EU industrial structure - EU Bookshop - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EU industrial structure 2011 — Trends and Performance Applying the GL index for EU‑27 trade in manufactured products with four groups of countries, classified by income level, shows that the value of the GL index increases with the level of income of the trade partner. 76 The GL index is 0.09 for trade with low‑income countries, 0.26 for trade with low‑medium income countries, 0.30 for trade 76 The classification by income level that was used is the one from the World Bank. The country groups are: High non‑EU: Australia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Croatia, China, Hong Kong SAR, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Rep. of Korea, Kuwait, China, Macao SAR, Oman, Neth. Antilles, New Zealand, Norway, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, USA. Upper‑medium: Algeria, Argentina, Bosnia Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Belarus, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Rep., Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Montenegro, Namibia, Panama, Russian Federation, Serbia, South Africa, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, TFYR of Macedonia, Uruguay, Venezuela. Low‑medium: Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Bolivia, Belize, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Sri Lanka, China, Ecuador, El Salvador, Djibouti, Georgia, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Côte d’Ivoire, Jordan, Lesotho, Maldives, Mongolia, Rep. of Moldova, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Timor-Leste, India, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Ukraine, Egypt. Low: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Rep., Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dem. Rep. of the Congo, Benin, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Kenya, Dem. People’s Rep. of Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Dem. Rep., Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Guinea-Bissau, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Viet Nam, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Tajikistan, Togo, Uganda, United Rep. of Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Zambia. 122 with upper‑medium income countries, and 0.61 for trade with high‑income countries. This shows that trade with industrialised countries has a large component of intra‑industry trade, while trade with lower‑income countries has a large component of inter‑industry trade, cf. Figure IV.18. FIgURE IV.18: grubel-Lloyd index by income level of EU-27 trade partner in 2009 Grybel-Lloyd index in 2009 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Low income Low medium income Trade partners country groups Upper medium income Note: calculations based on a sample of 5 050 6‑digit products from HS2007 classification. Source: own calculations using COMTRADE data. High income non EU-27
IV.4 The role of technology in EU sectoral trade Analysing trade performance in the four technology categories for individual MS shows that Cyprus, Hungary, Ireland and Malta have the highest revealed comparative advantages in high technology products. 77 Conversely, Greece, Latvia and Portugal exhibit high RCA’s in low technology products. Caution is needed when studying RCA’s for individual countries as small countries with small manufacturing industries can have high RCA’s due to a few relatively large firms which export large shares of their production. 77 The taxonomy used in section III.2.2 was adapted to trade product categories. Chapter IV — International competitiveness of EU industry The RCA’s for different technology categories do not differ significantly for the EU‑27 which has a slightly higher RCA in trade with medium‑high technology products. Notwithstanding the high RCAs of certain individual EU countries, the US has the highest RCA index in high and medium‑high technology products in comparison with the EU as a whole and Japan or the BRIC countries. Japan’s comparative advantage is particularly strong in medium‑high technology products. China has a dual structure, with a high RCA in both high‑ and low‑technology products while Russia only has a RCA larger than one in trade with medium‑low technology products, cf. Table IV.13. TAbLE IV.13: RCA by technology category in 2009: EU countries, US, Japan and brazil, China, India and Russia high tech medium high tech medium low tech low tech Austria 0.54 1.14 1.02 1.20 Belgium 0.97 1.06 0.92 1.02 Bulgaria 0.36 0.59 1.75 1.65 Cyprus 1.70 0.73 0.51 1.43 Czech Rep. 0.85 1.22 0.95 0.75 Denmark 0.52 0.97 0.93 1.75 Estonia 0.30 0.82 1.48 1.58 Finland 0.69 0.97 1.07 1.35 France 1.07 1.07 0.78 1.08 Germany 0.76 1.39 0.77 0.75 Greece 0.66 0.50 1.45 1.90 Hungary 1.60 1.11 0.56 0.62 Ireland 2.05 1.11 0.14 0.66 Italy 0.38 1.12 1.14 1.28 Latvia 0.60 0.58 1.13 2.22 Lithuania 0.23 0.74 1.67 1.57 Luxembourg 0.41 0.68 1.86 1.23 Malta 2.66 0.50 0.50 0.80 Netherlands 1.08 0.89 0.92 1.27 Poland 0.57 1.03 1.22 1.14 Portugal 0.33 0.84 1.09 2.06 Romania 0.46 1.04 1.22 1.26 Slovakia 1.07 1.03 1.09 0.72 Slovenia 0.62 1.25 1.04 0.86 Spain 0.49 1.18 0.93 1.31 Sweden 0.86 1.01 0.97 1.19 United Kingdom 1.10 1.10 0.88 0.82 EU‑27 0.84 1.14 0.89 1.03 Japan 0.81 1.49 0.97 0.18 USA 0.93 1.25 0.89 0.68 Brazil 0.39 0.71 0.95 2.45 China 1.49 0.67 0.88 1.30 India 0.41 0.51 2.06 1.33 Russia 0.08 0.46 2.97 0.60 Source: own calculations using Comtrade data. 123
Page 1:
EU industrial structure 2011 Trends
Page 4 and 5:
ENTERPRISE & INDUSTRY MAGAZINE The
Page 6 and 7:
EU industrial structure 2011 — Tr
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 17 and 18:
Chapter I The aftermath of the cris
Page 19 and 20:
The impact of the last downturn in
Page 21 and 22:
The impacts of the latest recession
Page 23 and 24:
The previous figures imply that the
Page 25 and 26:
i12 services recession and recovery
Page 27 and 28:
Chapter I — The aftermath of the
Page 29 and 30:
nacE rev 2 growth 2009 Chapter I
Page 31 and 32:
The third step in assessing future
Page 33 and 34:
The business survey indicator used
Page 37 and 38:
Chapter II Changes in EU Industrial
Page 39 and 40:
While there is some variety in the
Page 41 and 42:
developments. This is confirmed by
Page 43 and 44:
Looking at the overall specialisati
Page 45 and 46:
TAbLE II.2: Sectoral specialisation
Page 47 and 48:
For countries as a whole, it should
Page 49 and 50:
Chapter II — Changes in EU Indust
Page 51 and 52:
technology scale. They are less and
Page 53 and 54:
ox II.4: SME definition FIgURE II.7
Page 55 and 56:
definition of shocks. Shocks, or di
Page 57:
Appendix figure FIgURE II.11: Secto
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75: EU industrial structure 2011 — Tr
Page 97 and 98: Chapter IV International competitiv
Page 99 and 100: Chapter IV — International compet
Page 101 and 102: FIgURE IV.1: EU accounts for almost
Page 103 and 104: TAbLE IV.4: EU exports of manufactu
Page 105 and 106: iv22 Export market shares Export ma
Page 107 and 108: iv23 sectoral trade balance The rel
Page 109 and 110: FIgURE IV.3: EU-27 RCA index in 200
Page 111 and 112: RCA‑indices for individual manufa
Page 113 and 114: FIgURE IV.8: China trade in manufac
Page 115 and 116: Chapter IV — International compet
Page 117 and 118: communi‑ cation computer and info
Page 119 and 120: FIgURE IV.13: Japan trade in servic
Page 121 and 122: FIgURE IV.17: Russia trade in servi
Page 123: Chapter IV — International compet
Page 127 and 128: The import dependence of exports, v
Page 129 and 130: The calculations of vertical specia
Page 131 and 132: IV.6 International movement of fact
Page 133 and 134: In many sectors, outward EU‑27 FD
Page 135 and 136: iv62 internationalisation of r&d An
Page 137: The US is the most important locati
Page 150: EU industrial structure 2011 — Tr
Page 155 and 156: How to obtain EU publications Free
show all

EU industrial structure - EU Bookshop - Europa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?