Transcript basc.berkeley.edu

Pathway to Asia-Pacific Economic Community:
ASEAN +3, +6, or TPP?
22-23 September, 2011
Dr. Sangkyom Kim
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy
Korea National Center for APEC Studies
Features of FTAs/RTAs in Asia-Pacific
 Currently, 43 RTAs have been implemented, 3 RTAs have been signed, and
more than two dozen RTAs are being negotiated or considered by APEC
economies.
Fact 1
• After East Asian financial crisis in 1997, the Northeast Asian members have
changed their policy stance from favoring a global approach to favoring a
regional approach
• 37 RTAs have been implemented after the crisis.
Fact 2
• Most of RTAs in the Asia-Pacific region have taken a form of bilateral negotiation
similar to the world-wide trend of seeking a lower and easier negotiation cost
even though the gains from the freer trade are limited
Fact 3
• No distinction between intra and inter-regional partnerships
Fact 4
• Most of sub-regional RTAs within APEC have been making a complicated web of
hub-and-spoke type of overlapping RTAs which may cause a spaghetti bowl
phenomenon.
Fact 5
• Progress has been slow in taking an expansionary path of RTAs
2
Bilateral
Plurilateral
Unilateral
Intra-Regional
R
E
G
I
O
N
A
L
A
R
R
A
N
G
E
M
E
N
T
S
Various trade
liberalization
measures
taken by
Individual
Economies
APEC
Individual
Action Plans
(IAPs)
Unilateral use
of force
IMPLEMENTED
Australia-PNG(1977)
Australia-New
Zealand(1983)
Chile-Canada(1996)
Mexico-Chile(1998)
Singapore-Japan(2002)
China-Hong
Kong(2004)
Chile-US(2004)
Singapore-Korea(2006)
Japan-Malaysia(2006)
Japan-Thailand(2007)
Japan-Indonesia(2008)
Japan-Brunei(2008)
Japan-Philippines(2008)
China-Singapore(2009)
US-Peru(2009)
Chile-Peru(2009)
Canada-Peru(2009)
Japan-Vietnam(2009)
Inter-Regional
IMPLEMENTED
Singapore-New Zealand(2001)
Singapore-Australia(2003)
Chile-Korea(2004)
US-Australia(2005)
Chile-China(2005)
Singapore-US(2005)
Malaysia-Australia(2005)
Mexico-Japan(2005)
Thailand-New Zealand(2005)
Thailand-Australia(2005)
Japan-Chile(2007)
China-New Zealand(2008)
Australia-Chile(2009)
Singapore-Peru(2009)
Peru-China(2010)
Korea-Peru (2011)
Korea-Japan
IMPLEMENTED
AFTA (1993)
ASEAN-China(2005)
ASEAN-Korea(2007)
ASEAN-Japan(2008)
NAFTA(1994)
Inter-Regional
IMPLEMENTED
P4(2006)
Australia-ASEANNew Zealand (2010)
UNDER NEGO
TPP
Bilateral and
Intra-Regional
China-Thailand
Bilateral and
Inter-Regional
Thailand-Chile
IndonesiaAustralia
Plurilateral
and IntraRegional
ASEANChinese Taipei
SIGNED
Thailand-Peru (2005)
Korea-US (2007)
Hong Kong-New Zealand
(2010)
UNDER NEGO
UNDER NEGO
Intra-Regional
Under
Consideration
Singapore-Mexico
Canada-Singapore
Thailand-US
Australia-Malaysia
China-Australia
Korea-Malaysia
Korea-Canada
Korea-Mexico
Malaysia-Chile
US-Indonesia
US-Philippines
Japan-Australia
Japan-Peru
New Zealand-Kore
Australia-Korea
Plurilateral
and InterRegional
FTAAP
ASEAN+3
ASEAN+6
ASEAN-USA
3
General Characteristics and Drawbacks
 Major objective is to liberalize trade and investment
• More emphasis has been placed to lowering trade and investment barriers
among key trading partners than to seeking broad economic integration
 Incorporate a variety of commitments to economic
cooperation in a number of areas
• However, some agreements have no feasible work plan
 A comprehensive scope and more sophisticated type of
FTAs/RTAs.
• However, there are not many FTAs/RTAs in the APEC region containing
chapters on next generation issues including E-commerce, labor and
environment
 Complex and inconsistent provisions in Rules of Origin
• Increased transaction cost may disrupt supply chain
• May lead to hamper the process of production networking
4
Market Conditions for A-P Economic Community
Asia-Pacific region satisfies the following market conditions for Asia
Pacific Economic Community (FTAAP) to become a desirable RTA
Condition 1
Condition 2
Condition 3
• The consolidated market size (40% of the world population and 53% of the world
GDP) is large enough to create a positive trade creation effect
• The strong interdependence among APEC member economies in terms of intraregional trade share of over 65% is the most promising factor in expecting a large
trade creation effect
• Pre-union industrial structure of the potential members is competitive and may
expect significant efficiency gains from the regional free trade.
• The simple averaged complementarity index of APEC is 53.7, a figure not
excessively high or low.
5
Table 1. Complementarity of APEC Economies in 2007
Source
Destination
Australia
Australia
China
61.91
Hong
Kong,
China
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
Malaysia
New
Zealand
Philippines
Russia
Singapore
Thailand
US
Vietnam
33.37
49.36
67.91
65.54
64.04
32.22
57.62
29.15
62.03
70.55
76.35
42.65
36.77
47.05
67.84
74.59
66.55
29.74
61.58
27.91
66.21
67.15
71.42
33.40
34.06
58.31
65.31
67.89
26.30
72.96
16.64
75.85
62.21
58.32
30.73
63.79
67.79
68.40
31.22
56.70
37.17
69.33
70.15
70.56
44.14
51.27
60.07
34.74
55.38
47.08
58.51
59.29
62.17
54.07
69.02
31.55
59.19
38.61
69.51
65.63
68.15
43.79
30.95
75.56
28.44
81.03
68.30
64.79
36.36
53.80
30.48
58.41
66.59
74.45
43.99
28.47
74.89
64.60
62.54
37.23
49.83
67.60
71.66
39.56
64.46
61.45
43.06
73.06
35.95
China
38.20
Hong Kong China
29.31
67.78
Indonesia
43.47
63.94
36.76
Japan
61.20
55.12
34.67
69.96
Korea
46.33
64.36
35.46
53.18
63.78
Malaysia
34.93
71.19
35.85
44.02
66.31
73.02
New Zealand
41.07
57.22
31.46
50.87
60.91
63.61
60.34
Philippines
38.45
64.66
36.68
43.67
59.38
69.89
70.55
31.40
Russia
32.65
66.93
36.91
41.84
66.61
59.58
51.75
33.69
59.30
Singapore
41.00
68.53
34.54
49.89
63.73
70.83
81.36
27.87
66.99
34.50
Thailand
39.66
69.36
37.86
43.83
71.90
72.20
72.08
30.80
64.80
33.99
72.77
US
44.67
64.03
36.81
54.09
64.47
67.71
66.44
30.98
59.72
32.86
65.64
70.11
Vietnam
43.99
54.29
35.30
52.98
53.46
60.89
61.09
33.45
49.40
39.50
58.67
61.52
48.33
65.18
where d is the importing country of interest, s is the exporting country of interest, w is the set of all countries in the world, i is the set of industries, x is the commodity
export flow, X is the total export flow, m the commodity import flow, and M the total import flow. In words, we take the sum of the absolute value of the difference
between the sectoral import shares of one country and the sectoral export shares of the other. Dividing by 2 coverts this to a number between 0 and 1, with zero
indicating all shares matched and 1 indicating none did. Subtracting from one reverses the sign, and multiplying by 100 puts the measure in percentage terms. It takes a
value between 0 and 100, with zero indicating no overlap and 100 indicating a perfect match in the import/export pattern (UNESCAP, Trade Statistics in Policymaking:
A Handbook of Commonly Used Trade Indices and Indicators).
2) * indicates a simple average of all the complementarity indices in the table.
3) Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Papua New Guinea, Peru, and Chinese Taipei are excluded because the data source does not report the index of these
countries.
Source: APTIAD (Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade) Interactive Trade Indicators, http://www.unescap.org/tid/artnet/artnet_app/index_rca_fm.aspx
6
Conditions for Desirable Pathway
 Significant economic gains for sustainable
growth and co-prosperity
• Produce trade creation while minimizing diversion
 Potential to consolidate into larger-scale RTAs
• Stepping stone towards global free trade
- Is there any diagnose and prescription on both domestically
or regional wide obstacles to access a target pathway?
7
Conditions for Desirable Pathway
① Economic Gains
A desirable pathway needs to demonstrate potential to create
substantial economic gains
1. Significant economic gains for sustainable growth and coprosperity
- ASEAASEAN+3, 6 and TPP each satisfies condition for
trade creation for participating members
2. Minimize trade diversion to non participating members
- All three sub groups does not create serious trade diversion
effect if trade and service liberalization and facilitation
Conditions for Desirable Pathway
② Potential to Consolidate
In order to consolidate into larger-scale RTAs leading global free trade,
each sub group needs to embrace following conditions
1. The capacity to respond to the challenges and
changes facing the region
2. Inclusiveness of interests and harmonization with
other groups in the region
3. Pursuit of high quality and consistency with the
WTO.
9
Challenges Facing the Asia Pacific Region
1. Asia-Pacific economies needs to build on FTAs by
improving the business environment
• The heterogeneity of economic interests and political stances in the
region and challenges facing the region make it very difficult to
envisage a proper architecture for the region as a whole
• There is no “top-level management” to substitute for WTO discipline, to
ensure that bilateral trade tensions—tensions that are inevitable in East
Asia—do not spill over into region-wide problems due to lack of
cooperation and communication (Baldwin 2007)
10
Inclusiveness of Interests and Agenda
2. The possible conflicts in interests between different
cooperation mechanisms such as APT, EAS and TPP
have alarmed non-member economies in the Asia Pacific
region.
• Existing regional sub groups in the Asia Pacific region (APT, EAS, TPP)
are not adequately institutionalized to deliver non-member’s interests:
Proper regional and sub regional Institutional Architecture is
required
• The emergence of regional cooperation mechanisms in East Asia only
such as APT and EAS have caused considerable concern and criticism
has often been made in the context of nationalism and protectionist
regionalism which emphasizes “Asian Only”: Potential inter and
intra-regional conflict of Interests
11
High Quality and WTO Consistency
3. An optimum FTAAP calls for a high-quality and
comprehensive free trade agreement for the
participating economies to enjoy the economic gains
•
TPP targets high quality and comprehensive FTAs under the legal
provision of GATT Article XXIV. However, market size needs to be
expanded to enjoy the benefit of integration.
•
APS, EAS each proposed the establishment of FTA under the
framework of EFTA and CEPEA respectively. However, these two
regional sub groups have not entered into negotiating stages.
12
Policy Implications
1. Any single regional cooperation mechanism alone
cannot function perfectly in isolation
• APT. EAS and TPP should not be viewed as conflicting mechanisms.
Rather, they can be mutually reinforcing.
• As APEC strongly supports the WTO process, regional sub groups in
AP can also function in this supportive role.
• Regional sub groups can be viewed as the stops to be reached on the
way to arrive at the farther destination, “Asia-Pacific community.”
13
Policy Implications
2. Strong political commitment is required for each of sub
groups to become a catalyst for Asia Pacific Economic
Community.
• Strong commitment from the regions’ major economies are required.
However, number of political challenges are lying ahead against
promoting Asia Pacific integration.
• Each group should demonstrate substantial progress with clear visions
to Leaders in Honolulu. At the same time, Leaders need to agree to
allow flexibility while strengthening capacity building activities.
14
Policy Implications
3. APEC itself must strengthen its role as a catalyst to
promote regional cooperative approaches.
• A strengthened APEC with strong regional supporters such as APT,
EAS and TPP will eventually form the strong architecture that the Asia-
Pacific region needs.
• APEC must take full advantage of its dynamism (e.g. diversified
membership & broad scope of agenda) to forward consensus reached
agenda to sub groups for an effective implementation of Asia Pacific
Economic Community.
15
Policy Options
APEC’s dynamism including its non-binding principle is
subject to be taken advantage of, not to be abandoned.
1. Endeavour to utilize pathfinder initiative: 21- X,
Sector/Area Specific Approach
2. Take full advantage of current initiatives on REI,
Growth Strategy and etc
3. Promote Further Structural Reform
4. Introduce Peer Review mechanism for intraFTAs/RTAs
16
Concluding Remarks
 APEC’s sustainable development lies in the
successful establishment of unique role in
harmonizing and deepening economic integration in
the region.
•
Deepen regional economic integration by a successful incorporation of
Behind the Border Issues, Next Generation Issues, Structural
Reforms, Climate Changes
•
Become a Pathfinder for internationally applicable agenda via
introducing Soft Law in operational mechanism of APEC
17
Thank you very much.
18
Annex: Key Empirical Findings
① Scenario Building
The economic impact analysis has been conducted on following
scenarios developed as the desirable forms for CGE model analysis.
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
• Basic Scenario for Trade Liberalization through Tariff Reduction
• For the economic impact analysis on both the members’ and non-members’ economies
in general as a reference value, an elimination of all tariffs on trade in goods by all
19 member economies* has been assumed
• (1) + Liberalization of Trade in Services through 10% reduction of trade-equivalent
barriers in construction, distribution, transportation and telecommunication, and,
business and financial services as adopted from Hoekman (1995)
• (2) + Trade Facilitation through 5% trade cost reduction in four main areas (customs
procedures, standard and conformity, business mobility, and, electronic commerce)
• With this scenario, APEC’s contribution to the establishment of the infrastructure for
member economies’ sustainable development has been reflected
• Rules of Origin Simplification by any of bilateral, diagonal and full cumulation
• To address the technical limitations, PECS method has been adopted through analysis
of Gravity regression results of Park and Park (2009)
19
Key Empirical Findings
② Aggregation
In order to examine plausible economic impacts in an unbiased and
transparent manner, the consortium has aggregated the CGE model as
below:
Economies
Australia
Canada
Chile
China
Hong Kong,
China
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
Malaysia
Mexico
New Zealand
Peru
Russia
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Chinese Taipei
United States
Viet Nam
EU 25
Rest of World
Sectors
Agriculture/Fishery
Food products
Textile
Chemical products
Steel and metal
products
Vehicle
Other Transport
equipments
Electronic products
Machinery
Other manufactures
Construction
Trade
Transportation/
Communication
Business/Financial
services
Other services
20
Key Empirical Findings
③ Statistical Results
Empirical estimation shows that an FTAAP is economically beneficial
for all participating economies.
(Unit: US$ Billion, %)
Economy
Members
EU
Rest of
World
Capital
Accumulation
Model
Static Model
Unit
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 3
Welfare
55
75
285
636
Real GDP
0.13
0.36
1.13
3.08
Welfare
-14
-16
-22
-10
Real GDP
-0.04
-0.04
-0.08
-0.11
Welfare
-19
-19
-17
-19
Real GDP
-0.05
-0.05
-0.06
-0.38
Types of Rules of Origin
Trade Creation Effects
Trade Diversion Effects
Bilateral Cumulation
0.9
-9.0
Diagonal Cumulation
16.0
-16.0
Full Cumulation
35.8
-3.1
21
Table A1
Effects of ASEAN+3: Scenario III (% deviations from the Base)
Tariff Elimination + Reduction in Tariff Equivalents of Services by 10%
+ 5% Reduction in Trade Cost by Trade Facilitation
CAPITAL ACCUMULATION MODEL
STATIC MODEL
Export
Import
Real GDP
Welfare
Export
Import
-1,220
-0.66
-2.02
0.09
0.06
368
-0.93
-0.81
-0.02
-198
-0.30
-0.81
0.1
0.09
818
-0.63
-0.6
-0.01
-0.12
-99
-0.60
-0.91
0.17
0.13
111
-0.45
-0.41
China
1.81
1.80
27,319
11.58
14.09
5.72
5.05
76,597
15.08
18.77
Hong Kong
0.00
0.07
101
-0.55
-0.84
1.12
1.44
2,091
0.35
0.29
Indonesia
1.59
1.62
3,787
6.97
9.69
5.81
5.46
12,744
12.05
13.57
Japan
0.59
Korea
0.86
34,165
7.11
11.44
1.52
1.53
60,939
10.03
12.18
2.70
3.35
19,989
8.45
12.42
8.39
7.67
45,788
14.82
17.34
Malaysia
5.10
7.22
8,150
4.49
9.08
16.28
14.66
16,603
14.84
16.74
Mexico
0.01
-0.03
-180
0.14
-0.71
-0.11
-0.1
-621
-0.56
-0.68
New Zealand
-0.03
-0.16
-137
-0.49
-1.28
0.2
0.18
160
-0.45
-0.38
Peru
0.00
-0.04
-24
-0.25
-1.25
0.04
0.04
26
-0.5
-0.46
Philippines
3.08
3.87
2,925
2.50
5.47
15.23
13.69
10,360
16.7
17.06
Russia
-0.02
-0.07
-382
-0.70
-1.03
0.14
0.14
744
-0.45
-0.43
Singapore
6.68
10.34
9,760
4.66
5.68
19.65
18.02
17,016
16.67
17.04
Thailand
4.18
11.24
13,496
-4.43
27.28
28.91
24.14
29,058
40.11
42.72
Chinese Taipei
-0.13
-0.65
-1,843
-1.33
-1.66
-0.53
-0.82
-2,320
-1.92
-1.93
USA
0.00
-0.05
-5,392
0.23
-1.41
0.05
0.06
6,457
-0.49
-0.44
Viet Nam
7.09
10.20
3,801
17.68
31.30
22.75
18.52
6,904
42.21
43.89
EU25
-0.05
-0.09
-10,527
-0.37
-1.04
0.11
0.1
11,227
-0.59
-0.54
ROW
-0.03
-0.18
-6,980
-0.63
-1.37
0.09
0.05
2,078
-0.68
22-0.66
Real GDP
Welfare
Australia
-0.03
-0.21
Canada
-0.01
Chile
Welfare
(mil.US$)
Welfare
(mil.US$)
Table A2
Effects of ASEAN + 6: Scenario III (% deviations from the Base)
Tariff Elimination + Reduction in Tariff Equivalents of Services by 10%
+ 5% Reduction in Trade Cost by Trade Facilitation
CAPITAL ACCUMULATION MODEL
STATIC MODEL
Export
Import
Real GDP
Welfare
Export
Import
11,068
8.22
11.29
3.47
3.84
21,954
13.02
12.94
-0.04
-325
-0.43
-1.05
0.02
0.03
227
-0.86
-0.87
-0.01
-0.18
-152
-0.91
-1.26
-0.03
-0.10
-81
-0.94
-0.92
1.83
1.85
28,009
12.02
14.61
5.80
5.14
78,010
15.60
19.38
Hong Kong
0.00
-0.05
-68
Indonesia
-0.71
-1.09
0.92
1.23
1,780
0.06
-0.04
1.61
2.48
2,144
5.42
8.53
6.87
8.61
20,097
19.17
19.76
Japan
0.60
Korea
0.86
34,103
7.81
12.11
1.51
1.51
60,268
10.66
12.91
2.76
3.42
20,397
8.77
12.84
8.54
7.81
46,616
15.27
17.87
Malaysia
5.16
7.79
8,790
4.81
9.38
16.74
15.54
17,615
15.63
17.36
Mexico
-0.02
-0.06
-336
-0.08
-0.93
-0.17
-0.16
-973
-0.81
-0.93
New Zealand
1.61
2.48
2,144
5.42
8.53
6.24
6.42
5,547
11.07
11.81
Peru
-0.01
-0.05
-29
-0.42
-1.58
-0.02
-0.01
-4
-0.81
-0.81
Philippines
3.10
3.80
2,873
2.60
5.56
15.18
13.57
10,268
16.73
17.10
Russia
-0.01
-0.08
-408
-0.95
-1.33
0.00
0.00
-24
-0.81
-0.85
Singapore
6.72
10.54
9,946
4.59
5.58
19.79
18.38
17,351
16.75
17.08
Thailand
4.27
11.31
13,576
-4.25
27.97
29.60
24.53
29,528
41.27
44.03
Chinese Taipei
-0.13
-0.72
-2,032
-1.46
-1.84
-0.67
-1.00
-2,821
-2.19
-2.22
USA
-0.01
-0.06
-6,906
0.18
-1.77
0.01
0.02
2,277
-0.70
-0.74
Viet Nam
7.15
10.29
3,834
17.95
31.61
22.93
18.69
6,969
42.67
44.34
EU25
-0.06
-0.11
-12,881
-0.56
-1.36
0.01
0.01
1,403
-0.90
-0.89
ROW
-0.04
-0.27
-10,494
-1.04
-1.96
-0.10
-0.17
-6,613
-1.30
-1.32
Real GDP
Welfare
Australia
1.14
1.94
Canada
-0.02
Chile
China
Welfare
(mil.US$)
Welfare
(mil.US$)
23
Table A3
Effects of TPP: Scenario III (% deviations from the Base)
Tariff Elimination + Reduction in Tariff Equivalents of Services by 10%
+ 5% Reduction in Trade Cost by Trade Facilitation
CAPITAL ACCUMULATION MODEL
STATIC MODEL
Real GDP
Welfare
Welfare
(mil. US$)
Export
Import
Real GDP
Welfare
Welfare
(mil. US$)
Export
Import
Australia
0.92
1.15
6,553
2.33
4.19
2.10
2.05
11,697
4.76
4.69
Canada
0.02
0.39
3,403
1.15
1.33
0.38
0.69
6,078
1.66
1.72
Chile
1.47
1.77
1,484
0.93
1.10
3.88
3.83
3,218
3.17
3.11
China
0.01
0.13
2,016
0.44
0.21
0.09
0.24
3,708
0.51
0.52
Hong Kong
0.00
0.16
231
0.04
-0.09
0.23
0.44
634
0.29
0.27
Indonesia
0.00
0.07
170
0.31
0.10
0.24
0.39
910
0.90
0.94
Japan
0.00
0.02
731
0.88
-0.09
0.01
0.06
2,338
0.40
0.42
Korea
-0.01
0.08
495
0.27
0.06
0.08
0.21
1,222
0.28
0.28
Malaysia
0.00
0.54
607
0.26
0.00
0.78
1.38
1,550
1.34
1.35
Mexico
0.13
0.46
2,798
1.21
1.67
0.78
1.02
6,190
2.21
2.23
New Zealand
1.54
1.78
1,557
2.14
4.17
4.47
4.17
3,654
5.55
5.97
Peru
0.83
0.87
531
6.64
10.09
1.57
1.41
863
8.54
10.14
Philippines
-0.01
0.06
43
-0.03
-0.16
0.32
0.43
326
0.40
0.39
Russia
0.00
0.05
281
0.06
-0.10
-0.02
0.05
269
0.10
0.09
Singapore
6.67
8.00
8,211
4.12
4.80
16.10
12.98
13,332
12.74
13.10
Thailand
-0.01
0.11
133
0.09
0.03
0.41
0.49
585
0.73
0.75
Chinese Taipei
0.00
0.15
425
0.14
0.05
0.15
0.33
931
0.40
0.39
USA
0.67
0.58
61,766
4.52
4.19
1.04
0.83
87,676
6.07
4.09
Viet Nam
6.08
9.05
3,373
6.64
14.92
13.96
13.05
4,861
18.86
19.61
EU25
-0.02
-0.01
-965
0.14
-0.21
0.00
0.04
4,890
0.08
0.07
ROW
0.00
0.05
1,974
0.19
-0.09
0.05
0.13
4,969
0.23
24 0.21
Table A4
Effects of Expansion of TPP: Scenario III (% deviations from the Base)
Tariff Elimination + Reduction in Tariff Equivalents of Services by 10%
+ 5% Reduction in Trade Cost by Trade Facilitation
CAPITAL ACCUMULATION MODEL
STATIC MODEL
Real GDP
Welfare
Welfare
(mil. US$)
Export
Import
Real GDP
Welfare
Welfare
(mil. US$)
Export
Import
Australia
0.16
0.30
1,748
4.06
3.46
0.93
1.09
6,320
5.19
5.02
Canada
1.71
1.71
15,231
2.47
3.98
3.31
2.85
25,316
4.42
4.81
Chile
0.14
0.11
93
-0.28
-0.30
0.86
0.87
731
0.47
0.79
China
2.24
2.28
34,582
15.70
9.52
7.58
6.70
101,714
20.5
25.93
Hong Kong
3.09
6.54
9,500
6.32
7.68
11.06
12.77
18,553
12.77
13.09
Indonesia
1.72
1.53
3,569
8.12
11.19
5.95
5.28
12,329
12.69
14.56
Japan
0.74
1.04
41248
9.63
9.33
14.15
1.79
71,206
12.45
15.23
Korea
2.99
3.68
21,978
9.63
14.17
8.52
50,860
16.71
19.71
Malaysia
7.32
8.97
10,171
5.36
9.86
19.05
16.40
18,685
15.54
17.26
Mexico
2.19
2.13
1,3043
2.14
6.03
5.68
4.86
29,706
7.92
8.14
New Zealand
0.21
1.31
1,148
4.99
5.72
2.59
3.44
3,024
7.75
8.01
Peru
0.10
-0.07
-41
1.02
0.43
0.20
0.07
40
1.03
1.43
Philippines
3.16
4.19
3,168
3.58
6.86
16.39
14.84
11,234
18.94
19.42
Russia
1.27
1.36
7,376
3.58
6.37
3.85
3.83
20,796
5.81
9.05
Singapore
0.41
1.61
1,668
-0.71
-0.86
3.22
4.41
4,560
1.98
1.97
Thailand
4.71
12.09
14,537
-4.36
30.63
33.59
27.19
32,793
46.22
49.46
Chinese Taipei
3.48
4.99
14,102
8.18
10.38
11.34
11.17
31,611
15.84
17.39
USA
0.03
0.10
11,028
4.34
1.85
0.24
0.35
37,418
4.58
3.12
Viet Nam
4.52
4.64
1,934
19.37
25.22
16.56
11.78
4,914
35.64
36.38
EU25
-0.07
-0.18
-20,880
-0.98
-2.16
-0.12
-0.14
-15,941
-1.62
-1.64
ROW
-0.06
-0.48
-18,725
-1.86
-3.25
-0.44
-0.63
-24,591
-2.57
-2.64
25
9.36