed Comparative Advantage: An analysis for India and China” –Working Paper No. 168

Havlik P., Stollinger R. “EU‟s trade with the BRICs and competitiveness challenges”-The Vienna Institute for

International Economic Studies (wiiw), Austria

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/17/news/economy/goldman_sachs_jim_oneill_interview.fortune/index.htm

http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/brics/book/99-dreaming.pdf

Appendix:

Trade Intensity

Year Partner(China) Partner(India) Partner(Russia) Partner(South Africa)

2001 0.4828 0.4996 0.182 0.9938

2002 0.5194 0.8314 0.2486 0.8863

2003 0.6619 0.8851 0.2601 0.7575

Brazil 2004 0.8191 0.9429 0.2685 0.8036

2005 0.7858 1.1987 0.3111 0.8387

2006 0.8879 1.4409 0.2809 0.8904

2007 0.9746 1.3584 0.3346 0.847

2008 1.1235 1.5273 0.3727 0.7618

2009 1.0457 0.8972 0.3194 0.5876

Year Partner(Brazil) Partner(China) Partner(India) Partner(South Africa)

2001 1.5942 0.8584 1.6125 0.0958

2002 1.6882 0.8809 1.2006 0.1481

2003 1.4673 0.9852 0.8399 0.1702

2004 1.0951 0.9792 0.531 0.1555

Russia 2005 1.4212 1.0012 0.406 0.0862

2006 1.31 0.8566 0.3658 0.106

2007 1.0102 1.0143 0.2747 0.1022

2008 0.9306 0.9152 0.2374 0.13

2009 1.0143 0.7885 0.2951 0.1792

Year Partner(Brazil) Partner(India) Partner(Russia) Partner(South Africa)

2001 0.9195 0.5924 1.5787 0.4999

2002 1.0215 0.7487 1.5694 0.4781

2003 1.2659 0.884 1.2629 0.5745

China 2004 1.0753 1.0315 1.063 0.5009

2005 1.0486 1.3017 0.9826 0.5296

2006 1.0648 1.1281 0.9135 0.7001

2007 1.1411 1.1095 0.7342 1.1106

2008 1.4304 0.958 0.78 1.0057

2009 1.8867 0.8387 0.7896 1.505

Year Partner(Brazil) Partner(China) Partner(Russia) Partner(South Africa)

2001 0.6695 0.9741 1.5339 1.9401

2002 1.3789 1.0458 1.9243 1.943

2003 0.8107 0.8177 2.1936 1.2883

2004 0.7124 1.0559 1.4541 1.4867

2005 0.8112 0.9907 0.8098 2.1044

India 2006 0.5256 1.1608 0.749 1.149

2007 0.4116 1.3607 0.5944 1.4548

2008 0.3554 1.4087 0.7132 1.9665

2009 1.282 1.418 1.1299 2.2048

Year Partner(Brazil) Partner(China) Partner(India) Partner(Russia)

2001 1.4004 0.7585 1.4332 0.0113

South Africa 2002 1.5687 0.7981 1.8613 0.0747

2003 1.7357 0.8016 1.3631 0.009

2004 1.7546 0.8137 1.9212 0.0082

2005 1.7327 0.7521 2.0957 0.0157

2006 1.5384 0.8627 2.5046 0.0095

2007 1.6276 0.9077 2.1712 0.0061

2008 1.4116 0.9591 2.1721 0.0137

2009 1.4196 1.0568 1.9114 0.1116


Year Partner(China) Partner(India) Partner(Russia) Partner(South Africa)

2001 32.8973 27.4787 27.2286 26.8732

2002 30.871 28.3523 30.8339 28.6313

2003 31.9192 26.8752 31.0079 27.0098

Brazil 2004 33.8015 26.9469 28.2669 24.1266

2005 34.4468 28.1556 27.9087 26.0303

2006 35.3968 29.2046 36.9739 26.0209

2007 36.3315 28.3562 30.1334 28.5126

2008 38.076 29.7917 31.1095 28.0926

2009 39.5163 31.3469 29.3847 29.3739

Year Partner(Brazil) Partner(India) Partner(Russia) Partner(South Africa)

2001 31.8023 26.2255 26.2516 24.2731

2002 30.4556 25.6119 33.7057 25.7204

2003 32.2153 25.1374 27.0686 24.1985

China 2004 32.6807 25.9649 26.1534 23.3314

2005 33.6105 26.5132 30.7188 23.3647

2006 34.5206 27.2962 31.9246 24.4783

2007 32.6887 25.8702 23.7027 26.3977

2008 35.6993 27.4297 24.9479 24.3558

2009 34.438 27.7591 24.4222 25.7469

Year Partner(Brazil) Partner(China) Partner(Russia) Partner(South Africa)

2001 31.085 32.5306 36.0254 27.927

2002 28.9788 31.1566 40.2582 27.968

2003 28.5459 30.8115 44.9686 26.9308

India 2004 30.0829 34.876 37.2854 29.4131

2005 31.5816 31.9041 42.7675 31.093

2006 34.8956 33.346 45.9616 29.8845

2007 34.1124 36.0989 34.0896 31.2695

2008 34.8423 37.8932 35.276 31.9013

2009 35.1724 40.6502 35.8512 32.7923

Year Partner(Brazil) Partner(China) Partner(India) Partner(South Africa)

2001 37.3274 36.1942 28.535 29.4421

2002 35.3808 36.3617 26.7185 31.4299

2003 35.5521 38.4662 27.7579 28.4951

Russia 2004 34.9892 39.5368 27.7111 27.301

2005 36.2309 40.7391 27.8548 26.7928

2006 36.4685 40.5035 28.2474 27.9644

2007 33.7476 42.0531 27.7053 25.4284

2008 32.6104 41.7331 28.5519 29.221

2009 32.6223 42.1393 30.9268 27.5738

Year Partner(Brazil) Partner(China) Partner(India) Partner(Russia)

2001 38.278 37.4768 29.1753 25.2397

2002 35.9131 35.587 28.2518 25.0738

2003 36.3791 35.1608 28.6214 27.6692

South Africa 2004 36.8232 37.7478 29.5545 22.8659

2005 41.2283 37.8053 30.195 24.2716

2006 42.3042 38.9615 30.6312 34.2492

2007 37.7256 40.4502 30.9393 23.5414

2008 36.6313 41.0326 31.5879 25.1242

2009 35.6103 42.4349 34.3168 25.0138

Market Share

Year MS China MS India MS Russia MS South Africa

2001 0.5077 0.5253 0.1914 1.045

2002 0.4504 0.7209 0.2156 0.7686

2003 0.4891 0.654 0.1922 0.5597

Brazil 2004 0.6192 0.7128 0.203 0.6075

2005 0.6335 0.9664 0.2508 0.6761

2006 0.7617 1.2361 0.241 0.7638

2007 0.9343 1.3021 0.3207 0.8119

2008 1.3146 1.7871 0.4361 0.8914

2009 1.1749 1.0081 0.3589 0.6603

Year MS Brazil MS India MS Russia MS South Africa

2001 3.2634 2.1025 5.6034 1.7744

2002 4.1711 3.0572 6.4081 1.9523

2003 6.1928 4.3247 6.1783 2.8105

China 2004 5.6288 5.3996 5.5645 2.6221

2005 5.7665 7.1585 5.4039 2.9127

2006 6.0972 6.4597 5.231 4.0089

2007 6.6909 6.5059 4.3054 6.5123

2008 8.2868 5.5504 4.5187 5.8267

2009 13.1971 5.8666 5.5233 10.5268

Year MS Brazil MS China MS Russia MS South Africa

2001 0.4897 0.7125 1.1219 1.419

2002 1.0817 0.8204 1.5095 1.5242

2003 0.7564 0.7629 2.0466 1.202

India 2004 0.675 1.0005 1.3778 1.4087

2005 0.96 1.1725 0.9584 2.4905

2006 0.6813 1.5049 0.971 1.4896

2007 0.5962 1.9713 0.8612 2.1077

2008 0.5569 2.2077 1.1178 3.0819

2009 2.2321 2.4688 1.9672 3.8387

Year MS Brazil MS china MS India MS South Africa

2001 1.8917 1.0186 1.9135 0.1137

2002 2.0724 1.0813 1.4738 0.1818

2003 2.0494 1.376 1.173 0.2378

Russia 2004 1.715 1.5334 0.8316 0.2435

2005 2.4614 1.7339 0.7032 0.1493

2006 2.4987 1.634 0.6978 0.2021

2007 2.3289 2.3384 0.6334 0.2356

2008 2.3507 2.3119 0.5998 0.3285

2009 1.8749 1.4575 0.5456 0.3312

Year MS Brazil MS China MS India MS Russia

2001 0.7275 0.3941 0.7445 0.0059

2002 0.7912 0.4025 0.9388 0.0377

2003 1.0027 0.4631 0.7874 0.0052

South Africa 2004 1.0728 0.4975 1.1747 0.005

2005 1.1568 0.5021 1.3992 0.0105

2006 1.0614 0.5953 1.7281 0.0066

2007 1.0942 0.6102 1.4596 0.0041

2008 0.8865 0.6023 1.3642 0.0086

2009 0.8234 0.613 1.1086 0.0647

Export Share

Year ES China ES India ES Russia ES South Africa

2001 3.9162 0.6282 1.289 0.3823

2002 4.5353 0.6826 1.3167 0.3192

2003 5.216 0.6973 1.412 0.3772

Brazil 2004 5.8401 0.7397 1.5981 0.3969

2005 6.6493 0.8678 1.9335 0.4108

2006 7.2753 0.9026 1.7602 0.3947

2007 8.043 0.9524 2.1384 0.4224

2008 8.2003 1.0272 2.4657 0.4242

2009 8.7788 1.2367 1.9846 0.394

2010 12.065 2.716 0.5469

Year ES Brazil ES India ES Russia ES South Africa

2001 0.8422 0.6282 1.289 0.3823

2002 0.8265 0.6826 1.3167 0.3192

2003 0.8585 0.6973 1.412 0.3772

China 2004 0.9388 0.7397 1.5981 0.3969

2005 1.0175 0.8678 1.9335 0.4108

2006 1.0175 0.9026 1.7602 0.3947

2007 1.0326 0.9524 2.1384 0.4224

2008 1.1082 1.0272 2.4657 0.4242

2009 1.0988 1.2367 1.9846 0.394

2010 1.5165 2.716 0.5469

Year ES Brazil ES China ES Russia ES South Africa

2001 0.8422 3.9162 1.289 0.3823

2002 0.8265 4.5353 1.3167 0.3192

2003 0.8585 5.216 1.412 0.3772

India 2004 0.9388 5.8401 1.5981 0.3969

2005 1.0175 6.6493 1.9335 0.4108

2006 1.0175 7.2753 1.7602 0.3947

2007 1.0326 8.043 2.1384 0.4224

2008 1.1082 8.2003 2.4657 0.4242

2009 1.0988 8.7788 1.9846 0.394

2010 1.5165 12.065 2.716 0.5469

Year ES Brazil ES China ES India ES South Africa

2001 0.8422 3.9162 0.6282 0.3823

2002 0.8265 4.5353 0.6826 0.3192

2003 0.8585 5.216 0.6973 0.3772

Russia 2004 0.9388 5.8401 0.7397 0.3969

2005 1.0175 6.6493 0.8678 0.4108

2006 1.0175 7.2753 0.9026 0.3947

2007 1.0326 8.043 0.9524 0.4224

2008 1.1082 8.2003 1.0272 0.4242

2009 1.0988 8.7788 1.2367 0.394

2010 1.5165 12.065 0.5469

Year ES Brazil ES China ES India ES South Africa

2001 0.8422 3.9162 0.6282 1.289

2002 0.8265 4.5353 0.6826 1.3167

2003 0.8585 5.216 0.6973 1.412

South Africa 2004 0.9388 5.8401 0.7397 1.5981

2005 1.0175 6.6493 0.8678 1.9335

2006 1.0175 7.2753 0.9026 1.7602

2007 1.0326 8.043 0.9524 2.1384

2008 1.1082 8.2003 1.0272 2.4657

2009 1.0988 8.7788 1.2367 1.9846

2010 1.5165 12.065 2.716

RCA

Arms and Ammunition

Year RCA(Brazil)RCA(China) RCA(India) RCA(Russia) RCA(South Africa)

2001 1.2161 0.0726 0.1483 0.2438 9.9738

2002 3.8976 0.0629 0.0548 0.2802 3.7994

2003 1.7238 0.0512 0.0714 0.2975 8.3726

2004 1.3528 0.0478 0.0405 0.2153 8.7865

2005 1.1834 0.0475 0.0111 0.1601 9.1201

2006 1.4 0.0574 0.0563 0.1538 9.9689

2007 2.1514 0.0827 0.0441 0.2058 9.4404

2008 2.3038 0.0955 0.1066 0.1891 7.6351

2009 2.9107 0.0703 0.1245 0.1783 6.1677

Vehicles other than railways, tramways


2001 0.8197 0.1937 0.2144 0.0945 0.8702

2002 0.7585 0.1821 0.2122 0.1408 1.0375

2003 0.8491 0.1899 0.262 0.1143 0.9868

2004 0.9157 0.2101 0.3123 0.1125 0.914

2005 1.0681 0.2388 0.3502 0.092 0.9612

2006 1.032 0.266 0.3474 0.0928 1.008

2007 0.9391 0.2946 0.3158 0.1 0.8909

2008 0.9136 0.3383 0.4078 0.0845 1.2303

2009 0.7883 0.3312 0.4609 0.0776 1.3208

2010 0.7369 0.2983 0.0449 1.1039

Coffee, tea, mati and spices


2001 12.3308 1.0927 10.1076 0.042 0.6478

2002 12.9624 0.9968 7.9978 0.0371 0.8542

2003 11.5924 0.8486 6.7759 0.0548 0.5774

2004 11.9945 0.8931 6.458 0.0977 0.4778

2005 12.9951 0.7024 5.1667 0.0991 0.315

2006 12.9141 0.5813 5.2847 0.1073 0.3538

2007 12.2658 0.4879 5.1963 0.1215 0.3079

2008 11.6467 0.4844 5.0609 0.1127 0.2766

2009 11.4347 0.5132 3.7764 0.1256 0.3453

2010 12.4185 0.4879 0.1031 0.2822

Cotton


2001 1.3725 2.682 9.4537 0.2709 0.3084

2002 1.0576 2.9678 8.4678 0.2464 0.3349

2003 1.3726 2.6766 6.8962 0.2081 0.2495

2004 1.5812 2.2532 6.6366 0.1766 0.2403

2005 1.5453 2.294 6.1169 0.1297 0.2406

2006 1.2387 2.3312 7.3693 0.1038 0.1129

2007 1.4855 2.205 8.6852 0.0851 0.084

2008 1.5632 2.4093 8.0626 0.0514 0.0771

2009 1.7339 2.5093 5.6762 0.0466 0.164

2010 1.3657 2.2896 0.0357 0.0876

Pharmaceutical Products


2001 0.188 0.1255 1.0812 0.0405 0.1191

2002 0.158 0.0912 0.9454 0.0412 0.136

2003 0.1386 0.0757 0.9532 0.0522 0.1013

2004 0.1299 0.066 0.8958 0.0337 0.0959

2005 0.1449 0.0648 0.8461 0.0287 0.0929

2006 0.1639 0.0574 0.8963 0.0273 0.0829

2007 0.1623 0.0588 0.9184 0.0296 0.0772

2008 0.1737 0.0723 0.985 0.0236 0.0856

2009 0.1898 0.0762 0.7639 0.0276 0.0887

Pearl,Precious stone and metals


2001 0.4586 0.4486 7.9465 0.566 9.9738

2002 0.4834 0.4274 8.675 1.5521 3.7994

2003 0.3926 0.3762 8.9882 1.5016 8.3726

2004 0.3567 0.3733 8.2643 1.3482 8.7865

2005 0.3334 0.3644 8.0741 0.3496 9.1201

2006 0.3786 0.3437 6.2921 0.63 9.9689

2007 0.3579 0.309 6.0567 0.4825 9.4404

2008 0.3493 0.2662 4.9668 0.1507 7.6351

2009 0.4463 0.2454 7.2517 0.1558 6.1677

Iron and Steel


2001 2.6851 0.4623 1.1519 3.0538 4.4771

2002 2.9968 0.3709 1.5471 3.1456 5.3478

2003 3.0089 0.3653 1.8962 2.9355 5.6527

2004 2.5805 0.7186 1.714 3.2704 5.1298

2005 2.6534 0.7286 1.5887 2.723 4.5171

2006 2.3565 0.9579 1.581 2.1885 3.879

2007 1.9648 1.0842 1.3576 1.9843 3.8755

2008 2.0193 1.163 1.4028 1.9017 3.8097

2009 1.9946 0.5092 1.1263 2.2145 4.4412

Mineral fuels, oils and distillation products


2001 0.4409 0.3879 0.6012 6.3776 1.4496

2002 0.6146 0.3261 0.585 6.6204 1.526

2003 0.6126 0.2996 0.7209 6.4573 1.1663

2004 0.5024 0.2681 0.8864 6.0251 1.0055

2005 0.5321 0.2055 0.9293 5.5015 0.9252

2006 0.6213 0.1483 1.201 3.9392 0.7724

2007 0.7284 0.1506 1.4248 5.4088 0.9317

2008 0.6444 0.1516 1.2335 4.4826 0.6589

2009 0.7614 0.1447 1.1592 5.3749 0.9578

Nuclear Reactors, boilers


2001 0.4747 0.823 0.2353 0.2165 0.5286

2002 0.4719 1.015 0.2274 0.184 0.5841

2003 0.5271 1.2697 0.2552 0.1692 0.5321

2004 0.554 1.3366 0.2639 0.1407 0.5243

2005 0.5757 1.3718 0.2825 0.1218 0.5358

2006 0.5716 1.3859 0.2942 0.1177 0.6303

2007 0.5094 1.4155 0.2975 0.1184 0.6515

2008 0.4747 1.4748 0.3328 0.1144 0.6437

2009 0.4031 1.5362 0.3083 0.1402 0.5661

Organic chemicals


2001 0.5849 0.6481 1.3886 0.423 0.5241

2002 0.6538 0.6129 1.4226 0.3897 0.5949

2003 0.6276 0.5727 1.5022 0.3971 0.5667

2004 0.5604 0.5382 1.5203 0.4264 0.6186

2005 0.5786 0.5697 1.5839 0.3962 0.6538

2006 0.5832 0.6092 1.8103 0.3865 0.6629

2007 0.6504 0.6628 1.7535 0.4101 0.6286

2008 0.6113 0.8693 1.8526 0.355 0.7331

2009 0.6372 0.7978 1.5595 0.2891 0.665

Rubber and articles thereof


2001 1.3997 0.69 0.9651 0.6692 0.7849

2002 1.3819 0.6741 1.088 0.68 1.0045

2003 1.3935 0.6199 1.1203 0.6969 0.932

2004 1.1735 0.6692 0.9862 0.6649 0.853

2005 1.2143 0.7503 1.0108 0.6474 0.7255

2006 1.1986 0.7821 1.0066 0.6325 0.6447

2007 1.2761 0.8354 0.8446 0.6293 0.5646

2008 1.1512 0.8367 0.9508 0.6257 0.5669

2009 1.1017 0.9029 0.7142 0.6266 0.5825

Sugars and sugar confectionary


2001 15.2195 0.216 3.0134 0.241 4.8784

2002 14.6566 0.2792 2.4928 0.2948 4.1612

2003 13.1179 0.1878 2.9209 0.1943 3.3328

2004 13.5141 0.1968 0.456 0.2009 2.8311

2005 15.0937 0.239 0.3375 0.1451 2.8277

2006 18.7434 0.1942 2.2832 0.1684 3.077

2007 16.3908 0.2311 3.659 0.2749 2.3547

2008 15.3016 0.2515 4.5507 0.1562 1.7936

2009 22.0276 0.2524 0.2134 0.1769 2.9166

Tobacco


2001 4.7286 0.4236 1.155 0.1318 1.5674

2002 5.0969 0.406 1.278 0.1956 1.1538

2003 5.1544 0.3894 1.311 0.2853 0.9618

2004 5.6093 0.3292 1.3263 0.2534 1.1418

2005 5.5372 0.2712 1.1432 0.3541 1.3586

2006 5.136 0.2358 1.2153 0.327 1.4372

2007 6.5257 0.2426 1.4248 0.4031 1.221

2008 6.5181 0.243 1.7396 0.4311 0.9295

2009 7.1504 0.2624 1.8238 0.5564 1.4808

Toys, games, sports requisites


2001 0.0672 5.0109 0.2174 0.0151 0.0766

2002 0.0568 5.1435 0.1951 0.0154 0.0929

2003 0.0603 4.7901 0.2172 0.0197 0.0817

2004 0.0708 4.4456 0.2229 0.0185 0.0829

2005 0.0583 4.3921 0.2171 0.0235 0.0847

2006 0.0521 4.2885 0.2098 0.0319 0.0951

2007 0.05 3.82 0.1413 0.0245 0.0781

2008 0.0383 3.9029 0.1308 0.0288 0.0797

2009 0.0353 3.5034 0.114 0.0307 0.1042

Analyzing the Trade Flows for BRICS

Documents

Transcript of Analyzing the Trade Flows for BRICS