Printer Friendly
The Free Library
23,389,518 articles and books


Competitiveness of major rice exporting nations.

Introduction

Being a staple food, rice is traded all over the world. Thailand (9.047 million tons), Vietnam 6.734 (million tons), Pakistan (4.0 million tons), USA (3.514 million tons), India (1.9 million tons), Italy (0.781 million tons), Egypt (0.705 million tons), China (0.650 million tons) and Myanmar (0.445 million tons) are the top exporters of rice in 2009-10 (FAO, 2010). China (136.6 million tons), India (81.1 million tons), Indonesia (36.4 million tons), Bangladesh (31.0 million tons), Vietnam (25 million tons), Thailand (20.3 million tons), Myanmar (10.6 million tons), Philippines (9.8 million tons) Brazil (7.7 million tons), Japan (7.7 million tons), USA (7.1 million tons) and Pakistan (6.8 million tons) are the top producers of rice. The stock after domestic consumption, implications of government policies (Peter, 1996) and comparative advantage (Ricardo, 1817) are the basic factors that govern international trade. There are three interrelated factors here (Peter, 1996) i.e. competitive potential (the ability of efficient use of input capacity), competitive performance (the ability to produce a profit oriented product) and the management process (the ability of management to take competitive decisions).

There should be competitive ability, an ability in supplying (potential of export) of a product or service on a sustainable (long-term) and viable (profitable) basis. Porter (2008) believed that competitive success is underpinned by the possession of a specific advantage over the rivals. But after the emergence of WTO, the world trade has been facing stiff competition due to the liberalized policies of the governments and openness of the world market. Increasing demand, new technologies, liberalization, privatization and globalization have enhanced the business opportunities, but these also increase competition from the new entrants.

Objectives of the Study

* To examine the competitiveness of major rice exporting countries with the help of Blassa's Revealed Comparative Advantage Index and White's Revealed Competitive Advantage Index.

* To analyze the impact of WTO on rice export competitiveness of China, India, Pakistan, Thailand, USA and Vietnam.

* To rank rice exporting countries according to their competitiveness positions

Methodology

Ricardo (1817) pointed out that international trade takes place because of efficiency to produce an exported product. A country will export products that use their abundant and cheap factor(s) of production and import product (s) that use its scarce factor(s). Heckscher (1919) and later Ohlin (1933) explained the comparative advantage as the ability to produce at lower marginal or opportunity cost. Ricardian comparative advantage arises due to technology differences across the countries while Heckscher-Ohlin argued that when technology remains the same comparative advantage arises as a result of the cost differences. Both the theories are based on a 2x2x2 model (2 countries, 2 products and 2 factors of production). Ricardian theory assumed that the comparative advantage takes place due to differences in technology and labor cost differences whereas H-O theory claimed the capital and labor costs leading to comparative advantage.

Porter (1985) has developed a model of competition strategies to create high-quality goods to sell at high price in the market. A country is said to have a competitive advantage when it is implementing a value creating strategy not simultaneously being implemented by any rival. Competitive advantage is the ability to stay ahead of present or potential competition, thus superior performance reached through competitive advantage will ensure market leadership. Competitive advantage grows fundamentally from the value a country is able to create. Value is what buyers are willing to pay, and superior value stems from offering lower prices than competitors for equivalent benefits or providing unique benefits that more than offset higher prices. Competitive advantage encapsulates the comparative advantage because comparative advantage arises due to cost and competitive advantage arises due to lower price and equal profit. He advocated three strategies for competitive advantage i.e. cost leadership, differentiation and focus.

Revealed Comparative Advantage Index of Blassa (1965) and Revealed Competitive Advantage Index of White (1987) and Vollrath (1987) explained elaborately the concept of competitiveness. The Revealed Comparative Advantage Index was put forward by Blassa (1965 & 1977) because of the view that cost comparisons by Hecksher-Ohlin (neo-classical) theory and Ricardian (classical) theory were an inadequate surrogate for comparative advantage index to measure the competitiveness. Blassa (1965) mentioned that the use of export and import ratio would account for the imported immediate goods used for production of export commodity and thus reveal the real comparative advantage of a nation. Later, Vollrath (1987) and White (1987) advocated that competitive advantage is more appropriate to measure the export competitiveness. They argued that revealed comparative advantage use the export data only. Since import also is a part of international trade they used the import data to measure the revealed competitive advantage as an extension of Revealed Comparative Advantage.

Past Studies

The above indices have been used for the analysis of competitiveness in several past studies. Chen (1995) has applied the Revealed Comparative Advantage and Revealed Competitive Advantage to test the competitiveness among major rice exporting countries. Ferto (2002) investigated the competitiveness of Hungarian agriculture in relation to that of the EU employing Revealed Comparative Advantage Index for the period of 1992 to 1998. Utkulu et al. (2004) analyzed the competitiveness and the pattern of trade flows/trade specialization from Turkey to the EU by the use of Blassa's Revealed Comparative Advantage Index only. Mohammad (2004) analyzed the export competitiveness of non-agricultural production sectors by using the Revealed Comparative and Revealed Competitive Advantage Indices. Batra (2005) used the Revealed Comparative Advantage to analyze the competitiveness of India and China in agricultural trade. Khorchurklang (2005) had examined the export competitiveness in dairy products of Australia with other major competing countries by the use of Blassa's Revealed Comparative Advantage and Vollrath's Revealed Competitive Advantage indices. Bhat et al. (2006) analyzed a report of Institute for Studies in Industrial Development, in which, he applied Blassa's Comparative Advantage Index for the measurement of competitiveness of the external sector (export and import) of China and India. He pointed out that India has advantage over its competitors in primary products, natural resource based or low technology manufacturing products in Chinese market. Siggel (2007) has used the Ricardian principles of comparative advantage in the context of policy reforms in India, Mali, Kenya and Uganda. Shinoj and Mathure (2008) ascertained the changes in comparative advantage status of India's major agricultural export vis-a-vis other Asian countries since 1991 by using Revealed Comparative Advantage Index. Burange & Chadha (2008) assessed India's Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) in merchandise trade and evaluated the structure of comparative advantage in India and the change in the scene over the 10-year period from 1996 to 2005. Russu (2011) analyzed the competitiveness between the manufacturing industries of European Union and Romania, in the globalization context with the aim to highlight the strength and weakness of latter and to offer view on industrial sectors' competitiveness with the use of Revealed Comparative and Revealed Competitive Advantage Indices. Bhattacharya (2011) analyzed the competitiveness of Indian horticulture sector with its rivals by using Revealed Comparative and Revealed Competitive Advantage Indices. Taneja (2011) analyzed specialization with comparative advantage in pruning sensitive list under SAFTA.

(i) Blassa's Revealed Comparative Advantage (BRCA) Index is a ratio of a country's export share of a commodity in world's export of that commodity with the country's total export share in total world export. If the value of index is greater than 1, than the country has comparative advantage. It is an indicator of competitiveness (Siggel, 2007).

S. C. Davar & Bhupinder Singh (E-mail:bsssphd@gmail.com) are from Department of Commerce, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.

[CA.sub.i] = ([E.sub.ij]/ [E.sub.nj])/ ([E.sub.it]/ [E.sub.nt])

E= Export, i= country, j= commodity (rice), t= set of commodity (total), n= set of countries (total world). The Index has been applied into two categories in the present study i.e. agriculture and merchandize. Rice export is a part of agricultural export and also a part of total merchandize export.

(a) Revealed Comparative Advantage in respect of Agricultural Trade (CAA)

[CAA.sub.i] = ([E.sub.ij]/ [E.sub.nj])/ ([E.sub.iA]/ [E.sub.nA])

or

Share of Country's commodity export(ij) in world's export of that commodity (nj)/ =Share of Country's Agricultural export (iA) in world's total Agricultural export (nj)

(b) Revealed Comparative Advantage in respect of Total Merchandize Trade (CAM):

[CAM.sub.i] = ([E.sub.ij]/ [E.sub.nj])/ ([E.sub.iM]/ [E.sub.nM])

or

Share of Country's commodity export(ij) in world's export of that commodity (nj)

Share of Country's Merchandise export (iM) in world's total Merchandise export (nj)

(ii) White's Revealed Competitive Advantage Index (WRCA) is an extensive form of BRCA. Import data of specific commodity of a country has been taken into account for the calculation of WRCA. It is also a net comparative advantage (export share import share). If the value of

WRCA is positive (>0), it has competitive advantage.

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

E= Export, I= Import, i= country, j= commodity (rice), t= set of commodity (total), n= set of countries (total world)

Further, the revealed competitive advantage index is divided into two parts as above BRCA's division.

(a) Revealed Competitive Advantage Index in respect of Agricultural Trade (CEA):

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

A= Agricultural Trade data

(a) Revealed Competitive Advantage Index in respect of Merchandize Trade (CEM):

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

Where M= Merchandize Trade data

Test of Significance & Hypotheses

The t-test has been applied to test the significance of mean differences as:

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

(i) Test of Means differences between country-to-country (Table 1):

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

i= 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6; k = 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

In addition, test of the significance of differences between countries has been used for the purpose of competitiveness ranking analysis. On the basis of the statement of Porter et al (2008), competitiveness is a zero sum game. In other words, if one country is to increase its competitiveness, another must decrease its own. A model has been developed from Table 1 for determination of the ranking position of competitiveness of rice exporting countries (Annexures 1, 2 and 3). It does not show the effect of any one factor such as WTO implementation because the ranking position is determined between the countries (i.e. the total effect is zero). One (1) point is given to the significant value of each measure (agricultural or merchandise trade) for having comparative and competitive advantages. These results have been shown in a double effect table ('of' and 'over'). Here 'of' implies that the advantage 'of' a particular country 'over' another country. The sum of 'of' values considered advantage (positive) and 'over' values disadvantage (negative). Finally, the competitiveness ranking is analyzed with the net values (sum of 'of' and 'over'). In other words, 1 is given to the gainer and -1 is given to the loser. Hence the competitiveness is a zero sum game.

(ii) To test the impact of WTO on world rice exports, the mean differences of 'Before WTO Origin' and 'After WTO Origin' are considered for t-test (Table 2). The positive and significant value implies positive effect of WTO implementation on a particular country's rice export competitiveness and viceversa. The insignificant result shows that there is no effect of WTO on the competitiveness of rice exports of a particular country.

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

1 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. (country)

Here b= Before WTO Origin (BWO) and a= After WTO Origin (AWO)

The calculated (absolute) value of t-ratio is compared with the critical (table) value at 5% level. If the absolute value is greater than the critical value, [H.sub.0] is rejected and we conclude that there is difference between means, which is significant at the given degree of freedom. Here the meaning of significant is competitiveness of a country or among countries or the impact of WTO implementation.

Results & Discussion

In Annexure 4, Thailand and USA have highest share in world rice exports. But according to Illyas et al. (2006), it is not an indication of comparative advantage or competitive advantage of a country. The country's competitiveness implies that Revealed Comparative Advantage Indices (CAA & CAM) are greater than one and Revealed Competitive Advantage Indices (CEA & CEM) are greater than zero. In Annexure 5 and Annexure 6, the values of CAA and CAM are greater than one (>1) in most of the years, which indicate that the specific country has comparative advantage in the export of rice. And, in Annexure 7 and Annexure 8 the values CEA and CEM are greater than zero (>0) in most of the years, which indicate that the specific country has competitive advantage in the export of rice.

As seen in Annexures 5, 6, 7 & 8 that Thailand had greatest comparative and competitive advantage in rice exports in merchandize trade and Pakistan in agricultural trade on an average basis during the period of 'Before WTO Origin'. But after the implementation WTO, Pakistan has stood in first place. The comparative and competitive advantages of Pakistan, India and Vietnam in rice export have been increasing since WTO origin where as of China, USA and Thailand have been decreasing. The overall analysis of CAA, CEA, CAM and CEM depicts that rice export of Pakistan has the highest competitiveness and Indian ranks 4th in the competitiveness of rice exports (Annexure 3).

Competitiveness between Major Rice Exporting Countries

Table 1 depicts the result of t-ratio of mean differences of country-to-country CAA, CEA, CAM and CEM. It determines whether the measure of competitiveness (agricultural trade/merchandize trade) for one country is significantly different from the same measure of another country (e.g. CAA of China and CAA of India). There are 15 pairs each for 'Before WTO Origin', 'After WTO Origin' and overall. In this analysis, significant implies the competitiveness test between pair countries. The positive significant value indicates the advantage of first paired country on second paired country in comparative or competitive advantage while the negative significant value indicates that the second paired country has an advantage over first paired country. On the other hand, insignificant value indicates that paired countries are close competitors in the export of rice.

China

In Table 1 the t-values of the mean differences of CAA, CEA, CAM and CEM paired with China (i.e. China-India, China-Pakistan and China-Thailand) are negative and significant during the period of 'Before WTO Origin', 'After WTO Origin' and overall analysis. It is concluded that India, Pakistan and Thailand have comparative and competitive advantages over China. But in the case of China-USA, the t-values of CAA (2.625*), CAM (3.792*) and CEM (2.335*) and CEA (1.326) before the implementation of WTO conclude that China has comparative advantage in agricultural trade only and competitive advantage in both agricultural and merchandise trade over USA, but both are close rice export competitors in agricultural trade. After the implementation of WTO, the insignificant t-values reveal USA and China as close competitors. In the overall analysis, the t-values of CAA (3.231*) and CAM (2.630*) point out that China has comparative advantage over USA. But the t-values of CEA (1.629) and CEM (1.141) are insignificant and both are close rice export competitors in merchandise trade. But in the case of Vietnam-China, the t-values of mean differences depict that Vietnam has both competitive and comparative advantages over China during the three periods except CEA (-0.643) before the WTO implementation. Finally, it is concluded that Chinese rice has been facing tough competition from rest of the world.

India

In comparisons of India with China (Table 1) Pakistan, USA, Thailand and Vietnam are taken for consideration. The t-values of mean differences of CAA, CEA, CAM and CEM of India-Pakistan and India-Thailand are negative and significant during the period of 'Before WTO Origin', 'After WTO Origin' and overall analysis. It indicates that Thailand and Pakistan have comparative and competitive advantages over India in export of rice. But in the case of USA, the t-values of CAA, CEA, CAM and CEM are positive and significant. Thus, it is concluded that India has comparative and competitive advantage over USA in rice export during the three analysis periods.

The t-values of the mean differences of India-Vietnam of CAA (-2.681*) and CAM (-3.143*) show the comparative advantage in rice agricultural exports as well as merchandise exports of Vietnam over India but CEA (-0.135) and CEM (2.039) before WTO implementation show the close competition between them. After the implementation of WTO, all t-values are favorable (negative and significant) for Vietnam. But in overall analysis, the t-values of CAA (-5.751*), CAM (-5.716*) and CEM (-4.141*) are significant and favorable for Vietnam's competitiveness of rice export against India. Finally, it is concluded that Vietnam is more competitive in comparison to India in the export of rice.

Pakistan

Pakistan has both comparative and competitive advantages over China and India during the three periods of analysis (Table 1). Further, the analysis of Thailand with Pakistan reveals that almost all the values of t-ratio are positive and significant during the three periods of analysis except CAM (0.019) and CEM (-0.027) before WTO implementation. However, it is concluded that the export of Pakistani rice has comparative and competitive advantage over Thailand.

The positive and significant t-values depict strong comparative and competitive advantages of Pakistan over USA during the three periods of analysis. But the t-value of Vietnam-Pakistan provides a different picture of competitiveness. The t-values of CAA (2.131), CAM (0.412) and CEM (0.934) are insignificant and CEA (2.966*) is significant. It is clear that Pakistan has only competitive advantage in the export of rice in agricultural trade before the implementation of WTO. But after the implementation of WTO, Pakistan has improved its competitive advantage in agricultural trade (6.818*) and merchandize trade (6.844) over Vietnam. The insignificant t-values of CEA (0.811) and CEM (0.807) reveal the close competition between Pakistan and Vietnam. The overall analysis regarding Pakistan-Vietnam shows that Pakistan has comparative (4.776*) and competitive (4.735*) advantages in the export of rice in agricultural trade over Vietnam. Pakistan is more competitive in comparison to Vietnam in the export of rice.

Thailand

Thailand has both comparative and competitive advantage over China and India in the export of rice during the three periods of the analysis. But Pakistan has comparative and competitive advantage over Thailand in the export of rice. Pakistan has both comparative and competitive advantage over USA in agricultural trade as well as merchandise trade during the three analysis periods. The insignificant t-values of CAA, CEA, CAM and CEM of Thailand-Vietnam indicate that Thailand and Vietnam are close competitors before WTO implementation and in the overall analysis. But after the WTO implementation, Thailand has increased its competitiveness over Vietnam [CAA (-8.600*), CEA (-5.346*), CAM (-8.652*) and CEM (-5.340*)].

USA

The competitiveness relationship of USA is very weak with China, India, Pakistan and Thailand. It has no advantage against these countries in the export of rice. Vietnam also has advantage over USA in export of rice. The significant t-values of CAA (-3.950*), CAM (-4.046*) and CEM (-2.707*) before the implementation of WTO indicate that Vietnam has comparative advantage in agricultural and merchandise trade and competitive advantage in merchandise trade over USA. But the insignificant t-value of CEA (-0.743) shows that they are close competitors in rice trade. After the implementation of WTO and overall analysis depict that the t-values of USA-Vietnam are negative and significant. Therefore, Vietnam is a high competitor against USA in the export of rice.

Vietnam

Vietnam has comparative and competitive advantages over China, India and USA and is a close competitor of Pakistan and Thailand in the export of rice.

Competitiveness Ranking

The competitiveness ranking positions of major rice exporters are given in Annexure 1, 2 and 3. Pakistan is the top ranked rice exporter in competitiveness during the three analysis periods with net score of 15 (15-0), 18 (18-0) and 18 (180) respectively. Before WTO implementation Thailand is in second place with score of 10 (12-2) and Vietnam is in third with score of 7 (8-1). But after the implementation of WTO and in overall analysis, Vietnam (score of 14 and 4) has captured the second position from Thailand (score of 4 and 8). India is on fourth place with score of -2 (8-10), -4 (8-12) and -3 (8-11) during the three analysis periods. China and USA are on fifth and sixth place respectively in competitiveness ranking in rice exporting.

Impact of WTO

In Table 2, the insignificant t-values of China's CAA (-1.513) and CEA (1.329); Vietnam's CAA (1.822), CAM (0.149) and CEM (0.722); and Pakistan's CAM (0.302) and CEM (0.292) show that there is no effect of WTO implementation on particular competitive areas in these countries. It is clear from the t-values of India that it is the only country which has a positive impact of WTO on both competitive and comparative advantages in agricultural and merchandise trade. Pakistan has positive impact of WTO only in agricultural trade. In case of Thailand (CAA, -3.647; CEA, 3.707; and CAM & CEM, -6.303) and USA (CAA, -4.925; CEA, -6.232; CAM, -3.954; and CEM, -4.580) and China (CAM, -4.773 and CEM, -3.549), the rice exports have negative effect of WTO.

Conclusion

The present study shows that there may not be a positive relationship between competitiveness and market share or production (i.e. large export share or large production does not mean a greater competitiveness). Thailand is the largest rice exporter whereas Pakistan is on fourth place in the export of rice. But the competitiveness position is different for these two countries. Almost all countries have both competitive (>0) and comparative (>1) advantages. It is also argued here that revealed competitive advantage is more important and relevant for the measurement of competitiveness than revealed comparative advantage because positive value of revealed competitive advantage indices (>0) have positive effect on balance of payment leading to economic development.

Pakistan has both comparative and competitive advantages over rest of the five countries whereas USA has been facing a tough situation of disadvantage. India has comparative and competitive advantages over China and USA. Similarly, Vietnam is facing competition from Thailand and Pakistan in the export of rice. The analysis of competitiveness between countries concludes that Pakistan is number one having highest points in competitiveness ranking. Vietnam captures the second position from Thailand after the implementation of WTO and India has remained on fourth position. India has an enormous positive impact of WTO while Pakistan and Vietnam has also improved their competitiveness after the implementation of WTO. On the other hand, the competitiveness in the export of rice of Thailand and USA has been affected negatively by the implementation of WTO whereas China and Vietnam have no effect of WTO implementation on rice export competitiveness. Thus, the rice of Pakistan and Thailand seems to complement all other rice exporters, while the rice of China and USA have become the inferior products. It appears that any expansion in world rice trade may occur to Thailand and Pakistan (Hui & Turay, 1995).
ANNEXURE 1 Competitiveness Ranking Before WTO Implementation

            Competitive and Comparative advantage of
                      China
Over        CAA      CEA   CAM     CEM
China
India
Pakistan
Thailand
USA         *        X     *       *
Vietnam
            1        0     1       1
Gain                 3
NET                  -12
(Competitiveness)

            Competitive and Comparative advantage of
                          India
Over        CAA      CEA   CAM     CEM
China       *        *     *       *
India
Pakistan
Thailand
USA         *        *     *       *
Vietnam
            2        2     2       2
Gain                 8
NET                  -2
(Competitiveness)

            Competitive and Comparative advantage of
                       Pakistan
Over        CAA      CEA   CAM     CEM
China       *        *     *       *
India       *        *     *       *
Pakistan
Thailand             *     *
USA         *        *     *       *
Vietnam     X        *     X       X
            4        5     3       3
Gain                 15
NET                  15
(Competitiveness)

            Competitive and Comparative advantage of
                         Thailand
Over        CAA      CEA   CAM     CEM
China       *        *     *       *
India       *        *     *       *
Pakistan                           X
Thailand
USA         *        *     *       *
Vietnam     X        X     X       X
            3        3     3       3
Gain                 12
NET                  10
(Competitiveness)

             Competitive and Comparative advantage of
                         USA
Over        CAA      CEA   CAM     CEM
China
India
Pakistan    X
Thailand
USA
Vietnam
            0        0     0       0
Gain                 0
NET                  -18
(Competitiveness)

            Competitive and Comparative advantage of
                            Vietnam
Over        CAA      CEA   CAM     CEM        Loss
China       *        X     *       *          -15
India       *        X     *       X          -10
Pakistan                                      0
Thailand                                      -2
USA         *        X     *       *          -18
Vietnam                                       -1
            3        0     3       2          -46
Gain                 8                        46
NET                        7                  0
(Competitiveness)

*--Indicates significant score 1
X--Indicates insignificant score 0

ANNEXURE 2 Competiveness Ranking After WTO Implementation

                 Competitive and Comparative advantage of
                                China
Over             CAA     CEA     CAM        CEM
China                                       *
India
Pakistan
Thailand
USA              X               X          *
Vietnam
                 0       0       0          0
Gain             0
NET              -16
(Competitiveness)

                 Competitive and Comparative advantage of
                                 India
Over             CAA     CEA     CAM        CEM
China            *       *       *          *
India                                       *
Pakistan
Thailand
USA              *       *       *          *
Vietnam                                     *
0                2       2       2          2
Gain             8
NET              -4
(Competitiveness)

                 Competitive and Comparative advantage of
                               Pakistan

Over             CAA     CEA     CAM        CEM
China            *       *       *          *
India            *       *       *          *
Pakistan
Thailand         *       *       *          *
USA              *       *       *          *
Vietnam          X       *       X
                 5       4       5          4
Gain             18
NET              18
(Competitiveness)

                 Competitive and Comparative advantage of
                               Thailand
Over             CAA     CEA     CAM        CEM
China            *       *       *          X
India            *       *       *
Pakistan
Thailand
USA              *       *       *
Vietnam
0                3       3       3          3
Gain             12
NET              4
(Competitiveness)

                 Competitive and Comparative advantage of
                             USA
Over             CAA     CEA     CAM        CEM
China                    X                  *
India                                       *
Pakistan
Thailand                                    *
USA                                         *
Vietnam
0                0       0       0          0
Gain             0
NET              -16
(Competitiveness)

                  Competitive and Comparative advantage of
                                 Vietnam
Over             CAA     CEA     CAM        CEM        Loss
China            *       *       *          *          -16
India            *       *       *          *          -12
Pakistan                                               0
Thailand         *       *       *          *          8
USA              *       *       *          *          -16
Vietnam                                                -2
0                4       4       4          4          -36
Gain             16                                    36
NET              14                                    0
(Competitiveness)

*--Indicates significant score 1
X--Indicates insignificant score 0

ANNEXURE 3 Competitiveness Ranking (1980/81-2009/10)

                Competitive and Comparative advantage of

                              China
Over            CAA           CEA           CAM           CEM
China
India
Pakistan
Thailand
USA             *             X             *             X
Vietnam
                1             0             1             0
Gain                          2
NET                           -14
(Competitiveness)

                Competitive and Comparative advantage of
                               India
Over            CAA           CEA           CAM           CEM
China           *             *             *             *
India
Pakistan
Thailand
USA             *             *             *             *
Vietnam
                2             2             2             2
Gain                          8
NET                           -3
(Competitiveness)

                Competitive and Comparative advantage of
                              Pakistan
Over            CAA           CEA           CAM           CEM
China           *             *             *             *
India           *             *             *             *
Pakistan
Thailand                      *             *             *
USA             *             *             *             *
Vietnam         *             *             X             X
                5             5             4             4
Gain                          18
NET                           18
(Competitiveness)

                Competitive and Comparative advantage of
                              Thailand

Over            CAA           CEA           CAM           CEM
China           *             *             *             *
India           *             *             *             *
Pakistan
Thailand        *
USA             *             *             *             *
Vietnam                       X
                3             3             3             3
Gain                          12
NET                           8
(Competitiveness)

                Competitive and Comparative advantage of
                                 USA
Over            CAA           CEA           CAM           CEM
China
India
Pakistan
Thailand
USA
Vietnam
                0             0             0             0
Gain                          0
NET                           -18
(Competitiveness)

                Competitive and Comparative advantage of

                                 Vietnam
Over            CAA         CEA           CAM         CEM        Loss
China           *            *             *           *          -16
India           *            X             *           *          -11
Pakistan                                                            0
Thailand        X                          X           X           -4
USA             *            *             *           *          -18
Vietnam                                                            -2
                3            2             3           3          -51
Gain                         11                                    51
NET                          9                                      0
(Competitiveness)

*--Indicates significant score 1
X--Indicates insignificant score 0

ANNEXURE 4 Share of Major Rice Exporters in World Rice
Exports (1980-81 to 2009-10)

Year           China         India

1980-81        10.17          3.46
1981-82         4.47          7.56
1982-83         5.56          6.37
1983-84         7.12          3.70
1984-85         8.14          2.91
1985-86         7.05          5.70
1986-87         6.41          4.64
1987-88         6.43          7.61
1988-89         5.03          5.64
1989-90         2.25          5.17
1990-91         2.37          6.25
1991-92         4.06          6.93
1992-93         4.37          6.95
1993-94         5.15          7.96
1994-95         8.53          6.18
1995-96         0.76         18.98
1996-97         1.78         11.57
1997-98         3.57         11.69
1998-99         9.80         15.78
1999-00         8.55          9.21
2000-01         8.89         10.08
2001-02         5.02         10.09
2002-03         5.89         18.22
2003-04         6.94         12.55
2004-05         2.59         16.47
2005-06         2.34         14.69
2006-07         3.89         14.75
2007-08         3.49         20.75
2008-09         2.44         12.94
2009-10         2.94         13.02

Year        Pakistan      Thailand

1980-81         8.42         19.01
1981-82         9.69         20.75
1982-83         9.32         23.25
1983-84         8.00         24.10
1984-85        10.82         28.28
1985-86         6.67         25.12
1986-87        10.39         23.44
1987-88         8.69         25.73
1988-89         9.00         33.80
1989-90         6.26         35.68
1990-91         5.84         26.26
1991-92         7.72         26.74
1992-93         7.73         26.75
1993-94         6.20         25.17
1994-95         3.87         24.94
1995-96         6.20         26.16
1996-97         6.70         26.03
1997-98         6.16         27.70
1998-99         5.94         21.96
1999-00         7.49         24.73
2000-01         8.20         25.19
2001-02         7.44         22.54
2002-03         6.92         24.52
2003-04         7.88         25.64
2004-05         6.99         30.04
2005-06         9.69         24.24
2006-07        10.92         24.47
2007-08         8.19         25.28
2008-09         8.43         30.61
2009-10        10.60         28.25

Year             USA       Vietnam         Total

1980-81        25.64          0.20         66.91
1981-82        26.16          0.05         68.68
1982-83        23.70          0.14         68.33
1983-84        25.45          0.77         69.15
1984-85        21.73          0.57         72.45
1985-86        20.13          0.45         65.13
1986-87        18.87          0.66         64.40
1987-88        16.82          0.50         65.78
1988-89        19.78          0.67         73.93
1989-90        19.82          5.85         75.03
1990-91        19.43          7.36         67.51
1991-92        16.91          5.24         67.60
1992-93        13.79          7.84         67.43
1993-94        14.90          7.02         66.40
1994-95        16.25          6.80         66.56
1995-96        13.36          7.10         72.57
1996-97        13.42         11.13         70.63
1997-98        11.97         11.18         72.28
1998-99        12.65         10.67         76.81
1999-00        11.99         13.00         74.97
2000-01        12.86         10.25         75.47
2001-02        10.25          8.92         64.25
2002-03        11.65         10.90         78.10
2003-04        14.46         10.09         77.55
2004-05        13.02         10.59         79.70
2005-06        13.44         14.65         79.06
2006-07        12.18         12.11         78.32
2007-08        10.17         10.85         78.73
2008-09        11.09         14.51         80.02
2009-10        12.24          9.07         76.12

Source: FAO statistics

ANNEXURE 5 Revealed Comparative Advantage Indices
in Agricultural Trade (CAA)

Before WTO      China     India
(1908-81 to
1994-95)
1908-81
1980-81        5.2240    3.2725
1981-82        2.3233    6.5308
1982-83        2.5967    5.8738
1983-84        3.0214    3.3240
1984-85        3.1378    2.8429
1985-86        2.3198    5.2532
1986-87        1.8657    4.4699
1987-88        1.7884    8.2260
1988-89        1.3969    7.4132
1989-90        0.6489    5.8726
1990-91        0.7555    6.6160
1991-92        1.1491    8.1400
1992-93        1.2661    8.4325
1993-94        1.4299    8.0340
1994-95        2.2734    7.4051
MEAN           2.0798    6.1138
SE             0.2981    0.4953
After WTO
(1995-96 to
2009-10)
1995-96        0.2335    15.3029
1996-97        0.5791    9.2022
1997-98        1.2144    9.4567
1998-99        3.5432    13.2195
1999-00        3.0301    8.2730
2000-01        2.7939    8.3696
2001-02        1.6008    7.9909
2002-03        1.8025    14.6036
2003-04        2.2094    10.1334
2004-05        0.9184    14.1710
2005-06        0.7463    10.6523
2006-07        1.2497    9.4578
2007-08        1.1010    10.8503
2008-09        0.8552    7.9177
2009-10        0.9411    7.8724
MEAN            1.521    10.498
SE             0.25051   0.6722
MEAN           1.8005    8.3060
(OVERALL)
SE             0.1982    0.5773

Before WTO     Pakistan  Thailand
(1908-81 to
1994-95)
1908-81
1980-81        21.0354   13.2939
1981-82        17.9182   12.1252
1982-83        23.4520   12.5392
1983-84        20.9879   14.9100
1984-85        30.3991   16.3538
1985-86        19.8696   16.3646
1986-87        22.6973   14.9236
1987-88        23.7280   16.4635
1988-89        20.7998   19.1953
1989-90        12.6993   17.9331
1990-91        19.2817   15.8678
1991-92        24.5520   14.9440
1992-93        22.3436   14.3264
1993-94        24.1189   14.2330
1994-95        21.9259   13.6050
MEAN           21.7206   15.1386
SE             0.9870    0.5012
After WTO
(1995-96 to
2009-10)
1995-96        26.9991   12.8439
1996-97        22.3225   12.7331
1997-98        33.6827   14.5847
1998-99        22.5528   13.5455
1999-00        26.3019   14.4160
2000-01        31.5207   14.2334
2001-02        30.2166   12.5811
2002-03        30.9534   13.3250
2003-04        33.5147   13.0893
2004-05        33.8393   15.1671
2005-06        37.3259   12.9092
2006-07        38.9131   11.7190
2007-08        35.3215   12.3300
2008-09        33.9513   13.6380
2009-10        34.0873   13.0687
MEAN           31.433    13.346
SE             1.2798    0.2404
MEAN           26.5770   14.2421
(OVERALL)
SE             1.2016    0.3198

Before WTO        USA    Vietnam
(1908-81 to
1994-95)
1908-81
1980-81        1.3969    4.7698
1981-82        1.3527    1.1857
1982-83        1.3185    2.2449
1983-84        1.4155    8.7026
1984-85        1.2997    6.1878
1985-86        1.3625    4.4600
1986-87        1.5368    4.0221
1987-88        1.3514    4.3038
1988-89        1.3968    5.8007
1989-90        1.3557    27.3447
1990-91        1.3991    32.5103
1991-92        1.2451    27.8907
1992-93        1.0212    34.1281
1993-94        1.0558    28.3800
1994-95        1.2060    20.8229
MEAN           1.3142    14.1836
SE             0.0350    3.2368
After WTO
(1995-96 to
2009-10)
1995-96        0.9502    18.7580
1996-97        0.9432    25.7732
1997-98        0.8760    22.5923
1998-99        0.9655    19.4914
1999-00        0.9491    22.0756
2000-01        0.9355    18.3310
2001-02        0.7486    18.2555
2002-03        0.9276    22.8063
2003-04        1.2184    21.3027
2004-05        1.2377    19.3252
2005-06        1.3448    26.5643
2006-07        1.2322    20.3691
2007-08        0.9588    16.8386
2008-09        0.9933    20.00175
2009-10        1.1464    14.9807
MEAN            1.029    20.498
SE             0.0428    0.8068
MEAN           1.1714    17.3409
(OVERALL)
SE             0.0380    1.7406

ANNEXURE 6 Revealed Comparative Advantage Indices in
Merchandise Trade (CAM)

Before WTO    China     India
(1908-81 to
1994-95)
1908-81
1980-81       11.4344   8.1943
1981-82       4.0797    18.3127
1982-83       4.6863    12.8103
1983-84       5.9158    7.4788
1984-85       6.0948    5.7340
1985-86       5.0393    12.1880
1986-87       4.4274    10.5505
1987-88       4.1015    16.9362
1988-89       3.0398    12.1403
1989-90       1.3272    10.1003
1990-91       1.3157    11.8763
1991-92       1.9865    13.6255
1992-93       1.9370    14.1286
1993-94       2.1224    13.5424
1994-95       3.0504    10.1459
MEAN          4.0372    11.8509
SE            0.6657    0.8660
After WTO
(1995-96 to
2009-10)
1995-96       0.2628    30.8312
1996-97       0.6383    18.6694
1997-98       1.0915    18.6672
1998-99       2.9342    26.1312
1999-00       2.5062    14.2798
2000-01       2.3036    14.6026
2001-02       1.1689    14.2580
2002-03       1.1751    22.4322
2003-04       1.2007    14.9150
2004-05       0.4026    18.1728
2005-06       0.3226    14.9591
2006-07       0.4860    14.1413
2007-08       0.4011    17.8445
2008-09       0.2751    11.4191
2009-10       0.3065    9.1282
MEAN          1.0317    17.3634
SE            0.2281    1.4480
MEAN          2.5344    14.6072
(OVERALL)
SE            0.4443    0.9742

Before WTO    Pakistan  Thailand
(1908-81 to
1994-95)
1908-81
1980-81       65.4472   59.4500
1981-82       67.5762   59.3213
1982-83       73.1820   63.0352
1983-84       47.9895   69.8546
1984-85       82.7159   74.6317
1985-86       47.5874   68.9196
1986-87       65.6657   56.4762
1987-88       52.4335   55.5556
1988-89       57.1030   60.7885
1989-90       41.1760   55.0601
1990-91       35.8968   39.2622
1991-92       41.3628   33.0611
1992-93       39.6216   31.0188
1993-94       34.8666   25.7543
1994-95       22.5973   23.8365
MEAN          51.6814   51.7350
SE            4.2893    4.3147
After WTO
(1995-96 to
2009-10)
1995-96       39.9049   23.9395
1996-97       38.6271   25.2422
1997-98       39.3314   26.9980
1998-99       38.3965   22.1852
1999-00       50.8181   24.1701
2000-01       58.6443   23.5534
2001-02       49.8426   21.4758
2002-03       45.3045   23.3711
2003-04       50.0800   24.2112
2004-05       48.1514   28.7718
2005-06       63.3708   22.9297
2006-07       78.1710   22.8610
2007-08       64.3179   23.0181
2008-09       66.8851   27.7759
2009-10       75.8276   23.2216
MEAN          53.8449   24.2483
SE            3.4423    0.5389
MEAN          52.7632   37.9917
(OVERALL)
SE            2.7095    3.3282

Before WTO    USA       Vietnam
(1908-81 to
1994-95)
1908-81
1980-81       2.3121    12.1811
1981-82       2.2029    2.3615
1982-83       2.0615    5.1025
1983-84       2.2850    23.0715
1984-85       1.8977    17.0403
1985-86       1.7974    12.7122
1986-87       1.7757    17.7708
1987-88       1.6656    14.7010
1988-89       1.7604    18.5303
1989-90       1.6879    93.1379
1990-91       1.7026    105.6490
1991-92       1.4092    88.2917
1992-93       1.1586    114.3419
1993-94       1.2123    88.9464
1994-95       1.3711    72.5832
MEAN          1.7533    45.7614
SE            0.0936    10.8042
After WTO
(1995-96 to
2009-10)

1995-96       1.1797    67.3305
1996-97       1.1603    82.8916
1997-98       0.9414    68.0754
1998-99       1.0201    62.7382
1999-00       0.9841    64.3258
2000-01       1.0614    45.6967
2001-02       0.8699    36.7479
2002-03       1.0910    42.3597
2003-04       1.5131    38.0015
2004-05       1.4729    36.8525
2005-06       1.5653    47.3960
2006-07       1.4394    36.8652
2007-08       1.2410    31.3165
2008-09       1.3900    37.3439
2009-10       1.4520    19.9104
MEAN          1.2254    47.857
SE            0.0595    4.4566
MEAN          1.4894    46.8091
(OVERALL)
SE            0.0733    5.7453

ANNEXURE 7 Revealed Competitive Advantage Indices in
Agricultural Trade (CEA)

Before WTO    China         India
(1908-81 to
1994-95)
1908-81
1980-81           4.9843        3.2330
1981-82           1.8920        6.0272
1982-83           2.2548        5.6788
1983-84           2.9052        1.6378
-95 1984-85       2.9564       -0.7179
994 1985-86       1.8620        4.7266
1986-87           1.2269        4.1470
1987-88           0.9469        8.1510
0-8 1988-89       0.8205        1.3321
198 1989-90      -1.0121       -2.1014
1990-91           0.6572        5.0900
1991-92           0.8503        7.7245
1992-93           1.0307        7.1045
1993-94           1.1634        6.9779
1994-95           1.6165        7.3345
MEAN              1.6103        4.4230
SE                0.3487        0.8150
After WTO
(1995-96 to
2009-10)
1995-96          -1.1554       15.3026
1996-97          -0.2972        9.2021
1997-98           0.6968        9.4563
1998-99           3.0949       13.2028
1999-00           2.7393        8.1905
2000-01           2.3495        8.2878
2001-02           1.1869        7.9906
2002-03           1.3465       14.5999
2003-04           1.7828       10.1326
2004-05           0.2716       14.1710
2005-06           0.2963       10.6513
2006-07           0.6471        9.4569
2007-08           0.7096       10.8495
2008-09           0.6786        7.9170
2009-10           0.7052        7.8721
MEAN              1.0035       10.4855
SE                0.2915        0.2915
MEAN              1.3069        7.4543
(OVERALL)
SE                0.2303        0.7657

Before WTO    Pakistan      Thailand
(1908-81 to
1994-95)
1908-81
1980-81          21.0352       13.2947
1981-82          17.9181       12.1252
1982-83          23.4518       12.5392
1983-84          20.9871       14.9100
-95 1984-85      30.3988       16.3538
994 1985-86      19.8693       16.3646
1986-87          22.6973       14.9236
1987-88          23.7280       16.4635
0-8 1988-89      20.7750       19.1952
198 1989-90      12.6993       17.9331
1990-91          19.2801       15.8677
1991-92          24.5520       14.9440
1992-93          22.3426       14.3264
1993-94          24.1138       14.2330
1994-95          21.7450       13.6050
MEAN             21.7062       15.3686
SE                0.9870        0.5011
After WTO
(1995-96 to
2009-10)
1995-96          26.9983       12.8428
1996-97          22.3172       12.7310
1997-98          33.6794       14.5797
1998-99          22.5421       13.5332
1999-00          26.2867       14.3993
2000-01          31.5103       14.2283
2001-02          30.0602       12.5779
2002-03          30.7913       13.3163
2003-04          33.3871       13.0460
2004-05          33.8307       15.1578
2005-06          37.3259       12.8944
2006-07          38.8927       11.7040
2007-08          35.2970       12.3048
2008-09          33.9392       13.5622
2009-10          33.9998       12.9013
MEAN             31.3905       13.3186
SE                1.2787        0.2416
MEAN             26.5484       14.2286
(OVERALL)
SE                1.1993        0.3213

Before WTO    USA           Vietnam
(1908-81 to
1994-95)
1908-81
1980-81           1.3936       -7.4841
1981-82           1.3436        0.7719
1982-83           1.2909      -13.0514
1983-84           1.3790        2.5851
-95 1984-85       1.1777      -17.7879
994 1985-86       1.2858      -23.7034
1986-87           1.4304      -15.3113
1987-88           1.2118       -8.8559
0-8 1988-89       1.1951       -6.7378
198 1989-90       1.1852       23.2448
1990-91           1.1662       32.3509
1991-92           1.0038       27.4981
1992-93           0.7796       33.9836
1993-94           0.7870       28.3255
1994-95           0.9299       20.8229
MEAN              1.1706        5.1101
SE                0.0538        5.2610
After WTO
(1995-96 to
2009-10)
1995-96           0.7069       18.5866
1996-97           0.6923       25.7732
1997-98           0.5352       22.5922
1998-99           0.7261       19.4786
1999-00           0.7129       22.0094
2000-01           0.6580       18.3310
2001-02           0.4511       18.2221
2002-03           0.6867       22.5374
2003-04           0.9080       21.2747
2004-05           0.9190       19.3236
2005-06           1.0734       26.5581
2006-07           0.8877       20.3626
2007-08           0.5987       16.8224
2008-09           0.6370       20.0008
2009-10           0.7124       14.9754
MEAN              0.7270       20.4565
SE                0.0415        0.8053
MEAN              0.9488       12.7833
(OVERALL)
SE                 0.053        2.9779

ANNEXURE 8 Revealed Comparative Advantage Indices in Merchandise
Trade (CEM)

Before WTO    China     India
(1908-81 to
1994-95)
1908-81
1980-81       10.6520   8.1629
1981-82       2.7725    17.9285
1982-83       3.5311    12.6545
1983-84       5.6217    5.8148
1984-85       5.7734    1.9696
1985-86       4.5803    11.7151
1986-87       3.7118    10.3093
1987-88       2.7322    16.8654
1988-89       2.0738    6.3163
1989-90       -1.7146   6.0577
1990-91       1.1336    11.1818
1991-92       1.5321    13.4620
1992-93       1.6125    13.3027
1993-94       1.8829    13.0265
1994-95       2.2761    10.0863
MEAN          3.2114    10.5902
SE            0.7181    1.1187
After WTO
(1995-96 to
2009-10)
1995-96       -1.9391   30.8310
1996-97       -0.6379   18.6693
1997-98       0.3648    18.6669
1998-99       2.4042    26.1124
1999-00       2.2048    14.1918
2000-01       1.8329    14.5304
2001-02       0.7589    14.2577
2002-03       0.8141    22.4287
2003-04       0.8548    14.9142
2004-05       -0.1570   18.1728
2005-06       -0.0425   14.9586
2006-07       0.0078    14.1408
2007-08       0.0924    17.8441
2008-09       0.1198    11.4187
2009-10       0.1308    9.1280
MEAN          0.4539    17.3510
SE            0.2866    1.4490
MEAN          1.8327    13.9706
(OVERALL)
SE            0.4581    1.0968

Before WTO    Pakistan  Thailand
(1908-81 to
1994-95)
1908-81
1980-81       65.4469   59.4500
1981-82       67.5761   59.3213
1982-83       73.1818   63.0352
1983-84       47.9885   69.8546
1984-85       82.7154   74.6317
1985-86       47.5869   68.9196
1986-87       65.6657   56.4762
1987-88       52.4335   55.5556
1988-89       57.0646   60.7885
1989-90       41.1760   55.0601
1990-91       35.8938   39.2622
1991-92       41.3628   33.0611
1992-93       39.6201   31.0188
1993-94       34.8565   25.7543
1994-95       22.3085   23.8365
MEAN          51.6585   51.7350
SE            4.2986    4.3147
After WTO
(1995-96 to
2009-10)
1995-96       39.9029   23.9395
1996-97       38.5941   25.2422
1997-98       39.3247   26.9980
1998-99       38.3667   22.1852
1999-00       50.7709   24.1701
2000-01       58.6177   23.5534
2001-02       49.5003   21.4758
2002-03       44.9775   23.3711
2003-04       49.8315   24.2112
2004-05       48.1355   28.7718
2005-06       63.3708   22.9297
2006-07       78.1318   22.8610
2007-08       64.2739   23.0181
2008-09       66.8627   27.7759
2009-10       75.6481   23.2216
MEAN          53.7539   24.2483
SE            3.4434    0.5389
MEAN          52.7062   37.9917
(OVERALL)
SE            2.7129    3.3282

Before WTO    USA       Vietnam
(1908-81 to
1994-95)
1908-81
1980-81       2.3102    -12.6721
1981-82       2.1979    1.6722
1982-83       2.0463    -12.1264
1983-84       2.2639    18.8399
1984-85       1.8747    -6.0332
1985-86       1.7538    -10.2628
1986-87       1.7158    0.0599
1987-88       1.5920    1.9068
1988-89       1.6577    5.7628
1989-90       1.6019    89.6060
1990-91       1.5793    105.5105
1991-92       1.2790    87.9184
1992-93       1.0338    114.2117
1993-94       1.0723    88.9082
1994-95       1.2353    72.5832
MEAN          1.6809    36.3923
SE            0.1059    12.7404
After WTO
(1995-96 to
2009-10)
1995-96       1.0573    67.0601
1996-97       1.0268    82.8916
1997-98       0.7870    68.0754
1998-99       0.8882    62.7232
1999-00       0.8553    64.2348
2000-01       0.9077    45.6967
2001-02       0.7035    36.7083
2002-03       0.9600    42.0899
2003-04       1.3313    37.9775
2004-05       1.2853    36.8510
2005-06       1.4012    47.3896
2006-07       1.2242    36.8576
2007-08       1.0178    31.2980
2008-09       1.1761    37.3368
2009-10       1.1769    19.9045
MEAN          1.0532    47.8063
SE            0.0536    4.4522
MEAN          1.3671    42.0993
(OVERALL)
SE            0.0824    6.7147


References

Balassa, B. (1965), "Trade Liberalization and Revealed Comparative Advantage", The Manchester School of Economics and Social Studies, (33): 99-117.

Balassa, Bela (1977), "Revealed Comparative Advantage Revisited", The Manchester School, 45: 327-44.

Balassa, Bela (1989), "Comparative Advantage, Trade Policy and Economic Development", Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York.

Batra, Amita (2005), "Revealed Comparative Advantage: An Analysis for India and China", Working Research Paper-168, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi.

Bhatt, T.P., Guha, A. & Paul, M. (2006), "India and China in WTO: Building Complementarities and Competitiveness in the External Trade Sector", A Report of Institute for Studies in Industrial Development, Delhi.

Bhattachrya, R. (2011), "Revealed Comparative Advantage and Competitiveness: A Case Study for India in Horticultural Products", Paper presented at the International Conference in Applied Economics, organized by Department of International Trade-Technological Institute of Western Macedonia and Department of Economics and Food Sciences, University of Perugia, from 25th to 27th August, 2011 at Perugia, Italy.

Burange, L.G. & Chadha, S. J. (2008), "India's Revealed Comparative Advantage in Merchandise Trade", Working Paper-UDE 28/ 6/2008, University of Mumbai. www.mu.ac.in/arts/social_science/eco/ pdfs/depart/dwp51.pdf.

Chen, Jin (1995), "An Empirical Test of Competitiveness among Major Rice Exporting Countries", M. Sc. Dissertation, Michigan State University, USA.

Ferto, Imre & Hubbard, Lionel J. (2002), "Revealed Comparative Advantage and Competitiveness in Hungarian Agri-Food Sectors", Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest.

Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2010), 1980-81 to 2010-11, FAO Trade Yearbook, Rome. (http://faostat3.fao.org/home/ index.html#SEARCH_DATA)

Heckscher, E. (1919), "The Effects of Foreign Trade on the Distribution of Income", The MIT Press, Massachusetts.

Hui, Jianguo & Turay, Abdul M. (1995), "An Empirical Investigation of Market Structures and Price Competition in the World Rice Market", International Journal of Food & Agribusiness Marketing. 7 (1): 1-12.

Khorchurklang, S. (2005), "Factors Influencing Australia's Dairy Product Exports to Thailand: 1980-2002", Victoria University.

Mahmood, A. (2004), "Export Competitiveness and Comparative Advantage of Pakistan's Non-Agricultural Production Sectors: Trends & Analysis", Pakistan Development Review. 43: 4(II): 541-61.

Ohlin, B. (1933), "Interregional and International Trade"' Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966

Buckley, Peter J., Pass, C. L. & Prescott, K. (1992), "Servicing International Markets: Competitive Strategies of Firms", London: Blackwell Publishers: 1-39.

Porter, Michael E. (1985), "Competitive Advantage", Free Press, New York.

Porter, Michael E., Ketels, C. & Delgado, M. (2008), "The Microeconomic Foundations of Prosperity: Findings from the Business Competitiveness Index", The Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008, Geneva.

Ricardo, D. (1817), "The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation", University of Cambridge, London.

Russu, C. (2011), "Revealed Competitive Advantage of the European Union and Romania Manufacturing Industries", Economic Sciences Series, LXIII (3).

Shinoj, P. & Mathure, V.C. (2008), "Comparative Advantage of India in Agricultural Export vis-a-vis Asia: A Post Reforms Analysis", Agricultural Economic Research Review. 21(1).

Siggel, Eckhard (2007), "International Competitiveness and Comparative Advantage: A survey and a Proposal for Measurement", paper presented at CESifo Venice Summer Institute (dated 20-21July), Venice International University.

Taneja, Nisha; Roy, Saon; Kaushal, Neekita & Chowdhary, Devjit Roy (2011), "Enhancing Intra-SAARC Trade: Pruning India's Sensitive List under SAFTA", Working Research Paper-255 , Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi

Tiwari, R. S. (2007), "Export Competitiveness in India and USA: A Comparative Analysis", The Indian Journal of Economics. LXXXVII (347), Part 4 (April).

Utkulu, U., Seymen, D. & Ary, A. (2004), "Export Supply and Trade Reform: The Turkish Evidence", paper presented at the International Conference on Policy Modeling, Paris June 30-July 2.

Vollrath, T. L. (1987), "Revealed Comparative Advantage for Wheat, U.S. Competitiveness in the World Wheat Market", Proceedings of a Research Conference. Washington, D.C. USDA, ERS, International Economics Division.

Vollrath, T. L. (1991), "A Theoretical Evaluation of Alternative Trade Intensity Measures of Revealed Comparative Advantage",
Table 1 t-ratios of Mean Differences of Revealed Comparative
and Revealed

            Competitive Advantage between Major Rice Exporters

Country     Before WTO (1980-81 to 1994-95)

            Agricultural Trade        Merchandise Trade

               CAA          CEA          CAM          CEM
China-        -5.495 *     -3.138 *      -6.007 *      -5.015 *
India
China-       -20.710 *    -22.256 *     -12.092 *     -12.201 *
Pakistan
China-       -19.086 *    -18.322 *     -11.992 *     -12.058 *
Thailand
China-USA      2.625 *      1.326         3.792 *       2.335 *
China-        -3.531 *     -0.643        -3.703 *      -2.509 *
Vietnam
India-       -13.593 *    -15.317 *      -8.839 *      -8.831 *
Pakistan
India-       -13.105 *     -9.210 *      -8.555 *      -8.452 *
Thailand
India-USA      9.296 *      3.879 *      11.270 *       7.764 *
India-        -2.681 *      -0.135       -3.143 *      -2.039
Vietnam
Pakistan-      5.624 *      5.616 *      -0.019        -0.027
Thailand
Pakistan-     20.476 *     20.542 *      11.811 *      11.827 *
USA
Pakistan-       2.131       2.966 *       0.412         0.934
Vietnam
Thailand-     28.000 *     27.745 *      11.790 *      11.839 *
USA
Thailand-       0.296        1.884        0.412         0.931
Vietnam
USA-          -3.950 *      -0.743       -4.046 *      -2.707 *
Vietnam

Country     After WTO (1995-96 to 2009-10)

            Agricultural Trade        Merchandise Trade

               CAA          CEA          CAM          CEM
China-       -12.163 *     -11.419 *     -11.932 *     -10.978 *
India
China-       -21.553 *     -14.936 *     -22.155 *     -15.358 *
Pakistan
China-       -40.768 *     -35.996 *     -38.805 *     -35.231 *
Thailand
China-USA      1.871        -0.721        0.925         -1.919
China-       -21.934 *     -10.674 *     -21.957 *     -10.588 *
Vietnam
India-       -13.468 *      -7.950 *     -13.464 *      -7.934 *
Pakistan
India-        -4.127 *      -4.347 *      -4.109 *      -4.353 *
Thailand
India-USA     14.206 *      10.985 *      14.740 *      11.145 *
India-        -9.838 *      -7.956 *      -9.734 *      -7.940 *
Vietnam
Pakistan-     13.499 *       8.287 *      13.472 *       8.263 *
Thailand
Pakistan-     24.197 *      15.438 *      24.234 *      15.415 *
USA
Pakistan-      6.818 *        0.811        6.844 *        0.807
Vietnam
Thailand-     49.771 *      43.552 *      51.068 *       43.871 *
USA
Thailand-     -8.600 *      -5.346 *      -8.652 *       -5.340 *
Vietnam
USA-         -24.333 *      -10395 *     -24.970*      -10454*
Vietnam

Country     Overall (1980-81 to 2009-10)

            Agricultural Trade        Merchandise Trade

               CAA          CEA          CAM          CEM
China-        -2.467 *      -7.196 *      -9.768 *      -8.863 *
India
China-       -19.640 *     -20.184 *     -18.990 *     -19.345 *
Pakistan
China-       -32.512 *     -31.470 *     -11.763 *     -11.863 *
Thailand
China-USA      3.231 *       1.629         2.630 *        1.141
China-        -8.399 *      -3.718 *      -7.429 *       -.765 *
Vietnam
India-       -17.066 *     -19.072 *     -12.017 *     -11.960 *
Pakistan
India-        -7.944 *      -6.853 *      -5.990 *      -5.925 *
Thailand
India-USA     11.897 *       8.129 *      12.930 *      11.034 *
India-        -5.751 *      -1.977        -5.716 *      -4.320 *
Vietnam
Pakistan-      8.936 *       8.925 *       4.151 *       4.141 *
Thailand
Pakistan-     20.864 *      20.819 *      19.135 *      19.139 *
USA
Pakistan-      4.776 *       4.735 *        0.750        1.198
Vietnam
Thailand-     42.813 *      43.738 *      11.174 *      11.248 *
USA
Thailand-      -1.718        0.468        -1.111       -0.450
Vietnam
USA-           -9.194       -3.927 *      -7.834 *      -6.022 *
Vietnam

* Significant at 5% Level

Table 2 Impact of WTO on Rice Exporting Countries

Country    Agricultural Trade
           CAA           CEA
           t-value       t-value
China        -1.513        -1.329
India         4.918 *       5.139 *
Pakistan      5.939 *       5.914 *
Thailand     -3.647 *      -3.707 *
USA          -4.925 *      -6.232 *
Vietnam        1.822        2.854 *

Country     Merchandise  Trade
            CAM          CEM
            t-value      t-value
China        -4.773 *      -3.549 *
India         3.101 *       3.601 *
Pakistan      0.302         0.292
Thailand     -6.303 *      -6.303 *
USA          -3.954 *      -4.580 *
Vietnam       0.149        0.722

(*)--indicates 5% level of significance
COPYRIGHT 2013 Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2013 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:By Contribution
Author:Davar, S.C.; Singh, Bhupinder
Publication:Indian Journal of Industrial Relations
Article Type:Abstract
Geographic Code:9PAKI
Date:Jan 1, 2013
Words:8589
Previous Article:Urban informal sector: the work culture of Silversmiths in Odisha.
Next Article:A struggle for meal benefits.
Topics:

Terms of use | Copyright © 2014 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters