UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011

7/23/2019 UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011

1/166


2/166

Skopje, 2011

Skopje, 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


4/166

3

2011

REVIEW

OFTHEFOREIGNTRADE

OFMACEDONIA

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


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


7/166

6


8/166

7

1

2010

1: 2010


9/166

8


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


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

()


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%

%

() /()


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


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 .


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 (.) (.)


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

(. )


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 () -( )


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%

%

() /()


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%


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 (.) (.)


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


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 () -( )


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

/


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

(.)


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


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


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


28/166

27

2

-

2:-


29/166

28


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.


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)

-


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 ,


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

.

).


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


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

.

,


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 , .

. , , , . , , , . , , . .


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.


38/166

1:

1993 2008 ( )


39/166

38


40/166

39

5

. . , -, 2003Q1 2010Q3.

, . , , .

: , , , -.

,

. , (Friedman, 2000). . , (Fischer and Easterly, 1990). , , . (Darrat, 1988).

., .

.

5


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) , .

, -, . , . , ,

., , , , , , .

, , . ,


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) . . .


43/166

42

, ., 83 . 83 .

, , . (2004) , 7% 1990-, -. , , . , . , Evans (1986, 1989) , , ,, .

, ,

. 2007 2010 , . , , 2007 2008 ( 2007), , . ,

. . -.


44/166

:

2003, p

Dickey-

(ADF)).

1:

,

,

797).

uller (DF)

2

03Q1 2

.

(

.

10Q3.

,

Dick

)

y-Fuller (

,

.

ugmented

(

2011

(Gujara

ickey-Full

)

i,

er

,


45/166

DF

,

CAt

1.

D

AD

.2

.

At = C + 1

);

F ADF

.

.

*BBt + t1

.

DF

:

(5)

DF

. ADF

,

.2.

ADF

DF

.

ADF

ADF

-

.

, ..

,

-

(

.

,

-

,

.

.


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.

.

,

,


47/166

46

, . .5, : , ,, , . , , , , . , , , , ,, , , . , , ,

, , .


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.


49/166

48


50/166

49

M

6

34349 /

. , , , . , , ,

. , , .

. (). , . , . , .

. (1988) 1973-1983. . (1974) 1951 1969 . (1985) . , ,

. (2001) 1973 1997 . .

, .

6e-mail:[email protected]


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) . , . . , . , ,


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


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).


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%


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%.

, , . , . , , , .


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.


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.


58/166

57

:

M-

-

[email protected]

D-

-

[email protected]

. . , , .

: , , , ,

() . , , , (Bori, Beko, Kavkler, 2008). . 1920 , . , (Zheng, 2009). , (Rogof, 1996). . ,

( ) . . , .

-, , . , , ,


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


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), . , :


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.


62/166

61

3

2010

3: 2010


63/166

62


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


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

:

(

)


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


67/166

66

. ( , , , .).


68/166

67

M

. , . .

, ,. -2000-2008: 16,2% 2000 21,2% 2008. 2009, 2010 12,0%, 7,2%. -2001 2005 ,2006 -, . , .

.

, , . . . , .

- . 2006 2006/123/().


69/166

68

. : ; ; ; .

, . , - ., ., , -, .

, , ,

.

-

-:

-

-

- .

,- . ,-.

, 03 - , .

(2009). ,


70/166

69

. .

. 12 . 12, 6 . :

- (, . 124/2010; , . 158/2010 ).

- ( , . 17/2011; , . 158/2010; , . 124/2010).

- ( , . 158/2010; , . 115/2010).

, .

.

, . 2011 2012 .

. .

. . 40% .


71/166

70

(2009), -. , .

-. , . , -- .

-

, .

:

1. 2006/123/ 12.12.2006.

2. .

3. .


72/166

71

4

4:


73/166

72


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%


75/166


76/166


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%


78/166


79/166


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%


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%


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


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%


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%


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


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%


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%


88/166

87

REVIEW

OFTHEFOREIGNTRADE

OFMACEDONIA

2011


89/166

88


90/166

89

PART1

TRENDSINMACEDONIASFOREIGNTRADE

IN2010

Part1:TRENDSINMACEDONIASFOREIGNTRADEIN2010


91/166

90


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


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


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)


95/166

94

Figure 4 Macedonias Total Exports (1999-2010)


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


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


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


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)


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)


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


99/166

98

Figure 10 Macedonias Export to Economic Blocks in 2010

Source: SSO

Figure 11 Geographic Concentration of Exports (2004-2010)


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



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)


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


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


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


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)


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



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


104/166

103

Figure 19 Concentration of imports (2004-2010)


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)


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


85

90

95

100

105

110

115

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

export/importprices


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)


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


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


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


109/166

108


110/166

109

PART2

RESEARCHPAPERS

Part2:RESEARCHPAPERS


111/166

110


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

Documents

UACS Review of the Foreign Trade 2011