UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
-
Upload
bojana-dimitrijevik -
Category
Documents
-
view
229 -
download
0
Transcript of UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
1/166
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
2/166
Skopje, 2011
Skopje, 2011
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
3/166
2
--
-
--
-
-
Editors-in-chief
Tome Nenovski, PhDNikica Mojsoska-Blazevski, PhD
Project coordinatorMarjan Petreski, PhD
Analysts
Marjan Petreski, PhDElena Makrevska, MSc
TranslationMarija Todorova, MSc
Translation editing and proofreadChristopher James Henson, MA
PrintBoroGrafika-Skopje
CIP ". ",
339.5(497.7)"2010"
/[ , ;
; , ;
]=ReviewoftheforeigntradeofMacedonia/editorsinchiefTomeNenovski,NikicaMojsoskaBlazevski;project
coordinator Marjan Petreski ; analysts Marjan Petreski, Elena Makrevska ; translation Marija Todorova]. :
University Americancollege,2011. 164 .: . ;24 . . .
.
ISBN97860846070831. . . . I.Nenovski,Tome ,. II.MojsoskaBlazevski,Nikica ,
) 2010
COBISS.MKID89420810
Skopje, 2011
Skopje, 2011
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
4/166
3
2011
REVIEW
OFTHEFOREIGNTRADE
OFMACEDONIA
2011
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
5/166
4
1: 2010 ........................ 7
1. 2010 ...................................................................................... 92. ....................................................... 103. ....................................................................... 114. ......................................................................... 175. ................................................................................................................................. 22
6. ............................................................................................................. 242: -........................................................................................ 27
:? ............................... 29............................................................................... 39M................................ 49:.............................................. 57
3:
2010 .............................................................................. .......................... 61
........................................................................... ..... 63M................................................................................................................................................................. 67
4: .................................................................................................................. 71
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
6/166
5
Contents
PART 1: TRENDS IN MACEDONIAS FOREIGN TRADE IN 2010 ................................................ ............ 89
1. TRENDS IN THE GLOBAL TRADE OF 2010 .................................................................................................... 912. GENERAL TRENDS OF MACEDONIAS FOREIGN TRADE............................................................................... 923. TRENDS AND STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF EXPORT........................................................................ 934. TRENDS AND STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF IMPORTS....................................................................... 995. TERMS OF TRADE..................................................................................... .................................................. 1036. ANALYSIS OF THE TRADE BALANCE........................................................................... ............................... 105
PART 2: RESEARCH PAPERS .............................................................................. ........................................... 109
SPECIALIZATION PATTERNS IN MACEDONIA:WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES ON TRADE? .............................. 111INVESTIGATING TWIN DEFICITS IN MACEDONIA................................................................................... ............. 119EXPORT DEMAND FUNCTION AND EXCHANGE RATE VOLATILITY IN MACEDONIA.......................................... 127ANOTE ON THE PURCHASING POWER PARITY:THE CASE OF MACEDONIA...................................................... 135
PART 3: ACTIVITIES OF THE MINISTRY OF ECONOMY IN THE FOREIGN TRADE DOMAIN IN
2010 ...................................................................................................... ................................................................... 139
EXPORT PROMOTION ACTIVITIES IN MACEDONIA................................................................................. ............. 141FREE MOVEMENT OF SERVICES AND MACEDONIAS INTEGRATION INTO THE EUSINGLE MARKET FOR SERVICES............................................................................................................................................................................ 145
PART 4: STATISTICAL TABLES ............................................................................................ ........................ 149
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
7/166
6
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
8/166
7
1
2010
1: 2010
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
9/166
8
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
10/166
9
-2010 . , ,
. , ,. , .
1. 2010
2010 , . , 2010 2009 22% ( ) 14,6% ( ). 14,6% 1950
. Toj, , 2010 16,7%, , 12,9%. 2009 2010. , . . , , . : , , /.
1 (2000-2010)
:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
11/166
10
, 2010 ( 2). , 37% 32%,. 30% () 2010 ,
. 12% , () 21%.
2
:
2.
2010 13,4% 2009 (2009/2008 27,6%) 95,9% -(). 2008, 110,1%.
( ) . , , . 14%, 29%. , 23,5% . 2009 (25,2%), 2008, 6.2 .. , (60,6%) 7.4 .. 2009.
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
()
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
12/166
11
3 (1999-2010)
:
3.
2010 . ,29%, 2007 (4). -, 36% 29% 2009. , , , .
4 (1999-2010)
:
-6000
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-10000
1000
2000
3000
4000
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
%
()()()()()
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
%
() /()
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
13/166
12
, , (5). 2010 0,1%, (0,4%). 2010 , (82,5%).
5 ()
:
, za (0,5 ..) 51%(6).
6
:
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
2007 2008 2009 2010
2010 8%
3%
51%
38%
44.9%
4.3%
43.3%
7.5%2009
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
14/166
13
2010 (587,3 ), (424,7), 2009 . (154,7 ), (153,6 ) (136,7 ) (7).
. 2009 , ( 56,6%). , , 53,4% 2010. : 1) , , , ; 2) . , , (65,2% 2010 2009), ( 20,1%). , 1,7%
. , 2010
(8). , -51, 58,5% 2009 60,5% 2010 . -2, 18 2010 1068 . (1000-1800 ), (1000 ).
2010 , (523
), (327 ), (226 ), (222 ) (185 ) ( 9). ( ), , . , .
1-5 ( , ) () ().
2 -
n
i
iSHH
1
2, iS
(, ) () ( ), n ( ).1000 , 1000-1800 , 1800 .
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
15/166
14
7 (2003-
2010)
:
8 (2004-2010)
:
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1,000.0
1,200.0
1,400.0
1,600.0
1,800.0
2,000.0
52%
54%
56%
58%
60%
62%
64%
66%
68%
70%
72%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
-5 (.) (.)
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
16/166
15
2010 . (61%), (49%). 8%, 11% 2009 . , .
9 (2003-2010)
:
( 10), -27 (71% ) 2010 . 16.5 .. 2010 20.7%.
, ( 11). (-5) 2010 62%, , 70%. , . -, 1052 , (1000 ).
( , ).
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
(. )
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
17/166
16
10 2010 ,
:
11 (2004-2010)
:
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%100%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
-5 () -( )
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
18/166
17
4.
, 14% 2010 . , . 60%, 6 .. (12).
2010 2000-2009, 10%. ,2000 (36%), 2007(29%) 2008 (21%). 2001 (-17%) 2009 (23%).
12 (1999-2010)
:
, . , 21,4%. a(13).
11,5% 2010 , n
( 14). .
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
35004000
4500
5000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
%
() /()
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
19/166
18
13 ()
:
14
:
2010 ,
(562 ), (304 ), (268 ), (216 ) (212 ) ( 15). , : 1) ; 2) , , 3) .
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
2007 2008 2009 2010
26.2%
16.6%
41.7%
15.5%
2009 2010
17%
25%
47%
11%
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
20/166
19
15 2010 (2003-
2010)
:
, , 2010 (16). , -5, 35,5% 2009 38,5% 2010 . -, 50 2010 464 ,
.
16 (2004-2010)
:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
, -
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
-5 (.) (.)
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
21/166
20
2010 , (461 ), (417 ), (339 ), (317 ) (247 ). , , 2009 44%, . 2010 , ,
.
17 (2003-
2010)
:
( 18), -27 (52% 2010). , 11% , . (10% 5%), ..
, (19).
(-5) , e . 2010 -5 43%. -, 2010 545 , 49 1000 , .
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
22/166
21
18 2010 ,
:
19 (2004-2010)
:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
-5 () -( )
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
23/166
22
5.
2004-2007, , , . , 2008-2010 .2010 6%.
20 (2004-2010)
:
, , , (15, 4). 2010
79,63 , 2009 28,7% (21). , 2010 2010 . , , 2008 ().
, 2010 25% () 49% (; 22).a, , ( 7, 3), .
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
/
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
24/166
23
21 (2003-2010)
:
22 (2003-2010)
:
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
(.)
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
25/166
24
6.
, , 2010 . 2010 1,7 (3). (4.5 ..), .
(23 24), ( 41%) (25,3%).(91,8%); (65%); (31%) (29%).
23 2010 (2003-2010)
:
( 25 26), 2010 ( 55% 187 ), (104), . (97 ), (59 ),(62 ) (42 ).
( 16
), (10 ), (8 ) (6 ). 2010 , (131 ).
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
26/166
25
24 2010 (2003-2010)
:
25 2010
(2003-2010)
:
-1,600 -1,400 -1,200 -1,000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
27/166
26
26 2010
(2003-2010)
:
() .(187 ), (152 ) (85 ). 2008 2009, 2010 95 .
27
:
-1,
500.0
0
-1,
300.0
0
-1,
100.0
0
-900.0
0
-700.0
0
-500.0
0
-300.0
0
-100.0
0
100.
00
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
2008 2009 2010
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
28/166
27
2
-
2:-
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
29/166
28
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
30/166
29
: ?
IV,
3306, ,
1.
, , . , . , . , . 2008 3 0,36% 0,30 % 1993. . , 1992 2008 , 11,6% 6,6%. , , 28% 2002 2008 4. , 2001, , 2001
(Gutierrez, 2007). , ,
. (Krugman, 1989; Grossman and Helpman, 1991) . (Lucas, 1988; Young, 1991) . ( ) ( ). , , .
? 1993 ?
3, ,, 41.
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
31/166
Cheptea
(RCA)).
2.
.
Prospect
,
-
et al., 2005
(C
.
,
,
,
.
ives et d'Inf
-
,
.
; BCE, 200
onstant Ma
,
.
rmations I
()
, Amador e
ket Share
993 20
,
(RC
ternational
(Lafay, 1
i,
CEPII
i.
30
t Cabral, 20
nalysis
8
.
.
.
.
)
es(CEPII)
87, 1990,
,
k
08)
MSA).
(Revealed
.
1992).
:
RCA
((
..
:
.
Comparati
:
(19
.
Ce
,
(
i,
i
ilana, 198
,
e Advanta
CMS
5).
,
tre d'Etud
.
) k, RC
(
8;
e
.
es
A
1)
-
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
32/166
31
, . , RCA , . RCA 144 () . 1 .
-. , 1993 - . , , , .
1: RCA
1993 2000 2008
-91,5 -113,0 -64,4 8,3 -10,6 4,5
72,9 60,9 65,5
, -1,3 -15,8 -16,9
-48,9 -30,4 -26,0
42,0 107,9 110,0
56,7 50,4 8,5
-26,5 -16,0 -23,0 -14,0 -17,1 -26,4
17,0 -0,7 -8,4
-14,6 -15,7 -23,3
3,4 -16,9 -23,9
- 4,3 -53,6 -85,8
-
-0,9 100,8 99,5 -1,1 31,8 39,5
: Chelem
1993 ,,aa 2008 , a a 1993 , . , , 1993 ,
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
33/166
,
14%
:
,
1.
1
.
2008
,
1:
helem,
2
993 2008
(14% 2
,
% 200
.
08 .
.
008)
,
2
32
,
,
(20%
(7%
(17%
8
1993
,
.
.
1993
2008).
10% 2
,
1993
.
199
-
25
008
,
.
,
.
,
2008)
,
,
008
.
).
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
34/166
3.
CMSA)
analysis)
Cabral,
gg*ja
.
).
,
. Tyszynski
, ,
Nys
008):
.
.
.
(1951)
.
ens & Pou
(g)
. i,j
ex-post
(
liot (1990),
*i,j
:
,
(C
(CMS
.
onstant M
A)
.
MSA (
i
.
arket Shar
)
(
.
,
CB, 2005,
:
e Analysis
" (shift-sha
agee (1975
(g
Amador a
ij
-
e
),
).
d
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
35/166
ii*
and j*
"
(2000-2
,
,
,
,
"
.
72
08).
2:
: Ch
993 2008
j
:
CMSA
34
2
19
-1,
-1,
0,4
0,6
-0,
0,1
lem,
,
i
(1
3-2008
5
2
6
5
9
0
,
i
.
.
.
993-2000),
.
1993-2
-0,71
-0,56
-0,15
0,01
-0,18
0,02
1993
, gi, gj and
,
1
.
:
00
-
2000
.
.
and gi*,
j*,
.
93 2008
000-2008
,58
,31
,27
,17
,17
0,04
.
1993-2008
.
,
,
,
.
.
j
.
,
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
36/166
35
. 1993-2008, .
, . 1993-2000 . , . , , .
., . 53% (0.31/0.58) 47% (0.27/0.58). , . , , 1993 2000 , .
. , , . (), ().
. .
4.
1990-, . 2001 , 1993-2008. , .
, . , . , RCA , .
. , , , . , , , . , , . .
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
37/166
36
BALASSA B. (1965) Trade Liberalization and Revealed Comparative Advantage , TheManchester School of Economic and Social Studies, Vol. 33, n 2, pp. 99-123.
CHEPTEA A., GAULIER G. & ZIGNAGO S. (2005) World Trade Competitiveness: ADisaggregated View by Shift-Share Analysis , CEPII Working Papers, 2005-23.
EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK (2005) Competitiveness and the Export Performance of theEuro Area , Occasional Paper Series, June, n 30.
FAGERBERG J. & SOLLIE G. (1987) The method of constant market shares analysisreconsidered ,Applied Economics, Vol. 19, n 12, pp. 1571-1583.
GUTIERREZE. (2007) Export Performance and External Competitiveness in theformer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ,South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics,Vol. 2, pp. 203-224.
GROSSMAN G.M.&HELPMAN E.(1991) Quality ladders in the theory of growth ,Reviewof Economic Studies, Vol. 58, n 1, pp. 43-61.
KRUGMAN P.(1989) Differences in Income Elasticities and Trends in Real Exchange Rates
,NBER Working Papers, November, n 2761.
LAFAY G. (1987) Avantage comparatif et comptitivit , Economie ProspectiveInternationale, n 23, pp. 39-53.
LAFAY G. (1987) La mesure des avantages comparatifs rvls , Economie ProspectiveInternationale, n 41, pp. 27-43.
LAFAY G. (1987) The Measurement of Revealed Comparative Advantage , in M.G.Dagenais & P.-A. Muet, eds.,International Trade Modelling, London: Chapman & Hill.
LUCAS R. (1988) On the mechanics of economic development , Journal of MonetaryEconomics, Vol. 22, n 1, pp. 3-22.
MAGEE S.P.(1975) Prices, incomes and foreign trade , in P.B. Kenen, ed., InternationalTrade and Finance: Frontiers of Research, Cambridge University Press.
MILANA C. (1988) Constant market share analysis and index number theory , EuropeanJournal of Political Economy, Vol. 4, n 4, pp. 453-478.
NYSSENS A. & POULLET G. (1990) Parts de march des producteurs de lUEBL sur lesmarches extrieurs et intrieurs , Cahiers 7, Banque Nationale de Belgique.
RICHARDSON J. (1971) Constant market share analysis of export growth , Journal ofInternational Economics, Vol. 1, n 2, 227-239.
TYSZYNSKI H. (1951) World trade in manufactured commodities, 1899-1950 , TheManchester School of Economic and Social Studies, Vol. 19, n 2, pp. 272-304.
YOUNG A. (1991) Learning-by-doing and dynamic effects of international trade ,Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 106, n 2, pp. 396-406.
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
38/166
1:
1993 2008 ( )
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
39/166
38
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
40/166
39
5
. . , -, 2003Q1 2010Q3.
, . , , .
: , , , -.
,
. , (Friedman, 2000). . , (Fischer and Easterly, 1990). , , . (Darrat, 1988).
., .
.
5
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
41/166
40
, ,, . , . ,
, , , , , .
, . (Y) (C),(S) (T);
Y = C + S + T (1)
:
Y = C + I + G + (X - M) (2)
, (C), (I), (G) - (X-M). , :
C + S + T = C + I + G + (X M) (3)
:
(X M) = (T G) + (S I) (4)
(S I) , (G) (T) , .
, -, . , . , ,
., , , , , , .
, , . ,
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
42/166
41
, . , .4, ( (T G)) ( (S I)) , , .
. , , , : , .
Leachman and Francis (2002) 1948 1992 . 1948 1975 . , , 1976 1992 ,
. , Darrat (1988), , . , , , . Vamvoukas (1997, 1999) , . Akhtar (1994) 1980- , , . , Morgan
(1999) 19801989, 1990 , , . , 1990-. , Monacelli and Perotti (2007) , , , . , . Corsetti and Muller (2006) ( ) ().
, (1994) . . .
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
43/166
42
, ., 83 . 83 .
, , . (2004) , 7% 1990-, -. , , . , . , Evans (1986, 1989) , , ,, .
, ,
. 2007 2010 , . , , 2007 2008 ( 2007), , . ,
. . -.
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
44/166
:
2003, p
Dickey-
(ADF)).
1:
,
,
797).
uller (DF)
2
03Q1 2
.
(
.
10Q3.
,
Dick
)
y-Fuller (
,
.
ugmented
(
2011
(Gujara
ickey-Full
)
i,
er
,
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
45/166
DF
,
CAt
1.
D
AD
.2
.
At = C + 1
);
F ADF
.
.
*BBt + t1
.
DF
:
(5)
DF
. ADF
,
.2.
ADF
DF
.
ADF
ADF
-
.
, ..
,
-
(
.
,
-
,
.
.
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
46/166
BBt
t1
C
,
t
r
0,07%
.
)
At = -0.07
value (-4.09
= 29%
,
.3
;
1
,
:
0.96*BBt
) (3.44)
(..
, ..
-
, ..
,
.
1
),
.
.
1 .
.
(
.
(
,
1
1
(
)
.
,
OLS (
0,96
,
.
);
)
.3.
.
,
,
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
47/166
46
, . .5, : , ,, , . , , , , . , , , , ,, , , . , , ,
, , .
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
48/166
47
Akhtar, A., M., (1994). Perspectives on US External Deficits. Federal Reserve Bankof New York, Research Paper, No. 9505.
Corsetti, G., Muller, G., (2006). Twin deficits: Squaring Theory, Evidence andCommon Sense. Economic Policy, No. 48, 597638.
Darrat, A., F., (1988). Have Large Budget Deficits Caused Rising Trade Deficits?Southern Economic Journal, No. 54, 879-887.
Davidson K., (1996). Web Site:http://www.iinet.net.au/~tommy/wwwboard/wwwboard.html
Evans, P., (1988). Is the Dollar High Because of Large Budget Deficits? Journal ofMonetary Economics, No. 18, 227-249.
Evans, P., (1989). Do Budget Deficit Affect the Current Account? Ohio StateUniversity, Working Paper, No. 2.
Fischer, S., and Easterly, W., (1990). The Economics of the Government BudgetConstraint. The World Bank Research Observer, Volume 5, No. 2, 127-142.
Friedman, B., (2000). What Have We Learned from the Reagan Deficits and TheirDissapearance? National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 7647.
Gujarati, D., 2003. Basic Econometrics. McGraw Hill, Fourth Edition.
Leachman, L., and Francis B., (2002). Twin Deficits: Apparition or Reality? Journalof Applied Economics, 34 (9), 1121-1133.
Monacelli, T., Perotti, R., (2006). Fiscal Policy, the Trade Balance and the RealExchange Rate: Implications for International Risk Sharing. Working Paper, UniversitaBocconi.
Morgan, N., (1999). Twin Deficits, What Twin Deficits? Web Site:
http://www.iinet.net.au/~tommy/wwwboard/wwwboard.htmlNormandin M., (1994). Budget Deficit Persistence and the Twin Deficits Hypothesis.
Center for Research on Economic Fluctuations and Employment. Universite du Quebec,Montreal. Working Paper. No. 31.
Reynolds, A., (2004). The Conventional Hypothesis: Deficit Estimates, SavingsRates, Twin Deficits and Yield Curves. Publications of the US Treasury Department. Paperpresented at the Treasurys Roundtable on the Federal Budget, Taxes and Economic Growth.
Vamvoukas, G., A., (1997). A Note on Budget Deficits and Interest Rates: Evidencefrom a Small Open Economy. Southern Economic Journal No. 63, 803-811.
Vamvoukas, G., A., (1999). The Twin Deficits Phenomenon: Evidence from Greece,
Applied Economics, No. 31, 1093-1100.
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
49/166
48
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
50/166
49
M
6
34349 /
. , , , . , , ,
. , , .
. (). , . , . , .
. (1988) 1973-1983. . (1974) 1951 1969 . (1985) . , ,
. (2001) 1973 1997 . .
, .
6e-mail:[email protected]
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
51/166
50
. , , . , , , . ,
(, 1994;, 1999). , , .
. (1999), (1994) (2004) . , (1999) , (1994) (1986)
. (1973), (1978),(1984), (1986) (1998) . , , (1991), (1988), (1988), (1993) (1992), .
, ( , (2006), - (2007) (2009)). . , . . , , 85% .
. , (2006) , . , ,
() . ,- (2007) . , . . , . , ,
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
52/166
51
. . , , (2006), . (2009) .
, , . , . , , , .
. 2. 3 . 4 .
, . , , . .
)1(,lnlnln 3210 tr
ttt ZPYX
tX, tY (),
r
tP tZ. (1), ( tY)
. . (1) ( tY).
( ftP )
( tP ). tf
t
r
t PPP / .
, . ,
, .,
rtE
:
)2(,t
f
t
t
r
tP
PEE
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
53/166
52
r
tE ,f
tP tP ,
, . tP :
)3(,])()/1[(2/12
21
1
it
rn
i
itr
t EEnZ
n 4. (1998). , .
, . , 1Augmented Dickey-Fuller , ADF . ,
() . :
)4(,1
110 titiitr
iiti
n
i
ititt ZInPInYInXeaaInX
1te .
1997Q1 2010Q3. , .
. 1997:Q1, () 1999. , / . , .
1. ADF 4 . 1. AIC. ADF . , , I(1).
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
54/166
53
1.
(A) ADF(L)
Xlog -0.142 (4)
Ylog -2.071 (4)
rPlog 0.192 (4)
Z -2.705 (4)
(B) ADF(L)
Xlog -11.66* (0)
Ylog -12.54* (0)
rPlog -3.74* (0)
Z -4.96* (0)
: (L) AIC. (*)
5 %
, I (1), . 2. max eigenvalue trace .
2.
:0H max eigenvalue trace
r=0 47.08* 73.16*
r=1 18.33 26.08r=2 6.69 7.74
r=3 1.05 1.05
: * 5%
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
55/166
54
() t-:
*)64.6(*)60.5(*)99.5(
)5(,44.27680.819.38 tttt ZInPInYInX
: * 5%
(5) . (), , . , , .
t
f
t
r
t PPP / , .
; 8.8 . . , ,.
, () . 6. . , . , . , . .
.
*)06.2(*)05.2()16.0()85.0()38.0()19.1(
)6(,562.9327.11002.0129.00028.0015.0 11111
tttttt ZPYXeInX
: t-. *
5%.
, , . , . , , , .
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
56/166
55
1997Q1- 2010Q3. , , , . , , . (), , . , . , , . , , ,.
Akhtar, M., and Hilton, R. S. (1984) Effects of Exchange Rate Uncertainty onGerman and U.S. Trade, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Quarterly Review, 9, 7-16.
Arize A.C. (2001) "Traditional Export Demand Relation and Parameter Instability:An Empirical Investigation" Journal of Economic Studies 28, 378-398.
Cote A. (1994) Exchange Rate Volatility and Trade: A Survey, Bank of CanadaWorking Paper 94-5; 1-28.
Clark, P., Tamirisa, N., Wei, S.J. (2004) Exchange Rate Volatility and Trade Flows:Some New Evidence, IMF WorkingPaper, May 2004, International Monetary Fund.
De Grauwe, P. (1992) The Benefits of a Common Currency in: De Grauwe, P.(eds.), The Economics of Monetary Integration, Oxford University Press, New York.
Ethier, W. (1973) International Trade and the Forward Exchange Market, AmericanEconomic Review 63, 494-503.
Fountas, S. and Bredin, D. (1997) Exchange Rate Volatility and Exports: The Case ofIreland, Applied Economics Letters 5(1998): 3014.
Franke, G. (1991) Exchange rate volatility and international trading strategy,Journal of International Money and Finance, 10, 292-307.
Giovannini, A. (1988) Exchange Rates and Traded Goods Prices, Journal ofInternational Economics 24(1/2):45-68.
Goldstein, M. and M. S. Khan (1985) Income and Price Elasticities in ForeignTrade in R. Jones and P. Kenen, (eds.) Handbook of International Economics, Vol. 2,Amsterdam, North Holland.
Gutierrez, E. (2006) Export Performance and External Competitiveness in theFormer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, IMF Working Paper WP/06/261.
Hooper, P., and Kohlhagen, S. W. (1978) The Effects of Exchange Rate Uncertaintyon the Price and Volume of International Trade, Journal of International Economics, 8, 483-511.
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
57/166
56
Kabir, R. (1988) Estimating Import and Export Demand Functions: The Case ofBangladesh, The Bangladesh Development Studies Vol. 14, No. 4: 115-27.
Kadievska-Vojnovic, M. and Unevska, D. (2007) Price and Income Elasticities ofExport and Import and Economic Growth in the case of the Republic of Macedonia,Working Paper, National Bank of the Republic of Macedonia.
McKenzie, M. D. (1999) The Impact of Exchange Rate Volatility on InternationalTrade Flows, Journal of Economic Surveys, 13, 71-106.
Kenen, P. T., and Rodrick, D. (1986) Measuring and Analyzing the Effects of ShortRun Volatility in Real Exchange Rates, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 68, 311-315.
Khan, M. S. (1974) Import and Export Demand in Developing Countries, IMF StaffPapers, Vol. 21, pp. 678-693.
Koray, F. and Lastrapes, W. (1989) Real Exchange Rate Volatility and US BilateralTrade: a VAR Approach, The Review of Economics and Statistics 71, 708-712.
Kroner, K.F. and Lastrapes, W.D. (1993) The Impact of Exchange Rate Volatility on
International Trade: Reduced Form Estimates Using the GARCH-in-mean Model Journal ofInternational Money and Finance, 12, 298318.
Petreski G. and Kostoska O. (2009) Modelling the Determinants of Exports andImports: Assessment of Macedonian Competitive Performances, University of Craiova,Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Management and Marketing Journal,01/2009.
Sato, K. (1977) The Demand Function for Industrial Exports: A Cross-CountryAnalysis, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.59, No.4, Nov., 456-464.
Sercu, P. and Van Hulle, C. (1992) Exchange Rate Volatility, International Tradeand the Value of Exporting Firms, Journal of Banking and Finance, 16, 155182.
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
58/166
57
:
M-
-
D-
-
. . , , .
: , , , ,
() . , , , (Bori, Beko, Kavkler, 2008). . 1920 , . , (Zheng, 2009). , (Rogof, 1996). . ,
( ) . . , .
-, , . , , ,
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
59/166
58
- (Bogoev, 2008). , . , (Parikhand Wakerly, 2000). .
CPI:
REt= Et (Pt*/ Pt) (1)
REt, Et, P t* Pt(Bori,Beko, Kavkler, 2008). :
log(REt) =log(Et)+log(Pt*)-log(Pt)
.
, :
PPP () . .
ER . ( )
DLER
DLPPP
DDLER
DDLPP
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
60/166
59
. LNPPP DLNPPP , LER DLER .
-
,
-
LPPP 0.038015 -3.0819 -1.4935 -3.7612
DLPPP -2.6955 -3.1004 -2.6193 -3.7921
DDLPPP -4.1615 -3.1223 -3.9436 -3.8288
-
-.
:
0.41DLPPP-.00860 REDL
p= [.816] [.602]
, . DLER . DLPPP 1% , ER () 0.41%.
. -1,4920 -4,1109, .
, EC (Harris and Sollis, 2003). ECM , .
1-t.50958u0.297DDLPPP0-0.0052 REDDL
p= .860] [.653] [.088]
, 1%- 0,29%, 50,95% a oa. , . ( ), . DDLPPP , Rogoff (1996), . , :
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
61/166
60
1-t.515u0-0.0072 REDDL
p= [.798] [.072]
51,5% e . ,10% .
, - . , .
Besimi F., Pugh G. and N. Adnett (2006) The Monetary Transmission Mechanism in
Macedonia: ImplicationsforMonetary Policy. Working Paper 02-2006, CentreforResearchon Emerging Economies, IESR, Staffordshire University, UK.
Bogoev, J., Terzijan, BS, gert, B., Petrovska, M. (2008) Real Exchange Rate Dynamics inMacedonia: Old Wisdoms and New Insights. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal,Vol. 2, 2008-18.
Borsic, Beko, Kavker, (2008) Investigating Purchasing Power Parity In Central And EasternEuropean Countries: A Panel Data Approach, University of Maribor, Faculty of Economicsand Business.
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
62/166
61
3
2010
3: 2010
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
63/166
62
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
64/166
63
,
, . -. , , : (1) 20007; (2) 82001; (3)
9
2001; (4) 102001; (5)112002; (6) 122003; (7) -2005, ; (9) 200613 2006. 2010 , .
, ,
. , , , . .
7, .83/19998, .28 /20019, . /200110, .53/200111, .89/2001, .62/200312, .7/2003132006, , .69/2007
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
65/166
64
2010 , 93%, 66% . (61,3% 53,1%), (30,8%) (27,7%). , 11,5% .
2006, , . . , , . , , , , ,. , ( ,
) .2010
(.)
2010/2009
%
(.)
%
2010/2009
3301.8 122.7 100.0 5450.7 100.0 108.1
2072.7 132.4 62.8 3259.7 59.8 107.1
(27) 2025.2 133.9 61.3 2896.9 53.1 110.1
20.5 107.1 0.6 100.6 1.8 79.7
28 80.5 0.8 262.1 4.8 91.8
3.9 11.1 0.1 56.5 1.0 105.4
206.2 230.1 6.2 1507.2 27.7 111.8
1017.9 101.8 30.8 627.2 11.5 105
:
(
)
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
66/166
65
- ( 2005), . .
14
- (National Program for Adoption of the Acquis Communoutaire). . .
, , ,, .
: 1- , 3-
, 7- , 12- , , 20- , 29- 30- .
()
. , 2009 2009 2020 .
,, . , 2010 - .15
2010 , . (IDEAS -Investment Development and Export AdvancementSupport) 2011 .
2011
142011, , 2010 ,http://www.sep.gov.mk/Default.aspx?ContentID=158&ControlID=NpaaIzvestai.ascx15, . 57/2010
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
67/166
66
. ( , , , .).
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
68/166
67
M
. , . .
, ,. -2000-2008: 16,2% 2000 21,2% 2008. 2009, 2010 12,0%, 7,2%. -2001 2005 ,2006 -, . , .
.
, , . . . , .
- . 2006 2006/123/().
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
69/166
68
. : ; ; ; .
, . , - ., ., , -, .
, , ,
.
-
-:
-
-
- .
,- . ,-.
, 03 - , .
(2009). ,
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
70/166
69
. .
. 12 . 12, 6 . :
- (, . 124/2010; , . 158/2010 ).
- ( , . 17/2011; , . 158/2010; , . 124/2010).
- ( , . 158/2010; , . 115/2010).
, .
.
, . 2011 2012 .
. .
. . 40% .
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
71/166
70
(2009), -. , .
-. , . , -- .
-
, .
:
1. 2006/123/ 12.12.2006.
2. .
3. .
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
72/166
71
4
4:
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
73/166
72
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
74/166
73
1.-
.1.1.
(
)
(%
)
(%
)
(%)
1999 1122.65 -1666.49 3398.54 2789.14 -16.0% 82.1% 67.4%
2000 1436.70 -2267.08 3843.72 3703.78 -21.6% 96.4% 63.4%
2001 1293.30 -1891.02 3802.29 3184.33 -15.7% 83.7% 68.4%
2002 1178.35 -2109.94 3966.99 3288.29 -23.5% 82.9% 55.8%2003 1207.13 -2038.86 4089.20 3245.98 -20.3% 79.4% 59.2%
2004 1345.91 -2356.80 4313.12 3702.72 -23.4% 85.8% 57.1%
2005 1644.35 -2598.53 4660.47 4242.89 -20.5% 91.0% 63.3%
2006 1917.51 -2988.42 5055.53 4905.92 -21.2% 97.0% 64.2%
2007 2477.14 -3853.03 5934.78 6330.17 -23.2% 106.7% 64.3%
2008 2689.17 -4679.53 6694.76 7368.70 -29.7% 110.1% 57.5%
2009 1925.24 -3615.65 6720.60 5540.89 -25.2% 82.4% 53.2%
2010 2493.08 -4115.58 6892.07 6608.65 -23.5% 95.9% 60.6%
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
75/166
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
76/166
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
77/166
76
.1.3.
, %
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
9.1% 2.9% 24.2% 33.1% 14.2% 19.0% 14.8% -3.1% 22.1%
-2.6% -8.3% -15.2% 27.6% 17.7% -0.8% -2.7% -5.1% 8.3% -10.4% -5.9% 0.6% 53.6% 66.1% 37.6% 48.5% -33.0% 58.4%,.
-45.3% 145.8% -3.4% 108.8% 36.3% -32.7% 77.2% -31.9%33.6%
32.3% -74.5% 679.9% -59.1% -25.4% 4.7% 370.1% -30.7%45.8%
8.5% -15.4% -4.9% 23.7% 9.8% 21.1% 26.8% 0.3% 133.4%
-19.6% 5.2% 26.3% 23.5% 23.9% 62.4% -1.3% -49.3%35.2%
-7.9% -9.6% 4.4% 18.7% 6.9% 17.0% 14.6% -19.2%12.7%
-2.1% 1.4% 10.0% 3.4% 2.7% 19.8% 4.0% -12.6% 1.7%
49.9% -39.8% 16.6% 6.5% -21.6% -44.9% -25.9% -38.2%199.2%
149.0% -71.3% 29.9% -39.0% -95.2% -77.0% -70.9% -100% 0%
.1.4.
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
5.6% 6.7% 6.7% 7.5% 8.2% 8.0% 7.4% 7.7% 10.5% 10% 10.5% 11.2% 10.0% 7.6% 8.0% 8.0% 6.2% 5.5% 7.3% 6.1%
3.2% 3.2% 2.9% 2.6% 3.3% 4.7% 5.0% 6.8% 6.4% 7.9%
,.
3.7% 2.2% 5.4% 4.7% 8.0% 9.3% 4.9% 7.9% 7.5% 7.8%
0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%
5.2% 6.2% 5.1% 4.4% 4.4% 4.2% 3.9% 4.5% 6.4% 11.6%
32.2% 28.3% 29.1% 33.0% 33.4% 35.4% 44.5% 40.2% 28.6% 30%
6.6% 6.7% 5.9% 5.5% 5.4% 4.9% 4.5% 4.7% 5.3% 4.6%
32.5% 34.8% 34.5% 34.0% 28.9% 25.3% 23.5% 22.4% 27.5% 21.7%
0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
78/166
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
79/166
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
80/166
79
.1.6.
, %
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
20.3% -8.0% 13.2% 1.7% 4.6% 31.0% 11.6% -4.8% 4.9% -5.7% 12.4% 5.2% 11.1% 1.5% 10.1% 24.6% 6.6% 17.3% 0.7% 0.3% 17.2% 37.9% 24.0% 104.6% 9.7% -40.7% 53.8%,.
6.4% 2.6% 12.0% 55.7% 21.4% 17.8% 35.5% -39.8% 25.7%
17.3% 2.7% 96.6% -43.2% 3.5% 37.2% 33.8% -28.6% 19.6%
16.3% 0.6% 0.2% 18.9% 8.1% 23.2% 16.7% -2.3% 22.7%
21.2% 5.2% 102.2% 28.3% 16.9% 23.3% 15.0% -32.0% 20.4%
36.4% -11.0% 5.6% 11.6% 21.2% 39.2% 28.5% -11.6% -5%
-2.1% -5.0% 21.4% 47.1% 1.0% 26.5% 18.3% -8.3% 6.1%
-8.1% -5.4% -31.6% -99.4% 0.0% -22.7% -10.5% 259.2% -9.6%
-16.3% -44.1% -22.0% -8.4% -1.6% -25.8% -12.1% -100% 0%
.1.7.
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
11.4% 12.3% 11.7% 11.5% 10.6% 9.7% 9.8% 9.0% 11.1% 10.2% 1.1% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 1.0% 1.1% 2.8% 2.5% 2.6% 2.6% 3.3% 3.6% 5.6% 5.1% 3.9% 5.3%,.
13.8% 13.2% 14.0% 13.6% 19.1% 20.2% 18.5% 20.6% 16.1% 17.7%
0.9% 1.0% 1.1% 1.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% 0.9% 1.0%
10.2% 10.6% 11.0% 9.6% 10.3% 9.7% 9.3% 8.9% 11.3% 12.2%
12.2% 13.2% 14.4% 25.2% 29.4% 29.9% 28.6% 27.1% 23.8% 25.2%
16.7% 20.4% 18.8% 17.2% 17.4% 18.3% 19.8% 21.0% 24.0% 20%
6.5% 5.7% 5.6% 5.9% 7.8% 6.9% 6.7% 6.6% 7.8% 7.3%
24.3% 20.0% 19.6% 11.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1.0%
0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
81/166
80
.1.8.,
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
33.4% 30.3% 33.9% 37.2% 48.7% 53.2% 48.3% 49.7% 50.6% 78.0% 672.3% 694.3% 566.7% 456.7% 524.3% 608.0% 547.7% 427.7% 381.0% 465.9% 79.6% 70.8% 66.5% 57.0% 63.5% 85.1% 57.2% 77.5% 87.6% 119.5%
,. 18.5% 9.5% 22.8% 19.7% 26.4% 29.7% 16.9% 22.1% 25.1% 35.3% 11.9% 13.4% 3.3% 13.2% 9.5% 6.9% 5.2% 18.4% 17.9% 28.9% 35.1% 32.8% 27.5% 26.1% 27.2% 27.6% 27.2% 29.5% 30.3% 76.3% 180.0% 119.4% 119.5% 74.6% 71.8% 76.2% 100.3% 86.0% 64.2% 95.4% 27.0% 18.3% 18.6% 18.4% 19.5% 17.2% 14.5% 12.9% 11.8% 18.5% 343.5% 343.3% 366.6% 332.1% 233.5% 237.5% 224.9% 197.7% 188.4% 239.4% 0.6% 0.9% 0.6% 1.0% 177.6% 139.3% 99.2% 82.1% 14.1% 61.9% 22.8% 67.9% 34.9% 58.2% 38.8% 1.9% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
82/166
81
2.-
.2.1.
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
266.4 248.1 247.2 254.3 292.1 298.7 365.7 381.9 323.8 522.90() 298.6 259.7 242.1 279.3 372.0 442.3 469.2 631.4 246.4 225.95 219.3 327.16 113.0 123.3 159.2 184.0 252.0 286.6 309.6 357.5 208.3 185.06 101.9 87.5 84.9 107.9 136.6 188.5 255.3 219.3 155.5 177.12 23.3 23.0 22.8 41.3 61.7 103.1 177.3 253.5 154.1 222.01 65.4 62.2 58.4 64.6 65.1 98.9 119.7 155.5 110.0 93.34
18.1 19.2 20.9 26.7 40.9 51.4 64.7 71.1 61.9 64.14 11.2 14.4 15.3 18.9 22.4 32.2 53.3 72.6 60.0 54.65 50.8 47.5 41.9 38.0 35.8 44.1 53.6 47.9 44.0 53.04 29.9 30.2 30.9 34.2 34.7 29.0 55.6 47.9 30.5 44.77 9.7 9.0 28.9 43.4 36.9 44.0 39.1 21.2 29.4 38.44 24.2 15.8 18.8 18.6 11.2 39.4 128.1 51.3 27.4 55.63 8.4 11.0 8.5 12.0 28.1 65.7 130.1 75.1 25.8 60.98 23.4 22.8 18.8 22.0 25.5 32.7 50.5 43.8 24.4 52.17 0.4 0.6 24.0 20.3 26.1 17.8 7.0 13.9 17.6 15.6 15.3 12.1 15.8 17.3 20.3 17.2 22.6 16.0 20.19 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.5 3.4 10.5 14.0 22.4 14.1 41.01 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.8 7.2 11.9 14.6 15.2 13.6 27.92 39.8 28.4 17.4 5.1 6.1 8.2 7.9 10.9 12.3 14.16 17.9 25.5 48.3 62.1 15.6 8.2 11.8 16.4 9.0 10.47 4.4 8.1 8.6 9.9 47.9 7.5 0.9 0.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.5 2.0 7.4 16.06 3.1 3.8 5.0 4.7 6.8 15.4 11.2 6.4 6.8 9.94 111.0 81.5 63.8 57.9 35.9 17.9 38.0 7.6 6.7 10.75 52.8 41.8 52.2 45.1 135.4 55.7 47.1 59.3 43.0 50,0
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
83/166
82
.2.2.
, %
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
-4.6% -6.9% -0.4% 2.8% 14.9% 2.3% 22.5% 4.4% -15.2% 61.49%() -18.2% -13.0% -6.8% 15.4% 33.2% 18.9% 6.1% 34.6% -61.0% -8.32% 49.17% 23.3% 9.1% 29.2% 15.5% 37.0% 13.7% 8.0% 15.5% -41.7% -11.15% 3.9% -14.2% -3.0% 27.2% 26.5% 38.0% 35.5% -14.1% -29.1% 13.93% -20.5% -1.3% -0.7% 81.0% 49.5% 67.0% 72.0% 43.0% -39.2% 44.11% 24.6% -5.0% -6.1% 10.6% 0.9% 51.9% 21.0% 29.9% -29.2% -15.18%
-28.1% 6.1% 8.9% 27.7% 53.0% 25.5% 26.0% 9.8% -13.0% 3.70% -21.6% 29.4% 6.1% 23.1% 18.6% 43.8% 65.4% 36.4% -17.3% -8.99% 30.1% -6.5% -11.8% -9.3% -5.9% 23.2% 21.5% -10.7% -8.0% 20.50% 1.6% 1.1% 2.3% 10.7% 1.6% -16.6% 91.9% -14.0% -36.2% 46.71% -14.2% -6.9% 221.9% 50.2% -15.0% 19.2% -11.1% -45.8% 38.9% 30.57% 66.8% -34.6% 19.2% -1.2% -39.9% 252.3% 225.3% -60.0% -46.6% 102.94% -67.3% 31.4% -23.1% 42.0% 134.0% 133.8% 97.9% -42.3% -65.6% 135.98% -18.5% -2.6% -17.6% 16.7% 16.2% 28.4% 54.1% -13.3% -44.1% 113.45% 42.3% 3839.8% 28.2% -31.8% 97.9% 26.6% 38.3% -1.8% -20.9% 30.6% 9.0% 17.9% -15.4% 31.4% -29.3% 26.31%
-9.7% -3.1% 16.9% 20.5% 131.4% 209.8% 33.5% 59.5% -37.1% 191.02% -34.7% -1.4% -0.9% -0.2% 7.0% 64.5% 22.7% 4.4% -10.8% 105.34% 5.0% -28.7% -38.6% -70.5% 17.7% 36.1% -4.6% 38.3% 12.8% 15.39% 10.9% 42.3% 89.2% 28.6% -74.9% -47.6% 43.7% 39.8% -45.2% 16.25% 83.6% 5.7% 383.0% -84.3% 72.1% -40.3% 201.7% 10.7% -4.4% -14.2% 4.2% 34.1% 271.9% 118.16% 11.3% 23.1% 31.0% -6.5% 45.5% 128.0% -27.6% -42.6% 5.5% 46.94% -37.7% -26.6% -21.8% -9.1% -38.1% -50.0% 111.7% -80.1% -10.7% 59.26% -28.9% -21.0% 25.0% -13.7% 200.5% -58.9% -15.5% 26.0% -27.6% 180.03%
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
84/166
83
.2.3.
, %
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
20.6% 21.1% 20.5% 18.9% 17.8% 15.7% 14.8% 14.2% 16.8% 20.97%
() 23.1% 22.0% 20.1% 20.8% 22.6% 23.2% 18.9% 23.5% 12.8% 9.06% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.4% 13.12% 8.7% 10.5% 13.2% 13.7% 15.3% 15.0% 12.5% 13.3% 10.8% 7.42% 7.9% 7.4% 7.0% 8.0% 8.3% 9.9% 10.3% 8.2% 8.1% 7.10% 1.8% 1.9% 1.9% 3.1% 3.8% 5.4% 7.2% 9.4% 8.0% 8.91% 5.1% 5.3% 4.8% 4.8% 4.0% 5.2% 4.8% 5.8% 5.7% 3.74% 1.4% 1.6% 1.7% 2.0% 2.5% 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% 3.2% 2.57% 0.9% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.7% 2.2% 2.7% 3.1% 2.19% 3.9% 4.0% 3.5% 2.8% 2.2% 2.3% 2.2% 1.8% 2.3% 2.13% 2.3% 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 2.1% 1.5% 2.2% 1.8% 1.6% 1.80% 0.7% 0.8% 2.4% 3.2% 2.2% 2.3% 1.6% 0.8% 1.5% 1.54% 1.9% 1.3% 1.6% 1.4% 0.7% 2.1% 5.2% 1.9% 1.4% 2.23% 0.6% 0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 1.7% 3.4% 5.3% 2.8% 1.3% 2.45% 1.8% 1.9% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 2.0% 1.6% 1.3% 2.09% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 1.0% 0.9% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5% 0.9% 0.0% 1.2% 1.3% 1.0% 1.2% 1.0% 1.1% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.81% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.8% 0.7% 1.64% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 1.12% 3.1% 2.4% 1.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 0.57% 1.4% 2.2% 4.0% 4.6% 0.9% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.42% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 1.8% 0.4% 0,0%
0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.64% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.8% 0.5% 0.2% 0.4% 0.40% 8.6% 6.9% 5.3% 4.3% 2.2% 0.9% 1.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.43% 4.1% 3.5% 4.3% 3.3% 8.2% 2.9% 1.9% 2.2% 2.2% 2.01%
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
85/166
84
.2.4.
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
240.0 301.1 269.4 296.0 270.2 296.5 389.0 443.9 371.0 460.7
156.0 132.6 158.2 217.9 341.8 453.8 465.7 633.7 354.9 417.2 206.2 251.6 265.7 227.2 239.3 244.0 303.7 347.9 314.9 338.8 176.4 195.8 188.1 195.9 212.4 225.7 332.6 363.3 285.9 317.0 120.4 125.4 108.8 135.7 156.0 181.8 228.6 265.3 259.3 247.1 20.8 25.9 42.7 65.9 92.7 110.4 179.2 214.6 207.5 217.0 52.0 62.7 69.7 76.3 91.6 97.6 144.8 185.0 179.8 196.6 115.4 135.9 131.9 168.6 188.4 200.2 197.8 223.0 174.0 227.7 132.8 137.1 122.9 112.8 102.9 103.2 113.9 138.3 136.9 124.7 26.0 29.9 24.1 36.7 51.3 47.1 83.7 199.1 88.3 73.6 51.8 58.4 56.2 52.9 60.5 62.9 80.9 93.7 84.8 85.5 57.6 62.1 50.0 38.6 36.3 32.1 57.3 69.1 79.4 77.3 14.7 10.3 12.7 90.9 52.2 73.2 70.5 80.0 77.3 95.3 49.0 56.4 49.7 55.4 55.6 64.2 75.0 81.5 71.9 70.7 33.8 56.1 45.5 54.3 49.0 53.1 66.2 84.8 65.5 64.2 96.3 76.9 77.8 59.6 58.0 84.2 76.2 138.0 60.6 88.0 17.2 23.0 23.4 63.0 76.1 93.9 118.7 180.4 59.7 52.7 51.1 54.8 43.9 45.9 42.9 47.9 55.0 64.0 50.5 51.7 11.9 24.5 20.6 33.0 30.3 30.4 55.0 82.8 45.1 45.0. 29.3 34.7 34.9 44.0 35.5 30.4 38.6 48.0 44.8 214.1 18.8 23.9 17.1 19.6 18.3 21.5 30.1 39.5 39.0 34.1 13.0 9.6 10.6 14.0 18.8 26.2 47.1 44.6 37.2 38.8 19.5 30.4 25.8 24.9 29.2 30.0 40.3 54.8 36.5 36.0 11.1 13.4 21.8 24.9 26.0 41.3 38.0 37.8 34.7 45.6
4.6 15.1 10.4 13.1 19.0 21.1 25.5 35.8 33.4 37.1 7.5 9.4 12.4 18.8 27.1 33.0 40.2 39.2 27.5 32.7 16.1 16.6 14.8 17.8 21.9 21.5 23.6 28.6 24.0 23.8 21.0 18.7 17.8 20.2 16.1 23.6 40.2 36.4 22.7 25.5 1.5 1.2 3.5 5.1 7.3 9.3 14.4 24.2 17.3 17.3 119.3 116.3 108.6 127.8 172.0 228.4 421.4 402.4 331.5 316.3
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
86/166
85
.2.5.
, %
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
-12.5% 25.5% -10.5% 9.9% -8.7% 9.7% 31.2% 14.1% -16.4% 24.2%
-24.9% -15.0% 19.3% 37.7% 56.9% 32.8% 2.6% 36.1% -44.0% 17.6% -5.6% 22.0% 5.6% -14.5% 5.3% 2.0% 24.5% 14.5% -9.5% 7.6% -14.4% 11.0% -3.9% 4.2% 8.4% 6.3% 47.4% 9.2% -21.3% 10.9% 0.1% 4.2% -13.2% 24.7% 15.0% 16.5% 25.7% 16.1% -2.2% -4.7% 42.6% 24.5% 65.1% 54.4% 40.5% 19.1% 62.4% 19.7% -3.3% 4.6% -8.3% 20.4% 11.2% 9.5% 20.0% 6.6% 48.4% 27.8% -2.8% 9.3% 9.1% 17.8% -2.9% 27.8% 11.7% 6.2% -1.2% 12.7% -22.0% 30.9% -14.9% 3.3% -10.3% -8.2% -8.8% 0.3% 10.3% 21.4% -1.0% -8.9% -10.2% 15.2% -19.5% 52.7% 39.7% -8.2% 77.5% 138.0% -55.7% -16.6% -17.3% 12.8% -3.8% -5.9% 14.4% 4.1% 28.5% 15.8% -9.4% 0.8% -35.9% 7.7% -19.5% -22.9% -5.7% -11.6% 78.2% 20.6% 15.0% -2.6% -3.1% -30.0% 23.3% 615.1% -42.6% 40.3% -3.7% 13.5% -3.4% 23.3%
8.5% 15.1% -11.9% 11.4% 0.5% 15.3% 16.9% 8.7% -11.8% -1.6% -19.1% 65.8% -18.8% 19.3% -9.7% 8.3% 24.8% 28.0% -22.7% -2.1% -56.8% -20.1% 1.2% -23.4% -2.7% 45.3% -9.5% 81.2% -56.1% 45.4% -23.9% 34.0% 1.4% 169.5% 20.8% 23.4% 26.5% 52.0% -66.9% -11.6% 4.1% 7.3% -20.0% 4.7% -6.7% 11.8% 14.7% 16.5% -21.1% 2.4% -7.9% 105.8% -16.3% 60.6% -8.3% 0.4% 80.9% 50.5% -45.5% -0.2%. -15.5% 18.3% 0.7% 26.1% -19.3% -14.3% 26.8% 24.5% -6.7% 377.8% -21.2% 27.3% -28.6% 14.5% -6.6% 17.3% 40.2% 31.3% -1.3% -12.5% -9.4% -26.3% 10.6% 32.9% 33.6% 39.7% 79.8% -5.5% -16.5% 4.2% -42.8% 56.0% -15.1% -3.3% 17.1% 2.7% 34.5% 36.0% -33.4% -1.5% -9.4% 21.1% 62.4% 14.5% 4.4% 58.8% -8.0% -0.5% -8.4% 31.5% -19.8% 226.3% -31.3% 26.2% 44.6% 11.4% 20.7% 40.3% -6.7% 11.2%
-40.8% 25.4% 31.4% 51.7% 44.0% 21.8% 21.9% -2.4% -29.9% 19.0% 9.8% 3.5% -11.3% 20.3% 23.4% -1.8% 9.8% 21.1% -16.1% -1.1% -38.8% -10.9% -4.7% 13.1% -20.1% 46.4% 70.2% -9.3% -37.7% 12.6% -56.4% -18.3% 194.0% 45.6% 43.0% 28.0% 53.7% 68.9% -28.7% 0.1% -5.5% -2.5% -6.7% 17.7% 34.6% 32.8% 84.5% -4.5% -17.6% 11.2%
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
87/166
86
.2.6.
, %
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
12.7% 14.3% 13.2% 12.6% 10.4% 9.9% 10.1% 9.5% 10.3% 11.2%
8.2% 6.3% 7.8% 9.2% 13.2% 15.2% 12.1% 13.5% 9.8% 10.1% 10.9% 11.9% 13.0% 9.6% 9.2% 8.2% 7.9% 7.4% 8.7% 8.2% 9.3% 9.3% 9.2% 8.3% 8.2% 7.6% 8.6% 7.8% 7.9% 7.7% 6.4% 5.9% 5.3% 5.8% 6.0% 6.1% 5.9% 5.7% 7.2% 6.0% 1.1% 1.2% 2.1% 2.8% 3.6% 3.7% 4.7% 4.6% 5.7% 5.3% 2.8% 3.0% 3.4% 3.2% 3.5% 3.3% 3.8% 4.0% 5.0% 4.8% 6.1% 6.4% 6.5% 7.2% 7.3% 6.7% 5.1% 4.8% 4.8% 5.5% 7.0% 6.5% 6.0% 4.8% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 3.0% 3.8% 3.0% 1.4% 1.4% 1.2% 1.6% 2.0% 1.6% 2.2% 4.3% 2.4% 1.8% 2.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.2% 2.3% 2.1% 2.1% 2.0% 2.3% 2.1% 3.0% 2.9% 2.5% 1.6% 1.4% 1.1% 1.5% 1.5% 2.2% 1.9% 0.8% 0.5% 0.6% 3.9% 2.0% 2.5% 1.8% 1.7% 2.1% 2.3%
2.6% 2.7% 2.4% 2.3% 2.1% 2.1% 1.9% 1.7% 2.0% 1.7% 1.8% 2.7% 2.2% 2.3% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.6% 5.1% 3.6% 3.8% 2.5% 2.2% 2.8% 2.0% 2.9% 1.7% 2.1% 0.9% 1.1% 1.1% 2.7% 2.9% 3.1% 3.1% 3.9% 1.7% 1.3% 2.7% 2.6% 2.2% 1.9% 1.6% 1.6% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 0.6% 1.2% 1.0% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0% 1.4% 1.8% 1.2% 1.1%. 1.5% 1.6% 1.7% 1.9% 1.4% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.2% 5.2% 1.0% 1.1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 1.1% 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.9% 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 1.0% 1.4% 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.2% 1.0% 0.9% 0.6% 0.6% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.4% 1.0% 0.8% 1.0% 1.1% 0.2% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9%
0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 6.3% 5.5% 5.3% 5.4% 6.6% 7.6% 10.9% 8.6% 9.2% 7.7%
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
88/166
87
REVIEW
OFTHEFOREIGNTRADE
OFMACEDONIA
2011
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
89/166
88
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
90/166
89
PART1
TRENDSINMACEDONIASFOREIGNTRADE
IN2010
Part1:TRENDSINMACEDONIASFOREIGNTRADEIN2010
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
91/166
90
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
92/166
91
The aim of this analysis is to present the most important trends and structuralcharacteristics of Macedonias foreign trade in 2010 and put them into context with thegeneral domestic and global economic movements which marked that year. Therefore, theanalysis begins with a review of trends in the global trade and general movements in theforeign trade of Macedonia, and then two sections separately deal with developments andstructural changes in exports and imports. In a separate section, emphasis is put on the terms
of trade and trends in prices of some major trade products, primarily metals and energy.Finally, the analysis focuses on the trade balance.
1. TrendsintheGlobalTradeof2010
In 2010, the world trade started to show signs of recovery from the global economiccrisis. Moreover, the growth in 2010 compared to 2009 was 22% (in dollar value) and 14.6%(in quantity). The growth of 14.6% of the world trade is the biggest annual growth of theworld trade since 1950. It, above all, is due to the export growth in developing countries in2010 of 16.7%, compared to developed economies, where external trade had 12.9% growth.The boost of trade was aided by the Government measures for encouraging exports in 2009
and the beginning of 2010. Such measures were necessary as a result of the continued effectsof the crisis which has spilled over from the financial sector, through the real sector and intothe social sector. Many of the economies are faced with growing unemployment and reducedfiscal spending due to high budget deficits. Therefore, in order to bring the economy back tolife, economists implemented protectionist measures in foreign trade. Such measures include:subsidies, cheap access to credit, tax relief /cuts for exporters and the like.
Figure 1 World Trade (2000-2010)
Source: Direction of trade statistics of IMF
On a regional basis, foreign trade recorded synchronized growth in 2010 in all regionsof the world (Figure 2). The biggest growth was recorded in the countries of the Middle Eastand Asia, with annual growth rates of 37% and 32% respectively. Such leading growth ratesof trade, growth rates of over 30% of the countries of the Western Hemisphere and the
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
trilliondollars
Total world trade
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
93/166
92
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) is due to soaring fuel prices and other rawmaterials in 2010, which present a major export product of the emerging economies of Asiaand the Middle East. The lowest annual growth of 12% in trade was observed in theEurozone countries, followed by Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) with 21%.
Figure 2 Annual Trade Growth by Regions
Source: Direction of trade statistics of IMF
2. GeneralTrendsofMacedoniasForeignTrade
The total trade between Macedonia and the rest of the world in 2010 increased by13.4% compared to 2009 (2009/2008 trade was reduced by 27.6%), and reached 95.9% of thegross domestic product (GDP). The size of trade openness is still below the maximumvolume of trade openness in 2008, when it was 110.1%.
The increased trade openness (volume of trade) is a result of the gradual recovery ofthe economies and the renewed trust of economic agents. In addition, the imports and exportshave gradually increased, reaching values that were achieved in the pre-crisis period. Thevalue of imports increased by 14%, while the value of exports by 29%. Such movements had
positive impact on reducing the trade deficit, which at the end of the year was 23.5% of theGDP. The trade deficit declined slightly compared to 2009 (25.2%), but compared with 2008,the decline was 6.2 percentage points. Hence, the indicator for the coverage of imports byexports (60.6%) shows an increase of 7.4 percentage points compared to 2009.
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Africa SEE
CIS Asia (excl. CIS)
Euro zone Western Hemisphere
Total world trade
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
94/166
93
Figure 3 Foreign Trade and Trade Openness of Macedonia (1999-2010)
Source: State Statistical Office and calculations based on SSO data
3. TrendsandStructuralCharacteristicsofExport
Exports in 2010 showed positive trends and had an impact on increasing the value ofthe GDP. On an annual basis, export growth was 29%, which reached a record growth rate ofexports recorded in 2007 (Figure 4). In the total gross domestic product, the share of exportsrose to 36% from 29% in 2009. Such positive trends are expected to continue in the future,mainly because of expected higher prices of metals and food, which are major exportproducts of Macedonia, but also because of the general recovery of the global economy.
Exports increased in all components, with the exception of investment goods, basedon economic purpose (Figure 5). The decline in exports of investment goods in 2010 was0.1%, which has slightly improved compared to the previous year (0.4%). Of the totalincrease in exports in 2010, the export of industrial products had the largest share (82.5%).
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
-6000
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
%o
fBDP
millioneur
Import (lhs) Export (lhs)
Trade balance (rhs) Trade openness (rhs)
Import coverage with export (rhs)
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
95/166
94
Figure 4 Macedonias Total Exports (1999-2010)
Source: State Statistical Office and calculations based on SSO data
Figure 5 Contribution of Various Sectors (based on economic purpose) to Export
Growth
Source: Calculations based on SSO data
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
%o
fGDP
millioneur
Export (lhs) Export/GDP (rhs)
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
2007 2008 2009 2010
Energy
Industry
Investment
Household consumption
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
96/166
95
The total value of export products for personal consumption and investment goods hasreduced its participation at the expense of the increase in energy goods (insignificant increaseof 0.5 percentage points) and industry that created 51% of the total exports (Figure 6).
Figure 6 Total Export in RM Based on Economic Purpose
Source: State Statistical Office and calculations based on SSO data
The main export products in 2010 were iron and steel (587.3 million), whichsuperceded again the total value of exports above clothes (424.7 million), which in 2009 hadthe highest participation, followed by oil and oil products (154.7 million), ore (153.6 million)and fruit and vegetables (136.7 million) (Figure 7).
Iron and steel have been the major export products of Macedonia for years. In 2009,influenced by the developments in the global economy, their share in total exports dropped(annual decline of 56.6%). However, with the revival of economic activity, it again assumedthe primacy of the most important export product - an increase of 53.4% in 2010. Theincrease in exports is due to: 1) increasing demand for iron and steel of trade partners,especially western European countries that have begun to show positive rates of economicgrowth, and 2) the increase in metal prices on world markets. These factors, simultaneously,affected the substantial increase in the share of metal ore in the total value of exports(increase of 65.2% in 2010 compared to 2009) as well as oil and oil products (annual growthof 20.1%). Only clothing showed stagnant rates, with an insignificant increase of 1.7% overthe previous year.
Household
consumption
38%
Investment
3%
Industry
51%
Energy
8%
2010
Household
consumption44.9%
Investment
4.3%
Industry
43.3%
Energy
7.5%
2009
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
97/166
96
Figure 7 The Five Goods with Greatest Share in Macedonias Export (2003-2010)
Source: SSO
According to these trends, product concentration of exports in 2010 recorded a slightdeterioration (Figure 8). According to the indicator for the five products with the highestexport share in total exports, CR-5, the concentration increased from 58.5% in 2009 to 60.5%in 2010. The same tendency is observed in the Herfindahl-Hirschman index, which has aslight annual increase of 18 index points in 2010 and is positioned at 1068 points.Concentration according to this indicator remains in the zone of medium productconcentration (1000-1800 index points), although it is close to the upper limit of lowconcentration (1000 points).
Figure 8 Production Concentration of Exports (2004-2010)
Source: Calculations based on SSO data
0
100
200
300
400
500600
700
800
900
1,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
millioneur
Clothing Steel a nd iron Oil a nd oil products
Vegetables and fruits Metal ore
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1,000.0
1,200.0
1,400.0
1,600.0
1,800.0
2,000.0
52%
54%
56%
58%
60%
62%
64%
66%
68%
70%
72%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
CR-5 (lhs) HH-index (rhs)
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
98/166
97
In 2010, the biggest export partner of Macedonia was Germany (523 million euros),followed by Kosovo (327 million euros), Serbia (226 million euros), Bulgaria (222 millioneuros) and Greece (185 million euros) (Figure 9). Over the past few years (before theindependence of Kosovo), the leading position in exports belonged to Serbia, but Kosovo wasincluded in the statistics of trade with Serbia. After the independence of Kosovo, it wasevident that more than half of total exports to the former Serbia referred to Kosovo.
In 2010, a different dynamic of export growth towards all economic partners is noted.The increase of exports was notable towards Germany (61%) and Kosovo (49%). The exportsto Serbia decreased 8%, as did the exports to Greece by 11% compared to 2009. The severeeconomic crisis with which Greece has been faced in the past few years resulted in exportdecline to a new low in the past five years.
Figure 9 Macedonias Exports to the Largest Trading Partners (2003-2010)
Source: SSO
If we consider the economic blocks (Figure 10), EU-27 continues to be a leadingexport partner taking over two thirds (-71%) of RMs export in 2010. The exports to CEFTAhave decreased by 16 percentage points compared to the previous year and it is 20.7% in2010.
According to two indicators of concentration, Macedonias export has low to mediumgeographic concentration (Figure 11). The indicator for the concentration of five majorexport partners (CR-5) noted a slight annual increase of two percentage points in 2010 and
positioned at 62%, which is a significant improvement of geographic concentration toprevious years, when this index reached up to 70%. However, it must be considered that thismovement is partly due to the separation of Kosovo from Serbia. The same tendency ispresent in the Herfindahl-Hirschman index, which is positioned at 1052 index points, whichis almost on the border between low and medium concentration (1000 points). Theseobservations of the geographical concentration of exports are important for assessing thesensitivity of exports of individual and regional shocks (such as the economic shock inGreece, which is the fourth export partner of Macedonia).
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
millioneur
Serbia (incl. Kosovo and Montenegro) Germany Greece Serbia Kosovo
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
99/166
98
Figure 10 Macedonias Export to Economic Blocks in 2010
Source: SSO
Figure 11 Geographic Concentration of Exports (2004-2010)
Source: Calculations based on SSO data
EU
CEFTA
Turkey
Russia
Switzerland Rest
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
CR-5 (lhs) HH-index (rhs)
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
100/166
99
4. TrendsandStructuralCharacteristicsofImports
Upon the recovery of the world economy, imports in Macedonia have increased by14% in 2010 compared to the previous year. However, imports increased at a slower pacethan exports. Participation of imports in GDP rose to 60%, an increase of 6 percentage pointscompared to the previous year (Figure 12).
Such a growth rate of imports in 2010 exceeds the average annual growth rate ofimports from 2000 to 2009, which was 10%. In addition, the largest increase in values ofimports was realized in 2000 (36%), 2007 (29%) and 2008 (21%). Negative values thatreduce the average were observed in 2001 (-17%) and 2009 (23%).
Figure 12 Macedonias Total Imports (1999-2010)
Source: Calculations based on SSO data
Analyzed through economic purpose, imports grew in all components except for
investment goods. The fall in imports of investment goods is greater than that of the prev iousyear and amounted to 21.4%. All other components show an increase (Figure 13).
Figure 13 Contribution of Different Sectors (based on economic purpose) in Import
Increase
Source: Calculations based on SSO data
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
%o
fGDP
milli
oneur
Import (lhs) Import /GDP (rhs)
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
2007 2008 2009 2010
Energy
Industry
Investment
Household
consumption
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
101/166
100
Imports of investment goods had the smallest share (11.5%) in 2010, at the expense ofincreasing the share of imports of industry and energy products (Figure 14). It is the result oflow confidence amongst investors in the state the global economy is in.
Figure 14 RMs Total Imports Based on Economic Purpose
Source: SSO and calculations based on SSO data
In 2010, the main import products of Macedonia remained oil and oil products (562million), followed by textiles (304 million), road vehicles (268 million), iron and steel (216million) and electric machines (212 million) (Figure 15). Such a structure of imports, whichhas no development elements emphasizes three structural features of the Macedonianeconomy: 1) high dependence on imported energy, 2) low level of development of the textileindustry, which still dominates the loan production, and 3) low level of finalization of theproducts.
Figure 15 RMs Imports Based on Five Products with Greatest Share in 2010 (2003-
2010)
Source: SSO
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
millioneur
oil and oil products textile steel and iron
road vehicles electric machines, pa rts
Household
consumption26.2%
Investment
16.6%Industry
41.7%
Energy
15.5%
2009
Household
consumption25%
Investment
12%
Industry
46%
Energy
17%
2010
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
102/166
101
Given that imports are beyond the manufacturing base of exports, their productconcentration is relatively low, but 2010 recorded a slight increase (Figure 16). The indicatorfor the five products with the highest share in total imports, CR-5, shows that theconcentration increased from 35.5% in 2009 to 38.5% in 2010. The same tendency isobserved with the Herfindahl-Hirschman index, which increased by 50 index points in 2010and is positioned at 464 points, which still indicates a low product concentration.
Figure 16 Production Concentration of imports (2004-2010)
Source: Calculations based on SSO data
In 2010, the largest importing partner of Macedonia is still Germany (461 million),
followed by Russia (417 million), Greece (339 million), Serbia (317 million) and Italy (247million). In recent years, the leading place belonged to Russia, but imports from this countryin 2009 saw a significant decline of 44% as a result of reduced imports of energy. In 2010,energy imports from Russia increased, but not enough to take the place of the largestimporting partner.
Analyzed by economic blocks (Figure 18), EU-27 still remains a partner which hasabout half of the Macedonian imports (52% in 2010). Unlike exports, imports from CEFTAconstitute only 11% of the total Macedonian export, which is a relatively favorable trend andindicates the position of Macedonia in the framework of the regional group for several yearsnow. The participation of Russia and China in total imports is notable (10% and 5%respectively), despite their negligible share in total exports to Macedonia. Such a position hasdeteriorated the terms of trade of Macedonia in trading with these countries.
The two indicators of concentration show that Macedonian imports have lowgeographic concentration (Figure 19). The indicator for concentration of the top fiveimporting partners (CR-5) has not seen drastic changes, but over the years a slight decline hasbeen evident. The 2010 CR-5 is 43%. A similar tendency is present in the Herfindahl-Hirschman index, which was positioned in 2010 at 545 index points, after a decline of 49index points, which is far below 1000 points.This geographic concentration is consideredmedium.
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
CR-5 (lhs) HH-index (rhs)
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
103/166
102
Figure 17 Macedonias Imports from the Four Largest Trading Partners (2003-2010)
Source: SSO
Figure 18 Macedonias Imports in 2010 (based on economic blocks)
Source: SSO
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
millioneur
Germany Russia Greece Serbia and Montenegro
EU
CEFTA
Russia
China
TurkeySwitzerland Other
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
104/166
103
Figure 19 Concentration of imports (2004-2010)
Source: Calculations based on SSO data
5. TermsofTrade
Equivalent to the intensification of the economic activity in the period 2004-2007,trade conditions, defined as the ratio between export and import prices, are improving.Conversely, the terms of trade in 2008-2010 deteriorated. In 2010, terms of trade deterioratedby about 6%.
Figure 20 Terms of Trade (2004-2010)
Source: Calculations based on SSO data
Deteriorating terms of trade were due primarily to the high prices of oil, which is themain imported product of Macedonia (Figure 15, Chapter 4). The average price of Brent oilon the London Stock Exchange in 2010 amounted to 79.63 dollars per barrel, representing asignificant increase of 28.7% compared to the average level of 2009 (Figure 21). The oil
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
CR-5 (lhs) HH-index (rhs)
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
export/importprices
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
105/166
104
price has gradually increased in the first half of 2010 and reached high values in mid-2010.Although a brief decline in prices followed, due to increased demand, at the end of the yearthe price started to reach record highs that are closer to the values of 2008 (when such aphenomenon was popularly called the third oil shock).
A similar trend is marked with metal prices, which in 2010 increased by 25% (forlead) to 49% (for nickel, Figure 22). The increase in the price of metals, acts to improve theconditions of exchange, because as already mentioned (Figure 7, Chapter 3), iron and steelhave been the main export products of Macedonia for years.
Figure 21 Prices of Brent Oil (2003-2010)
Source: International monetary statistics of IMF
Figure 22 Prices of Metals (2003-2010)
Source: International monetary statistics of IMF
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
USdolla
rsperbarrel
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
USdollarspermetrictone
USdollarspermetrictone
Copper Lead Zinc Nikkel (rhs)
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
106/166
105
6. AnalysisoftheTradeBalance
Trends in exports and imports, and in terms of trade, contributed to a slightimprovement of trade deficit in 2010 and retained the trend that was present in the previousyear. Decline in the trade balance in 2010 was 1.7 percentage points (Figure 3). The drop ofthe trade deficit is smaller than the previous year (4.5 percentage points), which is clearly aresult of increased imports compared to exports.
Analyzed by products (Figs 23 and 24), reduced trade deficit resulted from thereduced deficit of the balance of industrial machines for general use (reducing the deficit by41%) and trade in electricity (25.3%). Adverse trends in the overall trade deficit were causedby the growing deficit in trade in iron and steel (increasing the deficit from 91.8%), fruits andvegetables (65%), road vehicles (31%) and oil (29%).
Figure 23 Trends in Five Products with the most Positive Balance in 2010 (2003-2010)
Source: SSOFigure 24 Trends in Five Products with the most Negative Balance in 2010 (2003-2010)
Source: SSO
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
2003
2004
2005
20062007
2008
2009
2010
million eur
garments steel and iron
tobacco and products fruits and vegetables
beverages
-1,600 -1,400 -1,200 -1,000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
million eur
telecom devices roa d vehicles
textile oil and oil products
electric energy
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
107/166
106
Analysis by trading partners (Figs 25 and 26) trends in total trade balance in 2010were mainly determined by the increasing trade deficit with Russia (55% or 187 million euroson an annual basis), and Serbia (104 million) due to imports of crude oil. Increase in deficit isreported in trading with Greece (97 million), Turkey (59 million), Hungary (62 million) andUkraine (42 million).
Reduction of the deficit is noted in trade with Slovenia (16 million), Italy (10 million),Poland (8 million) and China (6 million). In trade relations with Germany in 2010, the deficitis replaced with a surplus (improvement of trade balance of 131m euros).
Figure 25 Trends in five trading partners with the most positive balance in 2010
(2003-2010)
Source: SSO
Figure 26 Trends in five trading partners with the most negative balance in 2010
(2003-2010)
Source: SSO
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
million eur
Alba nia Bo sn ia Cro atia Monten egro Belgium
-1,4
00.0
0
-1,2
00.0
0
-1,0
00.0
0
-800.0
0
-600.0
0
-400.0
0
-200.0
0
0.0
0
200.0
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
million eur
Greece Slovenia Turkey China Russia
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
108/166
107
Macedonia had a deficit in trade with all (observed) regions. The highest increase wasobserved in the deficit in trade relations with Russia (for 187 million euros), followed by theEU (about 152 million euros) and other countries (85 million). Surplus in trade with CEFTAis noted in 2008 and 2009, which in 2010 went into a trade deficit by reducing trade traffic by95 million.
Figure 27 Trends in trade balance on regional basis
Source: SSO
EUEU
EU
CEFTA CEFTA
CEFTARussia Russia
Russia
Other
Other
Other
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
2008 2009 2010
millioneur
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
109/166
108
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
110/166
109
PART2
RESEARCHPAPERS
Part2:RESEARCHPAPERS
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
111/166
110
-
7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011
112/166
111
SpecializationpatternsinMacedonia:Whataretheconsequencesontrade?
Raphael CHIAPPINI
Universit Bordeaux IV Montesquieu, LAREFI
Avenue Lon Duguit33608 Pessac, France
1. Introduction
Over the past decade, international trade has experiencedanunprecedented growth followingthe emergence of new global actors such as China or India. The same fact can be recorded forthe central and eastern European countries such as Czech Republic or Poland. Since thebeginning of the nineties and the burst of Yugoslavia, several countries have merged ininternational trade. Nevertheless, their share in world trade is still relatively low. Indeed in2008, Former Yugoslav countries16represent only 0.36 % of world exports against 0.30 % in
1993. In this area, the Republic of Macedonia has an important place. Besides, between 1992and 2008, its export market share among former Yugoslav countries has seriously decreasedfrom 11.6 % to 6.6 %. But if we focus on the recent period, we can notice that Macedonianexports marked a huge increase of 28 % on average between 2002 and 200817. In fact, thepolitical crisis of 2001 worsened export performance and growth of Macedonia and itresulted in a severe contraction in output and exports that lasted until 2001 (Gutierrez, 2007).
In both theoretical and empirical literature, export performance is affected by competitivenessand specialization patterns. Indeed, new trade theories (Krugman, 1989; Grossman andHelpman, 1991) emphase the fact that specializations are not equivalent in terms of potentialgrowth for the economy. Indeed, empirical literature on international trade (Lucas, 1988;Young, 1991) has shown that a wrong specialization can durably decrease countries export
growth and performances. This problem can concern both sectors (industrial specialization)and target countries (geographical specialization). So, in simple terms, if a country is morespecialised in export products and destination markets where demand is strong in comparisonto other products and markets, then the countrys aggregate export market share will tend toincrease.
Is the recent growth of Macedonian exports a result of better competitiveness or goodsspecialization? Have the specialization patterns of Macedonia changed since 1993?
A common method used in the empirical literature (Milana, 1988; Cheptea et al., 2005; BCE,2005, Amador et Cabral, 2008) to assess the impact of both competitiveness andspecialization on export performances