Search

Agriculture is among the most risk-prone sectors in the economies of Central Asia. Production shocks from weather, pests and diseases and adverse movements in agricultural product and input prices not only impact farmers and agri-business firms, but can also strain government finances. Some of these risks are small and localized and can be managed by producers. Others are the result of more severe, exogenous shocks outside agriculture or outside the country, which require a broader response. Failure to respond adequately to these more severe risks leads to a perpetual cycle of ‘shock-recovery-shock’, which reinforces poverty traps and compromises long-term growth. The agriculture sector’s exposure to production and price risk is increasing. Climate change is increasing production risks in the short to medium-term by increasing the frequency and severity of droughts and floods and in the longer-term by reducing the availability of water for irrigation due to accelerated glacial melt. The modernization and commercialization of agricultural production and processing, which is critical for sector growth, also raises the sector’s exposure to price risk at a time of high volatility on international markets for agricultural commodities. An effective response to these risks requires a broader, more integrated approach to risk management than the current system of ex-ante, public sector activity associated with crop and livestock disease and ad hoc, ex-post emergency responses to local disasters. Measures to strengthen risk mitigation need to be mainstreamed into sector development and investment programs, additional human and financial resources need to be allocated to the public institutions responsible for ex-ante and ex-post risk management, and the potential for transfer (insurance) mechanisms will need to be clarified and developed where feasible. Given the limited human and financial resources available for public sector activity, a clear sense of the priorities for agriculture risk management is also required, together with a balanced view of the respective roles of public and private sector stakeholders.

Once concentrated among a few large economies, global flows of goods, services, and capital now reach an ever larger number of economies worldwide. Global trade in goods and services increased 10 times between 1980 and 2011, while FDI flows increased almost 30-fold. The sales from foreign-owned firms amount to $26 trillion. As many as 3,000 bilateral investment treaties have been signed to create the framework of deep agreements needed not only to facilitate the global movement of final goods and services but also to internationalize entire processes of production. All these flows have grown over time, creating increasingly dense and complex networks. This note is intended provide an overview of SACU countries’ participation and performance in GVCs, drawing on several data sources and indicators, and most importantly the recently released 189-country Eora multi-region-input-output (MRIO) database (Lenzen et al. 2012, 2013). Following this introduction, the note is structured in five additional sections. Section two discusses in greater detail the scope of the report, including the data sources and methodological approaches, as well as their respective limitations. Section three looks at structural integration in trade, including the degree to which SACU countries import and export intermediates. Section four analyzes trends in value-added exports as a first step in exploring GVC participation. Section five hones in on the core measures of GVC participation and a brief analysis of SACU countries’ position in GVCs. Finally, section six concludes by bringing together the main findings from the analysis.

The main message of this report is that if Kazakhstan wants to take advantage of global integration and diversification opportunities, the government needs to improve its trade policy framework, its management, and its regulations. It is also finalizing accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) while its trade strategy includes a number of free trade agreements to be negotiated. It is an active member of the Central Asia Region Economic Cooperation (CAREC). This report is composed of three policy notes that discuss how to improve the trade policy framework, management, and regulations: note one is on the trade policy framework and recommends joining the WTO on a tariff schedule that is more liberal than Russia’s; note two postulates that to benefit more fully from the WTO membership and future regional or bilateral agreements, the institutional framework for trade policy management will need a clearer strategic vision, better coordination within the government and with private sector, and enhanced human capacity; and note three suggests that for the private sector to benefit from global integration and diversification, the government should ease the burden of regulations that affect trade (non-tariff measures (NTMs)).

The main message of this report is that if Kazakhstan wants to take advantage of global integration and diversification opportunities, the government needs to improve its trade policy framework, its management, and its regulations. It is also finalizing accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) while its trade strategy includes a number of free trade agreements to be negotiated. It is an active member of the Central Asia Region Economic Cooperation (CAREC). This report is composed of three policy notes that discuss how to improve the trade policy framework, management, and regulations: note one is on the trade policy framework and recommends joining the WTO on a tariff schedule that is more liberal than Russia’s; note two postulates that to benefit more fully from the WTO membership and future regional or bilateral agreements, the institutional framework for trade policy management will need a clearer strategic vision, better coordination within the government and with private sector, and enhanced human capacity; and note three suggests that for the private sector to benefit from global integration and diversification, the government should ease the burden of regulations that affect trade (non-tariff measures (NTMs)).

The WTO has delivered policy outcomes that are very different from those likely to emerge out of the recent wave of preferential trade agreements (PTAs). Should economists see this as an efficient institutional hand-off, where the WTO has carried trade liberalization as far as it can manage, and is now passing the baton to PTAs to finish the job? This paper surveys a growing economics literature on international trade agreements and argues on this basis that the WTO is not passé. Rather, and subject to some caveats, this survey of research to date suggests that the WTO warrants strong support while a more cautious view of PTAs seems appropriate.

Industry affiliation provides an important channel through which trade liberalization can affect worker earnings and wage inequality between skilled and unskilled workers. This empirical study of the impact of the 1988-94 trade liberalization in Brazil on the industry wage structure suggests that although industry affiliation is an important component of worker earnings, the structure of industry wage premiums is relatively stable over time. There is no statistical association between changes in industry wage premiums and changes in trade policy or between industry-specific skill premiums to university graduates and trade policy. Thus trade liberalization in Brazil did not significantly contribute to increased wage inequality between skilled and unskilled workers through changes in industry wage premiums. The difference between these results and those obtained for other countries (such as Colombia and Mexico) provides fruitful ground for studying the conditions under which trade reforms do not have an adverse effect on industry wage differentials

The Central America region is a small market. The region contains around 43 million inhabitants (0.6 percent of total world population) who generate around 0.25 percent of the world's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). While the region has successfully embarked on a regional integration agenda and has strong commercial links with the US, extra-regional trade-mainly with large fast-growing emerging economies-remains a challenge. Export performance is analyzed along three dimensions that, together, give a fairly comprehensive picture of competitiveness: 1) the composition, orientation and growth of the export basket; 2) the degree of export diversification across products and markets; and 3) the level of sophistication and quality of their main exports. This analysis allows exports dynamics at the different margins of trade (intensive, extensive, and quality) to be evaluated and individual countries' to be benchmarked with peers in the Central American region. The results of this report allow policy makers to identify key areas to explore in the overall discussion of export competitiveness in the Central American region. This paper relates to the literature on challenges and opportunities that trade liberalization can bring to the Central American region. Much of the recent literature focuses on the role of the free trade agreement negotiated by Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, with the US.

The Central America region is a small market. The region contains around 43 million inhabitants (0.6 percent of total world population) who generate around 0.25 percent of the world's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). While the region has successfully embarked on a regional integration agenda and has strong commercial links with the US, extra-regional trade-mainly with large fast-growing emerging economies-remains a challenge. Export performance is analyzed along three dimensions that, together, give a fairly comprehensive picture of competitiveness: 1) the composition, orientation and growth of the export basket; 2) the degree of export diversification across products and markets; and 3) the level of sophistication and quality of their main exports. This analysis allows exports dynamics at the different margins of trade (intensive, extensive, and quality) to be evaluated and individual countries' to be benchmarked with peers in the Central American region. The results of this report allow policy makers to identify key areas to explore in the overall discussion of export competitiveness in the Central American region. This paper relates to the literature on challenges and opportunities that trade liberalization can bring to the Central American region. Much of the recent literature focuses on the role of the free trade agreement negotiated by Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, with the US.

This paper analyzes the poverty and inequality implications of removing agricultural and non-agricultural price distortions in the domestic market of the Philippines and abroad. Liberalization in the rest of the world is poverty and inequality reducing, whereas full domestic liberalization increases national poverty and inequality. Poverty declines while inequality increases marginally in the combined scenario of both global and domestic agriculture reform. Although the reduction in the national poverty headcount is small in the latter scenario, the poorest of the poor, particularly those living in the rural areas, emerge as 'winners', given their strong reliance on agricultural production and unskilled labor wages.

Agricultural trade between Australia and China has increased significantly in recent years and the momentum is likely to continue. However, concerns exist in both countries over the likely negative impacts of the increased agricultural trade on their domestic industries. This paper examines agricultural trade patterns between Australian and China and addresses the question as to whether agricultural trade between them is competitive or complementary. Our study shows that agricultural trade between the two countries is set to further increase and there is a high level of agricultural trade complementarity between the two countries. Increased agricultural trade is unlikely to generate much negative impacts on their agricultural sectors as a whole, although producers in some industries may be adversely affected to some extent. In general, both countries will benefit from the expansion of agricultural trade between them.