Showing posts with label trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trade. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

ABC Landline on Agricultural Trade with China: wool

On Sunday 5 February 2017, ABC Landline returned with a 90 minute special on Australia's agricultural trade with China. For those in Australia, the program is available for repeat on ABC Iview until 7 March. I found it quite fascinating. It also reminded me just how little I knew about some current trade developments.

Let me start with an example.

China is currently the world’s largest wool importer, and in 2015/16 it purchased 80 per cent of the Australian wool clip. China processes an average of 260,000 tons of wool per year, making it the world’s largest wool processor and largest manufacturer of woolen products for the global textile and apparel market. Wool currently represents for 3.5 per cent of the total textile output in China; the domestic market consumes over 70 per cent of its wool products.

I knew that China was now Australia's biggest buyer, but hadn't realised that it now held 80 per cent of the market. I had thought that Italy was relatively more important. I also hadn't realised that the Chinese domestic market was so important for total wool sales. .

I think, perhaps, that the thing that most surprised me was the sophistication of the production process. I know the basic stages in production from raw wool to final product, but all this was a bit of an eye-opener, including the product segmentation. It will be no secret that I love wool fabric, so it was fascinating to watch.

I was also interested in the latest women's fashions from  Chinese super model Lu Yan, As a mere male, and somewhat to the despair of my female family and friends, I am very reluctant to comment on what clothes look like in regard to particular females.

This doesn't mean that I don't have views. I do. I like colour and line, but in the end the clothes have to fit to particular bodies and the taste of the wearers. And that can get you into strife if you comment!

All that said, there have been some very good wool fashions over the years. That scratchy heavy feel that once marked wool is long gone.

Unlike cotton where you can meet increased demand by adding a few paddocks, wool depends upon sheep numbers.This production constraint is a very real issue. When demand is low, sheep numbers drop but cannot be quickly increased when demand rises. This helps make wool a more expensive fibre.

China faces particular production problems because of rising labour costs and environmental requirements. We have already seen how this has led to shifts in textile production from China to cheaper countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh.

During the program I learned that the Jiangsu Sunshine Group was shifting production to Ethiopia with a total spend variously reported between $US 350 million and $US one billion. to set up a textile factory in the industrial park of the city of Adama. The factory is expected to produce around 10 million metres of worsted wool fabrics, and approximately 1.5 million finished parts.

I was interested in the Ethiopian example because of the brief discussion in comments on African economic development in Saturday Morning Musings - Adama Barrow sworn in, President Trump, preference deals and the Bald Archy's.
.
Wool was only one part of the Landline program. I will pick up other elements and especially the rise in capital intensity in agriculture in another post.


 

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

The TPP & Australian trade policy

This is a brief follow up to yesterday's post, Trade diversion, trade creation & the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Background

In a comment, Winton Bates wrote: "Hmmm, TPP seems to be yet more political diversion rather than trade creation." Now there is a back story here that I should explain.

Winton is a former senior official with what is now Australia's Productivity Commission. We actually did our initial economics together at the University of New England.

Previous posts that I wrote on Australian trade policy and free trade agreements led to a dialogue between Winton and myself about the potential gains from such agreements. I think it fair to say that Winton is more negative than I, although both us would agree that the benefits (I would exempt Australia/New Zealand CER from this comment) have not been huge to this point.

Part of the reason for this, I think, is that I place greater weight on the longer term dynamic aspects in an imperfect world.

In an email, Trevor from the Newsy community asked:

If Japan joins the agreement, the TPP would be 40 percent larger than the EU. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the possibility of something the TPP evolving into an EU-like organization. Right now the thought seems extremely unlikely, but many world governments are beginning to pool their resources together in light of the recession.

I hadn't heard of Newsy before, it's a multisource video analysis news site. Having heard the following report I am happy to give it a plug:

A Trans Pacific EU

I think that many Australians would shudder just at present at the idea of another EU equivalent. The EU and the problems of the euro are dominating  economic analysis in the country in terms of threats to  Australia's immediate prosperity! However, there is a broader issue as well.

Australia drove the creation of APEC. Australia then tried to use the APEC forum as a device for encouraging reduced trade barriers within APEC, but with limited success. In this sense, the TPP is a fallback from the broader Australian goal.

The Australian position generally focuses on trade, although political and foreign policy considerations do enter. There is no desire at this stage to create a political union, and that is what the EU is. Indeed, in terms of current EU troubles, it is easy to forget that the great success of the EU has been to unify a continent previously riven by large scale conflict.

The TPP and Australia's Free Trade Agreements

One of the difficulties of the single issue short termism that drives much Australian analysis at the moment is that it ignored broader patterns. To illustrate this, the following table sets out the trade agreement position with TPP countries.Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam

TPP Country Trade Position
Brunei Brunei is a member of ASEAN and is covered by the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA
Chile Australia and Chile have a free trade agreement
Malaysia Malaysia is a member of ASEAN and is covered by the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA. Australia is trying to negotiate a direct agreement with Malaysia
New Zealand CER covers Australia and New Zealand. New Zealand is also a member of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA
Peru Peru falls outside current Australian agreements
Singapore Singapore is a member of ASEAN and is covered by the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA. Australia also has an existing FTA with Singapore
United States Australia already has a direct FTA with the US
Vietnam Vietnam is a member of ASEAN and is covered by the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA

If you look at the pattern here. you will see that with the exception of Peru, the TPP actually reinforces existing Australian moves.

Now look at Japan. Australia and Japan have been trying to negotiate an FTA for some time, but keep striking problems. The TPP is another way of getting to the same point.

Conclusion

As I have indicated before, Australia's relative ranking in population and economic size must decline. Australia's economic success also depends on free trade in a world where protectionist tendencies are rising, where WTO talks have stalled. The approach to FTAs is a response.

I find it interesting that across time and governments, Australia's trade policy has been remarkably consistent. Further, that policy is solidly based on the country's changing economic position.

The TPP may or may not work. If it doesn't, Australia will simply regroup, go another direction. The country really doesn't have a choice.  

Monday, November 14, 2011

Trade diversion, trade creation & the Trans Pacific Partnership

In an earlier post, A PhD student, 1983, I mentioned that one of the first things that I did upon returning to the Department of Industry and Commerce early in 1983 after a period as a full time student was a study into the possible benefits to Australia of a Pacific Free Trade Area. I noted that, somewhat to our surprise, we reached a positive conclusion despite the obvious implementation problems.

I was reminded of this today by the announcements that Japan was considering joining the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (press release here, Australian PM/Minister for Trade press conference transcript here).

   In earlier posts I explored Australia's evolving position and the way that was reflected in the Government's attempts to negotiate fee trade agreements. In Australia's Free Trade Agreements I simply listed current agreements.

In considering the benefits of trade agreements, economists distinguish between trade diversion and trade creation. Trade diversion occurs where trade is diverted from an external to an internal supplier. Trade creation involves an overall increase in the volume of trade.

Trade diversion can involve direct costs and is an especial feature of customs unions such as the EU or the Australian Federation.

In a customs union, the members impose a common external tariff. This leads to trade being diverted to higher cost suppliers within the union. Buyers face increased costs because new tariffs force them to buy more expensive union product. Those supplying that product benefit. Part of the increased costs flow to them in greater sales. However, overall income can be reduced.

Unlike a customs union, free trade agreements leave external barriers as they are. Trade diversion may still occur, but now buyers experienced lower costs as trade is diverted from higher price external suppliers to lower price internal suppliers. Internal suppliers still benefit, but the purchaser's retain benefits.

Both customs unions and free trade agreements may lead to trade creation because trade in goods and services is facilitated. Here there are likely to be net benefits.

As a general rule of thumb, trade creation is greatest where economies produce similar mixes of goods and services and also have significant barriers to trade. Herein lies the rub with the Trans Pacific Partnership. The countries involved -  Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam - are different and have very different trade patterns. Even adding Japan, the scope for short term trade creation is limited.

I make this point because some of the reporting in this country on the TPP has focused on local jobs benefits. Don't hold your breath!

We concluded that a broad Pacific Free Trade Agreement would benefit Australia because of the way that it would reduce impediments to trade within a a very large group. Our view was that over a long time period the scope for benefits was substantial. The TPP is far more limited. 

This doesn't mean that it isn't worthwhile at a time when general trade liberalisation has slowed. Just that the benefits should not be over-hyped. 

Sunday, May 08, 2011

ASEAN, Indonesia & Australia

I jotted down Gillard's refugee deal as a quick response to the Australian PM's announcement. Interesting to see the subsequent Australian political and media reaction. I won't comment at this point beyond noting that the commentary jammed the whole thing into past frames.

If the refugee issue achieved major national coverage, the same cannot be said for the 18th ASEAN Summit. There is zero coverage this morning in the on-line editions of both the Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald. If this an example of what I mentioned in India, Australia and Asia, the decline in Australia's interest in Asia or what Michael Wesley calls 'insular internationalists'?

ASEAN has declined in importance, I think, in a general sense. India and China are far more important than they were when Australian interest in ASEAN was at its peak, when Malaysian PM Mahathir kept Australia waiting in the lobbies, blocking increased involvement. Yet you would still think that ASEAN was of sufficient importance as this country's immediate neighbour to warrant some coverage.

In this case I got sufficiently frustrated that I actually went in search of coverage. You will find the official summit web site here.

Necessarily, things such as the present Thai/Cambodian conflict as well as problems with Burma (the generals want their chance to chair ASEAN) affect Summit discussions. However, these things pass. There is also an issue with diplomat speak, the way that discussion at all these international gatherings gets clouded in language that acts to conceal as much as reveal.

In opening the Summit, the Indonesian President suggested that there were three priorities from an Indonesian perspective:     

The three priorities are : to ensure the attainment of concrete progress in realizing the ASEAN Community; to ensure the maintenance of order and condition in the region favorable for the achievement of development objectives,through the East Asia Summit, while maintaining the centrality of ASEAN; and to ensure successful discussion on the urgent need for a "post 2015 ASEAN" vision, namely the role of the ASEAN Community in the  global community of nations."

In the full text of his speech, the Indonesian President referred to the increasingly complex international environment.

ASEAN is responsible to responding to dynamic conflict that may influence the image of ASEAN and sustainable peace in our region.  If conflict occurs, ASEAN must be capable of facilitating a forum for diplomacy and open dialogue with the intent of attaining common peace

He also referred to climate change, to global population growth and to the issues posed for ASEAN by the need for energy and food security. "The competition for energy, for food, and for clean water will become part of the global competition", the President noted.

We need not to forecast what would happen in ten or twenty years in the future, we are already facing food and energy price fluctuations that attend to continue rising globally....

We must give serious attention and take concrete measures to address the soaring of food prices and world energy, which in turn will negatively affect the prosperity of our people. History shows that the rise of food and energy prices usually cause has always caused the increase in the number of people living in poverty. Yet we know very well that decreasing the poverty level is not an easy task.

He went on:

We have just passed the period of global economic and financial crisis that has yet to recover. At the same time, we have to deal with the climate change problem that has been causing damages in littoral and island states, and other countries. We can no longer argue that human migration in large number continues to take place, irregularly and illegally, so that it creates many political, social, security problems, not only in countries of destination, but also in transit countries.

Other serious challenge is concerning disaster striking quite frequently in our region. We realize that our region is prone to disaster. An example of this is the the earthquake and tsunami that struck the eastern part of Japan just two months ago. Thousands of people perished and unaccounted loss of property and infrastructure. That reminds us of the tsunami that devastated Aceh seven years ago where thousands of people lost their lives and  huge material loss.

One of the difficulties I face in interpreting President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's remarks and the proposed solutions and actions lies in my own lack of knowledge of some of the structures involved, as well as the power dynamics.

In the midst of all the chaff created by international organisations and by bi- and multi-lateral relations between countries, it can be very hard to identify the wheat at any point in time. However, over time, there is a natural winnowing effect as the chaff drops away.

ASEAN was formed on 8 August 1967. At the time it was formed, there were actually very few real linkages between South East Asian countries. ASEAN gave those countries a voice and influence that they could not have achieved on their own. Further, even though attempts to create closer economic relations between ASEAN countries were initially ineffective, those links did grow with time.

In 1983 I came back to the Australian Department of Industry and Commerce after a period of post graduate study at the University of New England. Then Trade Minister and Deputy PM Doug Anthony had become interested in the question of an Asian Free Trade Area and asked the Bureau of Industry Economics to look at the issue. I was asked to carry out the task, supported by Noel Benjamin from the Bureau.

As we worked our way through the country by country detail of trade patterns and trade barriers including all the ASEAN countries, the difficulties became clear. However, and unexpectedly from my viewpoint, we concluded that such a free trade area would benefit Australia. This was the the dying days of the Fraser Administration, so nothing happened.

As an aside, prior to this I hadn't looked in detail at the economics of either free trade areas or customs unions. One side effect of the study was that it gave me a framework to interpret the economic distributional effects flowing from the creation of an Australian customs union as a consequence of federation. I still use that framework today.

Looking at ASEAN in 1983, the combination of trade flows and trade barriers meant that ASEAN was still a long way from becoming a meaningful economic unit. To some degree, that's still true in 2011. The creation of an ASEAN equivalent of the EU by 2015 remains a complicated task. Yet over the long period since ASEAN was formed in 1967, you can see the progress.

Looking forward, ASEAN, Australia and New Zealand actually share common and complicated problems. The rise first of China and then of India create complex geopolitical issues. The exact relationship of each ASEAN country to the new environment varies, creating new difficulties for ASEAN in achieving common purpose.

I have argued that the relationship between Australia and ASEAN is one of the most important determinants in delineating out future. ANZ plus ASEAN is still large enough to provide a balancing block in a way that neither can do on their own.

Within ASEAN, Indonesia is critical from an Australian perspective because of its size and proximity. We just don't know enough about Indonesia. To illustrate, in his speech, the Indonesian President said:

Of course, it does not end there. There remains a lot that we have to do and work on together. We must make sure that the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity can be implemented effectively. In this regard, Indonesia is in the process of finishing the Master Plan Percepatan dan Perluasan Pembangunan Ekonomi Indonesia (Master Plan for Acceleration and Expanded Economic Growth of Indonesia/MP3EI), in order to boost the development of six economic corridors in Indonesia. I believe that what Indonesia is planning to do will boost the national economy and intra-Indonesian connectivity, as well as awaken ASEAN’s economy and speed up the construction of ASEAN connectivity.

Do you know what Indonesia's six economic corridors are? I don't. Yet I suspect that's more important to Australia's future than the question of refugees.

Postscript

Like me, Winton Bates had not heard of either the six corridors or the master plan. In the end, I did a search.

On trade policy more broadly, Winton referred me to this post by Peter Drysdale, Why Doha Round matters to Asia and the Pacific. There Peter said in part:

What leaders who have it in their power to do this deal must understand is that failure to conclude the Round now will put a stake in the heart of a multilateral system that is in retreat on all fronts, not solely for economic reasons at a critical stage of global recovery from financial and economic crisis, but for deep, geo-political reasons.

Europe is seriously weakened. The Middle East and Africa have brought the world to an intensely unstable moment. Far more importantly, the emergence of China in Asia and the Pacific challenges the established political order.

How does this all matter to the global trading system?

The multilateral trading system is the economic sinew that constrains the exercise of international political muscle in ways that damage global well being and inflicts national self-harm.

Should Doha fail now, there will be powerful momentum to doing other deals of some kind no matter what. In Washington, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is all the rage. Does it matter if we get yet another pseudo ‘free trade’ agreement, between the US and group of eight partners who in the total scheme of things are pretty insignificant?

Now I really hadn't focused on the Trans Pacific Partnership. I am not sure whether or not it's a good thing. But what I suddenly realised was the extent to which trade policy seems to have vanished from Australian national discussion. That's not a good thing.

The present mining boom is nice, but in the long term Australia's economic survival is best protected by freer trade at at a global level, and that is under threat.

Postscript 2

I hate not knowing things. Tomorrow I will bring up a summary of all of Australia's free trade agreements.

Postscript 3

Australia's Free Trade Agreements provides a list of current Australian free trade agreements.

Winton Bates' Has Australia's media dropped the ball in reporting on Asia and the Pacific? is a companion post to this one, providing Winton's perspective on the issues raised.