EKIN 3 This Week

*

kuliah 12PERDAGANGAN INTERNASIONAL

@Mudrajad/Faculty of Economics UGM

*SOME FEATURES OF INDONESIAS EXPORTSince mid of 1980s, structural change has occurred:Nonoil exports played more dominant role than oil exportsTrade liberalization toward export-orientation regime replaced inward-orientation

Chart1

13.372981477412.4067256989

13.718687476612.1802917469

14.080397626611.2601525966

14.361952343113.1649512993

14.779258542612.9638799299

15.197505790611.1823025561

15.460828249111.9095706097

15.739738519912.5772321843

16.21363240312.7761971492

16.650585727214.1418339064

16.957451287913.589684512

17.396292305314.7935559668

17.767883830313.9922990565

17.701213124313.7310931981

18.148723102812.7493468414

18.4722523914.5885135579

18.592162593415.9834138858

18.835306726916.7357468549

19.054134743416.9451412429

19.326754717718.4739713226

19.747419026518.1376046971

20.144002876919.8930250535

20.527731970120.8982502594

20.827807291221.7564341082

21.125129471522.3302732488

21.433816092123.3480116279

21.763608844524.1331787067

22.068152111625.6166160941

22.20211067626.7929635935

20.39053807624.9956709549

Normal pattern

Actual pattern

Year

% of GDP

Figure 3.1 Structural change in manufacturing sector

Chart2

13.372981477412.4067256989

13.718687476612.1802917469

14.080397626611.2601525966

14.361952343113.1649512993

14.779258542612.9638799299

15.197505790611.1823025561

15.460828249111.9095706097

15.739738519912.5772321843

16.21363240312.7761971492

16.650585727214.1418339064

16.957451287913.589684512

17.396292305314.7935559668

17.767883830313.9922990565

17.701213124313.7310931981

18.148723102812.7493468414

18.4722523914.5885135579

18.592162593415.9834138858

18.835306726916.7357468549

19.054134743416.9451412429

19.326754717718.4739713226

19.747419026518.1376046971

20.144002876919.8930250535

20.527731970120.8982502594

20.827807291221.7564341082

21.125129471522.3302732488

21.433816092123.3480116279

21.763608844524.1331787067

22.068152111625.6166160941

22.20211067626.7929635935

20.39053807624.9956709549

2125.9

2126

Source: BPS and author's estimate

Normal pattern

Actual pattern

Year

%

Figure 1.1Structural Change in the Manufacturing Sector

Sheet1

Normal patternActual pattern

196913.412.4

197013.712.2

197114.111.3

197214.413.2

197314.813.0

197415.211.2

197515.511.9

197615.712.6

197716.212.8

197816.714.1

197917.013.6

198017.414.8

198117.814.0

198217.713.7

198318.112.7

198418.514.6

198518.616.0

198618.816.7

198719.116.9

198819.318.5

198919.718.1

199020.119.9

199120.520.9

199220.821.8

199321.122.3

199421.423.3

199521.824.1

199622.125.6

199722.226.8

199820.425.0

199921.025.9

200021.026.0

Sheet2

Sheet3

*Geographic concentration in terms of exportJava: manufacturing productsOuter islands: resource baseSumatra: mostly plantationAceh: LNGRiau: oil Batam: electronic productsKalimantan: wood-basedSulawesi: plantation, miningPapua: mining

@Mudrajad/Faculty of Economics UGM*PETA AKTIVITAS KONTAINER DUNIASecara umum, tampak bahwa Asia menunjukkan kinerja yang tinggi dalam aktivitas KONTAINER (TEU) dibandingkan dengan kawasan belahan dunia lainnya.


*Pelabuhan Indonesia di tengah perdagangan dunia

@Mudrajad/Faculty of Economics UGM*RANKING PELABUHAN DUNIABERDASARKAN TEUs


@Mudrajad/Faculty of Economics UGM*KONSTELASI PELABUHAN ASIA PASIFIKBERDASARKAN TEU Konstelasi pelabuhan di Asia Pasifik sebagian besar terkonsentrasi di Asia Timur seperti yang ditunjukkan dengan lingkaran merah & biru.

Secara global, aktivitas pelabuhan dunia juga terpusat di Asia Timur (6 dari 10 pelabuhan terbesar berlokasi di Asia Timur)


EMPAT PELABUHAN BESAR DI INDONESIA

*Ketergantungan KTI Terhadap Pelabuhan di KBI

*VALUE OF EXPORTS BY PRINCIPAL PORTS (% of total)Export by sea ports:Value of Exports: Java-Madura (45%), followed by Sumatra, KalimantanVolume of Exports: Sumatra (63%), Kalimantan, Java-MaduraIn terms of destination:Total: Japan, US, Singapore, European UnionOil: Jepang

RAW

VALUE OF EXPORTS BY PRINCIPAL PORTS

19901991199219931994

Tanjung Priok5122.66 885,29 731,110 903,211 410,6

Palembang397487,0445,9490,0686,6

Surabaya1506.32 151,32 800,73 118,32 993,5

Banjarmasin444.1511,2613,3727,9730,0

Ujung Pandang200.5228,0221,9258,1366,8

TOTAL INDONESIA25675.329 142,433 967,036 823,039 707,8

Belawan1 215,01 492,21 709,11 932,62 189,8

Pakan Baru & Dumai3 620,13 289,22 904,52 552,92 876,7

Semarang402,5467,6661,5780,1924,7

Bontang1 784,92 040,91 938,21 940,11 985,9

Amamapare374,4498,5731,1663,5829,3

OLAH

VALUE OF EXPORTS BY PRINCIPAL PORTS

19901994

Tanjung Priok5,122.611,410.6

Palembang397.0686.6

Surabaya1,506.32,993.5

Banjarmasin444.1730.0

Ujung Pandang200.5366.8

Belawan1,215.02,189.8

Pakan Baru & Dumai3,620.12,876.7

Semarang402.5924.7

Bontang1,784.91,985.9

Amamapare374.4829.3

TOTAL INDONESIA25,675.339,707.8

Ports19901994

Tanjung Priok20.028.7

Palembang1.51.7

Surabaya5.97.5

Banjarmasin1.71.8

Ujung Pandang0.80.9

Belawan4.75.5

Pakan Baru & Dumai14.17.2

Semarang1.62.3

Bontang7.05.0

Amamapare1.52.1

Others41.337.1

TOTAL INDONESIA100.0100.0

Sheet3

*Questions to be addressedWhat are the impacts of trade openness on productivity, labour market and concentration ratio?Who benefited from trade protection? Did the trade openness lead to economic crisis?What are the major challenges for the future?

*Export Intensity

Chart1

1316362699040602547

149887174580393736496

105894411650176326816

14934725609350443338410129

28216527133425552678122737

28327829929592292921867827

33580531567850244990487947

4319214063931854696068155

498264107391461585476265144

7315346522642237778942137739

8808225854449438755800152691

73215991856574532158128138011

851961123538729400139748161909

114640182288114089868803221395

13266641575731536890139134335479

17582971807471826295118338241376

18024442379542372732139260255059

28930613382343505678187715373020

37655382696074688332306313710395

433283030484259225284169911230883

424871430228570887305155781320487

488925435877389617887314711964287

56785214629671191015310648242920917

71795504660731396518113703154069674

74806813425081399685017769395433467

79924161555401414975626310765978020

85163151776231522707233141056910952

88270831499811282698037311885922340

69651252095971145174738373056644875

Source: As Figure 1.2

HCI

TI

ULI

ARI

MRI

ARI

MRI

ULI

TI

HCI

Year

Figure 1.4 Factor intensity composition of Indonesian non-oil manufacturing exports, 1970-98 (% of total )

exp-cls1

YEARCLASARIMRIULITIHCIISIC 3311ISIC 3512ISIC 3411ISIC 3522ARIMRIULITIHCI

1970113163681226990406252762280227291316362699040602547

1971114988720493580393737868187611371149887174580393736496

19721105894408571165017632106373679303791105894411650176326816

1973114934794863350443338415926183757579014934725609350443338410129

1974128216523499642555267813341724478121066828216527133425552678122737

1975128327848307592292939280407319331741661241428327829929592292921867827

1976133580520575850244990697868554062129979233580531567850244990487947

197714319212340099318572559758976635725599177414319214063931854696068155

19781498264327471146158786497287610843823887347698498264107391461585476265144

1979173153450003042237710886714882328505729925480462807315346522642237778942137739

1980188082264311049438787223169116319877314234749116768808225854449438755800152691

198117321596173045745321620771479524081233949543939873215991856574532158128138011

198218519615282497294001488231759955294049075241711669851961123538729400139748161909

198311146401624596114089810945924097877798240656565113932114640182288114089868803221395

198411326664671834153689017200837338395562032874262491165513266641575731536890139134335479

1985117582977173141826295189798283968112531671460271881540417582971807471826295118338241376

19861180244460426823727322515473038121345959112287322591649418024442379542372732139260255059

1987128930616515283505678260636482467220700172921901771927028930613382343505678187715373020

1988137655381060288468833242709285464627293281207791268391741237655382696074688332306313710395

198914332830118525859225285691091423649321999115211817535217414433283030484259225284169911230883

19901424871491743770887307051661536877308136018958819642219968424871430228570887305155781320487

199114889254918570896178810058842254475338254727441326625323935488925435877389617887314711964287

199215678521904235119101531234537323775538852461697132963262051256785214629671191015310648242920917

199317179550708849139651811509416451057151097021391014126502824771795504660731396518113703154069674

199417480681902632139968501943173595228948073121662344809843783874806813425081399685017769395433467

19951799241613077701414975628873417156306459957125626511344224386479924161555401414975626310765978020

19961851631512352211522707235710758090098473853025697011285015064585163151776231522707233141056910952

19971882708312030601282698040315207187218434705430033212233854149388270831499811282698037311885922340

19981696512510558591145174740229408625715266017118563519269085393269651252095971145174738373056644875

19702

19712

19722

19732

19742

19752

19762

19772

19782

19792

19802

19812

19822

19832

19842

19852

19862

19872

19882

19892

19902

19912

19922

19932

19942

19952

19962

19972

19982

19703

19713

19723

19733

19743

19753

19763

19773

19783

19793

19803

19813

19823

19833

19843

19853

19863

19873

19883

19893

19903

19913

19923

19933

19943

19953

19963

19973

19983

19704

19714

19724

19734

19744

19754

19764

19774

19784

19794

19804

19814

19824

19834

19844

19854

19864

19874

19884

19894

19904

19914

19924

19934

19944

19954

19964

19974

19984

19705

19715

19725

19735

19745

19755

19765

19775

19785

19795

19805

19815

19825

19835

19845

19855

19865

19875

19885

19895

19905

19915

19925

19935

19945

19955

19965

19975

19985

Competitiveness?World Competitiveness Report

Peringkat Daya Saing Negara versi World Competitiveness Report(n=49 negara)Negara200220011998USA111Singapura522Malaysia262912Korea272836Jepang302620Cina313321Thailand343841Indonesia474940

@Mudrajad/Faculty of Economics UGM*Competitiveness Cube:IMD versionSumber: IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook, http://www02.imd.ch/wcy/methodology/


*Competitiveness FactorsEconomic Performance74 kriteria Evaluasi makro ekonomi domestik Government Efficiency84 kriteriaSeberapa jauh kebijakan pemerintah kondusif Business Efficiency 66 kriteriaSeberapa jauh kinerja perusahaan Infrastructure 90 kriteriaSeberapa jauh infrastruktur dasar, teknologi, ilmiah, SDM memenuhi kebutuhan bisnis

Economic Performance Domestic Economy International Trade International Investment EmploymentPrices Govern-ment EfficiencyPublic Finance Fiscal Policy Institutional Framework Business Legistlation Education Business Efficiency Productivity Labor Market Finance Management Practices Impact of Gobalization Infra-structureBasic Infrastructure Technological Infrastructure Scientific Infrastructure Health and Environment Value System

*Dimension of Competitiveness CubeAttractiveness vs AggressivenessAgresive: Germany, Japan and Korea Attractive (incentive): Ireland and Singapore Proximity vs Globality Sticky places in slippery spaceThink globally but act locallyAssets vs Processes Rich in assets (land, labor, natural resources) is not always competitive Process in creating competitive advantageIndividual Risk Taking vs Social CohesivenessAnglo-Saxon model focus on:Risk-lovers, enterpreneurDeregulationPrivatisationIndividual responsibilityMinimalist in welfare system. Continental European Model:Social consensus Egaliterian in responsibilityExtensive welfare system

@Mudrajad/Faculty of Economics UGM*LADDER OF COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE


@Mudrajad/Faculty of Economics UGM*


Export By Categories, Indonesia 1975 - 1995 (%)

Category

1975

1985

1995

NRI (Natural Resource Intensive)

2.51

48.59

21.13

ULI (Unskilled Labour Intensive)

17.18

31.75

36.78

PCI (Physical Capital Intensive)

19.94

4.97

7.76

HCI (Human Capital Intensive)

21.56

4.84

11.57

TI (Technological Intensive)

30.84

9.85

13.14

Total Manufaktur

100

100

100

Source : Goeltom (1996)

Note : NRI : SITC 53,63,66 (except 664, 665, 666)

ULI : SITC 65, 664, 665, 666, 81-85, 89 (except 896, 897)

PCI : SITC 51, 52, 67, 71, 72, 73, 75, 751

HCI : SITC 55, 62, 64, 69, 775, 78, 79, 885, 896, 897

TI : SITC 54, 56, 57, 59, 752, 789, 76, 77 (except 775), 87, 88 (except 885)

*

Table 1: Dispersion of protection 1975-95 (%)

Sectors

NRP

NRP

RERP

RERP

All sectors.

Non oil Mfg

All sectors

Non Oil Mfg.

1975

Mean (%)

34

169*

Std.dev(%)

51

513*

1987

Mean (%)

12

21

4

59

Std. dev (%)

17

21

42

102

1995

Mean (%)

3

6

0

16

Stad.dev.(%)

17

17

26

39

Source: Fane and Condon, 1996; World Bank, 1981. Note: * = ERP

*Trade openness and CR4

*Inter-industry protectionInter-industry variations of protection in manufacturing sector were not simply random in nature. After the mid 1980s the role of crony capitalists and interest group was increasingly important in determining trade protection.

*ContinueFor 1987 and 1995, manufacturings protections were the result of interest groups and crony capitalist pressure. Implicitly, the structure of protection depends on the cost benefits and of building a personal relationship (in the case of crony capitalists) or lobbying (in the case of interest groups).Whereas for 1975 variations of manufacturings protection can be explained better by the national policy model.Using Grossman and Helpman model, the empirical study show that the role of crony capitalists was important in influencing trade protection in Indonesian manufacturing sector.

*Why trade protection changed overtime?Besides the tug of war between protectionist vs. pro market, trends of import protection were influenced by changes in real oil prices and the real exchange rate. Adequate depreciation of the real exchange rate indirectly protect domestic goods from imports, leading to less pressure for import protection.The declined of oil price raised the profitability of the non-oil traded sector by depressing the price of the non-traded sector, resulting in less demand for the average tariff.

*Did openness have anything to do with the crisis?There was no clear link between the Krugman myth and the current crisis. The economic crisis was mainly to do with weak banking system, financial markets, exchange rates, the problem of short term debt, capital mobility and political disturbancesCosetti ,Pesenti and Roubini (1998) argue that the structural and policy distortions had caused the plunge of exchange rates, assets prices and economic activity to be more severe than warranted by initial weak economic conditions.There is a little evidence to support that openness led to economic crisis. But weak institution and policy distortions severe the economic crisis

*Much trade protections has been phased out. In addition Indonesia is required to eliminate all trade restrictions by the end of the IMF program. Average tariff (simple av. declined to 7.3%, tariff dispersions also decreased from 16.7% (1996) to 10.8% (2000)The trade reform of the last decade has successfully created many proponents for economic liberalization, including exporters, academics, media and government officers.The protectionist groups are still prevalent and hold some key positions both in government and in the business sectors. Patron-client relationships or rent seeking activities continue to take place. Although there is a less pressure for protection compared to the 1970s, it is likely that the tug of war between pro and anti trade reform groups will continue to take place . Example: case of wheat flour

@Mudrajad/Faculty of Economics UGM*TRADE LIBERALISATIONOne of the crucial issues is whether trade liberalisation has reinforced the geographic concentration or geographic dispersion.The inward-looking strategy was reversed in the mid-1980s when international trade policy was liberalised (see table below).


Summary of Trade Reforms in Indonesia

1973-84

1985-1995

Protection

Increased NTBs (Non-Tariff Barriers)

From NTBs to tariffs and tariff reduction

Neutralise

Reduction tariff (79)

Tariff reforms (85)

Customs reforms (85)

Shipping deregulation (85)

Improved duty drawbacks (86)

Improve textile quota allocation (87)

Promotion

Export credit (82)

Removal of subsidised export credit (GATT) (90)

Source: Rearranged from Pangestu (1997)

*Barriers to trade tend to decline steadilySource: ASEAN Secretariat and http://www.us-asean.org/afta.asp, 5 Maret 2003

Average AFTA / CEPT Tariff Rates 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Brunei 1.351.291.000.970.940.87Indonesia7.045.854.974.634.203.71Laos5.005.005.005.005.005.00Malaysia3.583.172.732.542.382.06Myanmar4.474.454.383.323.313.19Philippines7.967.005.595.074.803.75Singapore0.000.000.000.000.000.00Thailand10.569.757.407.366.024.64Vietnam6.063.783.302.902.892.02ASEAN5.374.773.873.653.252.68

*HAMBATAN PENGEMBANGAN EKSPOR KE KAWASAN AMERIKA DAN ASIA Hambatan tarif; Hambatan non tarif yaitu standardisasi, holding order, karantina, SPS (bioterorisme);Tuduhan dumping dan tindakan safeguard;Isu-isu HAM, lingkungan, dll;

*HAMBATAN PENCAPAIAN EKSPOR (EKSTERNAL)Semakin tajamnya persaingan global (perdagangan dan investasi)Meningkatnya proteksionisme dan blok perdaganganMeningkatnya kecenderungan penerapan hambatan non-tarifTidak pastinya harga produk primer.

*HAMBATAN (INTERNAL)Belum optimalnya pemanfaatan kapasitas produksi;Obsolete-nya teknologi produksi;Sangat tergantungnya pada impor bahan baku;Adanya relokasi footlose industries;Lemahnya penguasaan pasar dan belum efisiennya sistem distribusi;Munculnya Perda-perda baru yang tidak mendukung pengembangan industri dan perdagangan;

*LANGKAH-LANGKAH KEBIJAKANMendorong eskalasi ekspor non-migas dan meningkatkan daya saing global produk-produk ekspor (memanfaatkan fasilitas preferensi internasional: GSP, GSTP, dsb.);Meningkatkan ekspor ke pasar non-tradisional (Asia Timur, Asia Selatan, Amerika Latin);Meningkatkan diplomasi dagang ke negara mitra utama dan mitra-mitra baru serta meningkatkan trade promotion;Mengembangkan sistem distribusi nasional yang efisien dan efektif;Mendorong kekuatan industri nasional menuju pembentukan industrial cluster;Secara konsisten melaksanakan kebijakan revitalisasi industri;

@Mudrajad/Faculty of Economics UGM*PELUANG PENGEMBANGAN KAWASAN DENGAN KERJASAMA REGIONALKawasan Pengembangan Strategis yang merupakan pintu gerbang untuk pasar regional dengan:negara anggota APEC: Batam, Pontianak, Samarinda-Balipapan, Manado-Bitung, dan BiakUni Eropa, Timur Tengah dan Asia Selatan: Lhokseumawe, Padang, Medan,dan Batam;Australia: Timika , Kupang dan Denpasar.distribusi utama untuk pasar domestiK antar kawasan: Medan, Lampung,Jakarta, Semarang, Surabaya, Banjarmasin, dan Makasar


*Keterkaitan Antar KAWASAN PENGEMBANGAN STRATEGIS dan Orientasi Perdagangan

Documents

EKIN 3 This Week