University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An inquiry into trade liberalization of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

(USC Thesis Other)

An inquiry into trade liberalization of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. I M
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be
from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Aibor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AN INQUIRY INTO TRADE LIBERALIZATION OF THE
ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION (APEC)
by
Kitty Kay K. Y. Chan
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(Economics)
August 1998
Copyright 1998 Kitty Kay K. Y. Chan
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 1393166
Copyright 1998 by
Chan, Kitty Kay Kay Yan
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 1393166
Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
U N IV E R SITY O F S O U T H E R N C A L IF O R N IA
T H E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L .
U N IV E R S IT Y R A JtK
L O S A N G E L E S . C A L IF O R N IA 0 0 0 0 7
This thesis, “ written by
Kitty K ay K. Y . Chan______________
under the direction of kStJL. Thesis Committee,
and approved by a ll its members, has been pre
sented to and accepted by the Dean of The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements fo r the degree of
Master o f Arts in Economics
£)afe August 18, 1998
THESISLCOMMITTEE
t
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dedication
To my wonderful parents:
Chan Hung Mou & Chan W ong So Fong
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my thesis committee, Dr. C Betts, Dr. B. Chen and Dr.
J. Nugent, as well as C.V.S.K. Sarma, Sanjeev Sabhlok, Shailender Swaminathan
and Tom Hall from Dr. Nugent’s weekly discussion group and Steven Helfand from
the WE A International 73 rd annual conference for their participation and valuable
comments.
In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Nugent for his guidance and patience.
The extra hours he spent with me—and especially the new knowledge I learned from
him—made an important contribution to this paper and my life.
Thanks also to my parents, Dee and Jay Goldner, and my husband, Phillip
Goldner, for all their moral support.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table of Contents
Dedication..................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgments....................................................................................................iii
List of Tables............................................................................................................vi
Abbreviations.......................................................................................................... vii
Abstract..................................................................................................................viii
PARTI: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................1
PART 2: ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION
(APEC)...............................................................................................................3
Initial Meeting..................................................................................................... 3
Objectives............................................................................................................5
Trade Liberalization........................................................................................... 8
The Committee on Trade and Investment....................................................... 10
Regional Economic Arrangements...................................................................10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
PART 3: METHODOLOGY.............................................................................13
The Study’s Background................................................................................. 13
Trade Control Measures..................................................................................14
Factor Endowments..........................................................................................16
Country Size......................................................................................................18
Database............................................................................................................ 18
The Model........................................................................................................ 22
Econometric Specifications............................................................................ 24
PART 4: RESULTS............................................................................................26
Regression Results Analysis........................................................................... 26
Simulations...................................................................................................... 36
PART 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................44
Conclusions...................................................................................................... 44
Suggestions for Further Research.................................................................. 46
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................48
APPENDIXES.......................................................................................................53
Appendix A.......................................................................................................54
Appendix B ...................................................................................................... 56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
List of Tables
Table 1: Initial APEC Member Countries..............................................................5
Table 2: APEC’s Prominent Meetings................................................................... 8
Table 3: Real Domestic Product, World Population and Member
Populations of the Major Regional Economic Arrangements
(1993).................................................................................................. 1 1
Table 4: Forty-Five Commodity Indexes............................................................. 19
Table 5: Regression Results with Import-GNP Ratios as Dependent
Variables..............................................................................................27
Table 6: Land, Human Capital, Capital and Land Intensity for the
Forty-Five Commodities....................................................................30
Table 7: Parameter Estimates of Trade Control Measures..................................33
Table 8: The Four Scenarios................................................................................. 37
Table 9: Percentage Changes in Imports of the Four Scenarios.........................38
Table 10: Change in Country Imports as a Percentage Change in the
Total Imports of APEC Members when APEC Liberalizes
All Trade............................................................................................. 40
Table 11: Commodity Composition of the Total Change in Imports of
APEC Members when APEC Liberalizes All Trade....................... 42
Table A -l: MAPA Highlights—Tariff Action Plans o f APEC Economies 54
Table B -l: Summary of Main Core Non-Tariff Barriers for APEC
Members..............................................................................................56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Abbreviations
AFT A ASEAN Free Trade Area
APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
ASEAN Association of Southeast Nations
CER Closer Economic Relations Agreement
CTI Committee on Trade and Investment
EU European Union
GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
GNP Gross National Product
ICOR Incremental Capital-Output Ratio
MERCOSUR Mercado del Cono Sur
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
NTBs Non Tariff Barriers
ROW Rest of the World
SITC Standard International Trade Classification
SRTAs Subregional Trading Arrangements
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Abstract
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), which until 1998 had only
eighteen member countries, represents approximately half the world’s trade and over
half of the world’s population and GNP. APEC members have committed
themselves to achieve free and open trade in the region by 2010 for industrialized
economies and by 2020 for developing economies. This study investigated the
effects that APEC members’ free trade arrangements have had on both the aggregate
value of total world trade and the trade patterns across countries as well as
commodities. The study is based on an econometric model which includes factor
endowments, barriers to trade measures and country size measures o f both importing
and exporting countries. Estimates show that if APEC completely liberalizes trade,
APEC imports from the world will increase by 18.77 percent.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I
Part 1: Introduction
For the last century, there has been an increasing trend toward free trade
arrangements among countries in different parts of the world. Currently,
approximately two-thirds of the total world trade takes place within these free trade
arrangements (Bergsten 1997). Academics first introduced the concept of a free
trade agreement among pacific countries as early as the 1960s as a response to the
establishment of the European Community (EC) (Baker 1996). However, prior to
1989, there were smaller free trade arrangements like the Association of Southeast
Nations (ASEAN).
The increasing globalization and extraordinary growth rates achieved by
some Asian countries in the 1980’s have made many economies realize that
cooperation in leadership is essential to maintain and enhance this unprecedented
economic successes and the future global economy. One such result was
establishing Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in November, 1989 with an
objective to sustain regional and world growth through the concept of open
regionalism. In November 1994, at Bogor in Indonesia, leaders from APEC member
countries reached an agreement to achieve regional free and open trade by the year
2010 for industrialized economies and 2020 for developing economies.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
The question of free trade versus protectionism has been debated for
centuries. In The Wealth o f Nations, Adam Smith advocates the idea of free trade.
On the other hand, there is John Maynard Keynes who gives his support to
protectionism in the article “Proposals for a Revenue Tariff’. Each side in the debate
has valid arguments (Wilson 1988).
To analyze the issue of free trade versus protectionism, one must answer the
question of whether it is more efficient to adopt one policy over another for all the
imports or adopt different policies for different products? Let us suppose that
consumers view necessities and luxury goods as imperfect substitutes. Therefore,
company managers have one pricing strategy for necessities and another for luxury
goods. Furthermore, as Laird and Yeats (1990) pointed out, government policy
differs by sector. The uniqueness of individual industries within an economy
requires separate consideration of the free trade versus protectionism question for
each commodity. Therefore, in this study, imports are separated into forty-five
different categories.
This paper estimates the effect that the Bogor Declaration would have on
world trade. To that end, it examines the effects different trade control measures of
both importing and exporting countries have had on imports of each APEC country
and the rest of the world (ROW). It also estimates the extent to which the
elimination of trade control measures affected imports of various industries within
APEC member countries and ROW.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
Current APEC member economies represent a rich diversity of cultures,
differing levels of economic growth and availability o f resources. Consequently, to
understand the effect of the Bogor Declaration of Common Resolve on member
countries’ imports, it is important to consider factor endowment constraints of
importing and exporting countries. Instead of using the typical two-factor
endowments in the standard Heckscher-Ohlin trade model, this study considers four:
land, human capital, capital and energy resources. In addition, country size measures
(GNP) of importing and exporting countries are included as independent variables in
order to capture the effect of market size on trade pattern.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
Part 2: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
Initial Meeting
Increasing global market integration and extraordinary growth rates achieved
by some Asian countries in the I980’s made some economies realize that
cooperation in leadership is essential to maintain and enhance this unprecedented
economic success and the future global economy. As a result, the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC) was established in November 1989. It started as an
informal consultative forum in Canberra, Australia, with the six members of the
Association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN) and their six dialogue partners in the
Pacific, to discuss multilateral economic cooperation, as well as to promote foreign
investment and trade.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
Table 1: Initial APEC Member Countries
ASEAN Non-ASEAN
Brunei Australia
Indonesia Canada
Malaysia Japan
Philippines Korea
Singapore New Zealand
Thailand United States
In less than a decade, APEC evolved into a well organized, eighteen-member
group, whose economies had a combined Gross Domestic Product of over US$13
trillion in 1995, approximately 55 percent of the total world income and 46 percent
of the global trade (Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation 1997). In November 1998,
APEC members will increase to twenty-one to include the following: Australia,
Brunei, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia,
Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Peru, Russia, Singapore,
Taiwan, Thailand, United States and Vietnam.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
Objectives
It is important to keep in mind that APEC is not a formal negotiating body
which binds with international agreements. Member countries come together
because of mutual consensus with and confidence in each other. According to the
APEC Secretariat, the organization’s objective is to sustain regional and world
growth through open regionalism. This is clearly reflected in the November, 1991
Seoul APEC Declaration, in which APEC members agreed on specific objectives:
• To sustain the growth and development of the region for
the common good of its peoples and, in this way,
contribute to the growth and development of the world
economy.
• To enhance the positive gains, both for the region and the
world economy, resulting from increasing economic
interdependence, to include encouraging the flow of
goods, services, capital, and technology.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
• To develop and strengthen the open multilateral trading
system in the interest of Asia-Pacific and all other
economies
• To reduce barriers to trade in goods and services among
participants in a manner consistent with GATT
principles, where applicable, and without detriment to
other economies.
• To enhance and promote the role of the private sector and
the application of free market principles in maximizing
the benefits of regional cooperation (APEC 1997a, p. 1)
As a result of the Seoul Declaration, an annual economic leaders’
information meeting has been an APEC tradition since 1993. Table 2 provides a
timetable of these meetings.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
Table 2: APEC’s Prominent Meetings
Meeting Tim e
The Canberra Initial Meeting November, 1989
The Seoul APEC Declaration November, 1991
The Blake Island Economic Vision November, 1993
The Bogor Declaration of Common Resolve November, 1994
The Osaka Action Agenda November, 1995
The Manila Action Plan November, 1996
The Vancouver Action Agenda November, 1997
Trade Liberalization
One significant effort APEC put forth on trade liberalization is stated in the
Bogor Declaration of Common Resolve. On November 1994, leaders from member
countries met in Bogor and committed themselves to the Leaders’ Declaration of
Common Resolve. It includes various goals and objectives such as achieving free
and open trade in the region by 2010 for industrialized economies and 2020 for
developing economies. However, subject to these final dates, an individual member
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
economy is free to pace and decide its own liberalization terms. Although this
arrangement calls into question the likelihood of successfully achieving the vision
through this voluntary approach, member countries’ commitments are clearly
demonstrated in their 1996 individual action plan (see Appendix A, Table A-1).
The Manila Action Plan for APEC (MAPA), which includes individual and
collective action plans as well as joint activities, was the first action plan for
achieving the goals set in the Bogor Declaration and the Osaka Action Agenda. The
Osaka Action Agenda is as a blueprint to assist member countries in implementing
their commitment towards open regionalism. For example, it requires APEC to
publish annual reports detailing actions taken by its member countries to deregulate
their domestic regulatory regimes.
Finally, the Vancouver Action Agenda served as the first annual review on
individual and collective action plans. In addition, it called for an early voluntary
liberalization further supporting the World Trade Organization (Asian-Pacific
Economic Cooperation 1997a, Bergsten 1994).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
The Committee on Trade and Investment
The Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI) was established in 1993 to
assist the development in trade and investment liberalization and related issues. The
committee has taken an active role in transforming trade and investment
liberalization visions into action. This study owes much to CTI’s effort. The
committee contributed resources in areas such as “Trade Policy Dialogue, Tariff
Database, Tariffs, Non-tariff Measure, Services, Deregulation, Dispute Mediation,
Uruguay Round Implementation, Investment, Customs Procedures, Standards and
Conformance, Mobility of Business People, Intellectual Property Rights,
Competition Policy, Government Procurement, and Rules of Origin.” (Asian-Pacific
Economic Cooperation 1997a, p.6)
Regional Economic Arrangements
Table 3 shows that among major regional economic arrangements in the
world today, the APEC comprises more than half of the world’s total real gross
domestic product and population.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
Table 3: Real Domestic Product, World Populations and Member
Populations of Major Regional Economic Arrangements (1993)
Real Gross Domestic
Product
($ trillion)
Population
($ billion)
World1 23.0 5.50
APEC2 13.1 2.10
NAFTA3 7.3 0.37
AFTA4 0.4 0.33
CER5 0.4 0.02
m
c
0 )
7.3 0.37
MERCOSUR7 0.7 0.20
1 APEC: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, China, Chinese, Taipei, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan,
Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand,
and the United States.
2 NAFTA: Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
3 AFTA Brunei, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines Singapore, and Thailand.
4 CER: Australia and New Zealand.
s EU: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,
Portugal, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
s MERCOSUR: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.
Source: J. Bhagwati and A Panagariya, eds., The Economics of Preferential Trade Agreements
(Washington: The AEI Press, 1996) 109-135, table 3-1.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
Furthermore, thirteen of the eighteen members are involved in other major
world regional economic arrangements such as the ASEAN Free Trade Area
(AFTA), the Australia-New-Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement
(CER), and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In its study “The
Impact of Subregionalism,” the APEC economic committee, has pointed out that
“Within APEC, the faster liberalization within the Subregional Trading
Arrangements (SRTAs) could be regarded as accelerating this process on a sub
regional basis. Given the fact that some SRTAs can at times go faster than either
APEC or the world trading system, by accelerating liberalization in certain sensitive
sectors, they may develop disciplines for other SRTAs and eventually the whole
APEC region to follow” (APEC 1997b, p.30).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
Part 3: Methodology
The Study’ s Background
This study was inspired by a study by Marcus Noland (1990) who analyzed
the prospective changes in the trade composition of pacific basin developing
countries. Noland demonstrated how a country’s factor endowments play a key role
in determining its trade level.
In the study at hand, factor endowments are included as independent
variables but are supplemented by trade control measures and country size indicators
in determining the imports of APEC member countries for each o f the forty-five
commodities.
In the Noland study, a cross-country econometric model, which is similar to
ones used by Learner (1984) and Saxonhouse (1988), is used to generate projections
of future trade composition. Furthermore, the following equation is estimated for
each commodity group:
X jj or My = a + Z^ocVkj + U jj
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
Xij (M;j) = the export (import) share of a commodity “i” in national income of
country “j”.
a = industry share of world income.
Pik = coefficients indicating the impact on the export.
V kj = endowments of resource k of country j as a share of national income.
Uij = a disturbance term.
Choice o f Trade Control Measures
To analyze the effect that the Bogor Declaration of Common Resolve has on
member countries, the above econometric model was transformed to incorporate
trade control measures. Tariffs or import duties are usually the principal trade control
measures for a country, but in some countries non-tariff barriers (NTBs) have also
become common. In this study, both tariff barriers and NTBs were considered.
There are two tariff forms, ad valorem and specific. The ad valorem tariff is
a percentage of the value of the import unit, and the specific tariff is a fixed sum of
taxes for each import unit. Specific tariffs were converted to their ad valorem tariff
rate equivalents for use in this study. A tariff schedule is a complex record,
containing not only different rates for thousands of items but also multiple rates for
the same item within a country. For centuries, because of the uniqueness of tariff
schedules, businesses and individuals have had to separate product coding depending
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
on export destination or import country of origin. To increase the efficiency of
world trade and reduce the costs of identifying these commodities, the Customs
Cooperation Council in Brussels, Belgium developed the Harmonized Commodity
Description and Coding System (harmonized system) as an international product
nomenclature and coding system (U.S. Congress, Senate 1987 and Bhagwati and
Hudec 1996). For this study, tariff data for the period between 1970 and 1990 was
collected. Therefore, tariff data were from both an individual member country’s own
coding system and the harmonized system. As a consequence, an individual
countries’ coding system had to be converted to be consistent with the harmonized
system.
Many believe that there is a trend for countries to use NTBs as a mean of
protectionism. Unfortunately, measuring NTBs is complicated because trade policy
is less transparent than tariffs (OECD 1996). As a result, in this study, NTBs were
treated as a dummy variable. Any NTBs, such as quota within a commodity group,
were assigned to a I for that commodity group and country; otherwise a zero was
assigned. Table B-l in Appendix B provides a summary of main core NTBS for
APEC members. It was created by the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council
(Pacific Economic Cooperation Council for APEC 1995, p.45).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
Factor Endowments
A country’s import level is affected not only by its own but also by exporting
countries’ factor endowments. This can be explained in that a country is likely to
import more of a labor-intensive product from a country which has an abundant
supply of labor, but less if it has an abundant supply of labor of its own. The same
applies to human capital or skills, and to physical capital or natural resources.
Current APEC member economies represent a rich diversity o f culture, differing
levels of economic growth and availability of resources. In this study, factor
endowment constraints of both importing and exporting countries were included in
the model. Four groups of factor endowments were selected. Land, human capital,
physical capital and energy. The selection of the first three endowments was based
on Learner (1987) study, which point out that land, human capital, and physical
capital endowments in a country induce change in trade. An additional endowment,
energy, is included as a second natural resource besides land. Additionally, energy
has always been one of the most pressing issues in the world economy (Bergsten
1973). While there are many natural resources such as different kinds of minerals, in
this study we include energy to encompass this additional effect.
Following common practice, hectares of arable land was used to represent
land endowment. Average schooling years for individuals aged fifteen and over was
used to represent human capital (Psacharopoulos 1973).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
Capital-labor ratio is used as a measure for capital endowment. The
procedure this study used to measure the amount of physical capital per member of
the labor force, capital-labor ratio, was the same as that Psacharopoulos used in his
1973 study. This method involves the construction of the incremental capital-output
ratio (ICOR) for each country for the three different decades.
IC O R = l/2(TNVvear-2 + INVvear-i) + INVvear + INVvear+i + l/2(INVvear+2 + INVvear+3)
I/3(GNPyeart-2 + GNP year+3 + GNP year+4 - GNPvear- 2 - GNPyear-i - GNPyear)
Then, one multiplies the ICOR by the corresponding GNP in United States dollars to
obtain capital stock. 1 Capital stock, as calculated above, is then divided by the total
labor force to yield a capital-labor ratio in United States dollars per countries.
The ratio of crude petroleum production to the total population was selected
to represent the energy endowment. Data availability determined the choice of
millions of liters of crude petroleum per person rather than other minerals.
Furthermore, value of production was used instead of reserves. This has been a
common practice for many other studies such as Ramazani and Maskus in 1993 and
Learner in 1987, who also addressed unavailability of data and inconsistency of
measurement across data (i.e., tons versus barrels).
1 See Robinson (1969) for detail calculation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
Finally, imports in United States dollars of each individual country is divided
by the importing country’s gross national product (GNP) in United States dollars.
Land and energy are divided by population, and capital is divided by labor force in
order to yield measures that are comparable across countries.
Country Size
In addition to land, human capital, physical capital, energy resources, and
tariff barriers of the importing and exporting countries, as well as NTBs of exporting
countries, country size measures were included as independent variables. The GNP
of both importing and exporting countries was used as a proxy of country size. In
modem trade theory, country size can have a significant influence on trade patterns.
Database
Import data were collected from 3 distinct periods—the 1970’s, 1980’s and
1990’s. The purpose was to capture the long-term effect of structural change among
dependent and independent variables during the three decades. In addition, only 16
instead of the eighteen APEC member countries’ data were collected. Brunei and
Papua New Guinea were dropped because the required data from these two
economies were not available. The values of import for each four-digit SITC
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
revision 2 code were taken from the “Statistics Canada World Trade Database” data
file in the World trade Flows, 1970-1992, with Production and Tariff Data CD-
ROM from the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. The data collected were
then aggregated into forty-five categories as shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Forty-Five Commodity Indexes
In d u stry Index
Animals and Products 1
Fish and Preparations 2
Food Crops & Products 3
Tobacco and Products 4
Agricultural Commodities 5
Beverages 6
Textile Fibers 7
Crude Rubber 8
Wood & Cork 9
Crude, Ores, etc. 10
Coal, Coke, etc. 11
Petroleum and Products 12
Nonferrous Metals 13
Spinning, Weaving, etc. 14
continued
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
Table 4: Forty-Five Commodity Indexes (Continued)
In d u stry Index
Wearing Apparel 15
Leather and Products 16
Footwear 17
Wood Products 18
Furniture and Fixtures 19
Pulp, Paper, etc. 20
Paper Products 21
Printing and Publishing 22
Basic Chemicals 23
Plastic and Products 24
Other Industrial Chemicals 25
Medicinal & Pharmaceutical Products 26
Other Chemicals 27
Rubber Products 28
Sanitary, Plumbing, Heating and Lighting Fixtures 29
Pottery, China, etc. 30
Glass Products 31
Other Nonmetallic Products 32
Iron and Steel 33
Manufactures of Metal 34
Office and Computing Equipment 35
Other Machinery 36
Radio and Television 37
Other Electrical Machinery 38
Ships, Boats and Floating Structures 39
Railroad Equipment 40
Motor Vehicles 41
Aircraft 42
Motorcycles and Bicycles, etc. 43
Professional Goods 44
Other Industries 45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
The land endowment data were taken from the 1997 World Development
Indicator produced by the World Bank. For labor endowments, the average
schooling for individuals aged fifteen and over was collected from the “International
Measures of Schooling Years and Schooling Quality” from the Barro-Lee data set,
which is made available by the World Bank on the world wide web. The capital-
labor ratio was collected from a combination of two different sources. Capital
formation data were taken from the International Financial Statistics Yearbook
published by the International Monetary Fund and the statistics on total labor force
were collected from the 1997 World Development Indicators produced by the World
Bank. The ratio of crude petroleum production to the total population is calculated
using data of crude petroleum production originating from the Europa World Year
Book, and population of each individual country from the 1997 World Development
Indicators. Finally, GNP of each individual country was also collected from the
1997 World Development Indicators.
With over ten thousand tariff items, the tariff schedule structure was
extremely complicated and, not until recently, have the tariff schedules of individual
APEC members been standardized using the harmonized tariff code. Furthermore,
due to the complexities of the tariff system and the rise of new products,
governments around the world have amended their tariff schedules over time. In
addition, there are no two countries, which have identical classifications for their
national tariff schedules. Therefore, the organization of tariff data from the 1970s
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
involved transforming each tariff schedule from that provided from individual
member country’s government into the harmonized tariff system. In addition, the
Peoples Republic of China and Thailand printed their tariff schedules in the 1970s in
their native language. As a result, translation is needed. Tariff data from the 1980s
was collected from the “Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers by Country” data file in the
World trade Flows, 1970-1992, with Production and Tariff Data CD-ROM from the
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. Furthermore, tariff data from the 1990s
is provided by the APEC Secretariat World Wide Web. Non-tariff barriers statistics
were constructed from various sources such as the “Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers by
Country” data file in the World Trade Flows, 1970-1992, with Production and Tariff
Data CD-ROM from the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. and the
Survey o f Impediments to Trade and Investment in the APEC Region published by
the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council for the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation Secretariat.
The Model
The following equation was estimated for each of the forty-five commodities:
M ;jt = a + Z ^ 1 ^ h + Zk1 5k Zk jt + Y xTRIit + Y 2TRIjt + YsNTRu + Y4NTBjt + r^GNPjt +
T i2 GNPjt + Uijt
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
Myt (Xjjt) = the import (export) share of a particular commodity of country i from
country j in national income of country i at time t
xSt = endowments of resource k of country i at time t
Zk jt = endowments of resource k of country j at time t
TRIjt= tariff barriers of country i at time t
TRIjt = tariff barriers of country j at time t
NTBit = non-tariff barriers of country i at time t
NTBjt = non-tariff barriers of country j at time t
GNP;t= gross national product o f country i at time t
GNPjt = gross national product o f country j at time t
a = intercept term
3 k = coefficients indicating the impact of endowment k of the importing country on
the import share Mjjt
8 k = coefficients indicating the impact of endowment k of the exporting country on
the import share Mijt
Yi = coefficients indicating the impact of tariff barriers of the importing country on
the import share Mjjt
y2 = coefficients indicating the impact of tariff barriers of the exporting country on
the import share MiJt
y3 = coefficients indicating the impact of non-tariff barriers of the importing
country on the import share Myt
y4 = coefficients indicating the impact of non-tariff barriers of the exporting
country on the import share
% = coefficients indicating the impact of gross national product of the importing
country on the import share Myt
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
H 2 = coefficients indicating the impact of gross national product of the exporting
country on the import share M ijt
U ijt = a disturbance term
i = 1 to 16, 16 APEC member economies as importing countries (Australia, Canada,
Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand,
Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and the United States).
j = 1 to 17, 16 APEC member economies plus rest of the world as exporting
countries.
k = 1 to 4, the selected four endowments (land, human capital, capital and energy)
t = 1 to 3, three time periods (1970s 1980s and 1990s)
Econometric Specifications
The correlation matrix shows that NTBs of importing countries are highly
correlated to NTBs of exporting countries. As a result, non-tariff barriers of
importing countries were eliminated from the model. The elimination of importing
instead of exporting countries’ non-tariff barriers resulted from the highly
endogenous quality of non-tariff barriers o f importing countries.
The following is the modified model:
M ijt = a + Z^pXjt + Zk j5Zjt + YjTRIjt + y2 TRIjt+ y4 NTBjt + rijGNPjt + ri2GNPjt + Uyt
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
This modified model was estimated using demean (Johnston and DiNardo 1997),
Fuller and Battese (Hsiao 1986), ordinary least square, and tobit.
The nature of panel data makes it inappropriate to use ordinary least square
(OLS) regression techniques. The basic standard econometric method for treating
panel data involves assumptions on whether individual effect is correlated with the
explanatory variables. If the individual effects are correlated with the explanatory
variables, a fixed effects model is called for. On the other hand, if the individual
effects are not correlated with the explanatory variables, it is a random effect model
(Johnston and DiNardo 1997).
To decide whether the fixed or random effects were more appropriate, the
Hausman test was employed. The Hausman test statistic was distributed
asymptotically as y l with k degree of freedom under the null hypothesis that the
random effects estimator was correct. The result shown for each commodity is that
the null hypothesis was rejected and the fixed effects was accepted. Furthermore,
values of dependent variables are naturally bound from below at zero since imports
to the GNP ratio o f each importing country’s must be non-negative. As a result, in
this study, dummy variables for both time and countries were incorporated into tobit
procedure to provide fixed effects. This method provided a much better fit and
more significant explanatory variables than the other methods mentioned above.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
Part 4: Results
Regression Results Analysis
Table 5 summarizes the regression results by providing the significance level
of each parameter estimate pt, { 3 2, 0 3 , 0 4 , 5i, 52, 8 3 , 8 4 , y2 , y4, ni, and r| 2 for each
of the forty-five commodities. Positive estimated coefficients on independent
variables imply that an increase in land, human capital, physical capital or energy
generate an increase in the imports of the particular industry. On the other hand, a
negative parameter estimate indicates that an abundance of the factor endowment is
associated with a decrease of the industry’s imports. The sign of parameter estimates
is expected to be opposite for land, human capital, physical capital and energy of
importing and exporting countries. This is because the more endowed an importing
country is, the less it needs to import from others and vice versa. The majority of the
commodities within each factor endowment in Table 5 has opposite sign parameter
estimates for importing and exporting countries.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
Table 5: Regression Results with Import-GNP Ratios as Dependent
Variables
U HK 1 K 1 E 1 LE HKE KE EE TRI TRE NTBE GNPI GNPE
1 a- c- a a a a a- a d- a-
2 a- a b a a a- a- d- b
3 a- a a b a a- a a- a
4 a- b d* a a a a- a a- a
5 a a- a b- a
6 b- c a a b a- a- a-
7 a- a a a a a- a
8 d- b a- a- a c a- a- a
9 a- a a* a b- C b
10 a- a d- a a a a- a a
11 a- a d a b a a- a
12 d- a a- c a a a- a
13 a- d a a a- a b
14 a a 3- a* a a-
15 c b a b a- a- c a-
16 b c- d- a a b a- a- a a- d-
17 b c a a a- a- a-
18 a- a a- a a- b- a
19 c a a d a- a- c a
20 b- a- a a a c b-
21 a a a a- a- a a- a
22 b a a a a- a- a- a- a
23 d a a b- a- a c- a
24 d- b- b a a a- a- a- d a- a
25 c- a- a a a a- a- a
26 a- b a a a- a- a- a
27 b- a a a- a- c- a
28 a a a a- a- a- a
29 a a a a a- c* a-
continued
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
Table 5: Regression Results with Import-GNP Ratios as Dependent
Variables (Continued)
LI HKI K l E 1 LE HKE KE EE TR! TRE NTBE GNPI GNPE
30 a a- a a b- a- a* a a- a- b-
31 b a a a a- a- a- a- a
32 b- b- a a a- a- d- a
33 a a a- a- d- d a- a
34 c a- a a- a- a- a- a- a
35 a b a a b a- a- a- a- a
36 a a a- b- a* a b- a
37 d a a b- a- a- a- a- a
38 a b a a a- a- c- a- a
39 a a a- a- b b-
40 b d- d b a a a- a- a
41 a a a- a- a- a- a
42 d d a a b- a
43 a a a- c- a a-
44 d- a b a a a- b- a- b- a
45 a c- b a a a a- a- a- a- a
= a + ZkiPk Xk r t + Zki5k Zk ) t + yiTRlit + Y 2TRIjt+ y4NTBjt + qiGNPit+ r^GNPjt + U ijt
LI = Land endowment from the importing country.
HKI = Human capital endowment from the importing country.
Kl = Capital endowment from the importing county.
El = Energy endowment from the importing country.
LE = Land endowment form the exporting country.
HKE = Human capital endowment from the exporting country.
KE = Capital endowment from the exporting county.
EE = Energy endowment from the exporting country.
TRI = Tariff barriers of the importing country.
TRE = Tariff barriers of the exporting country.
NTBE = Non-tariff barriers of the exporting country.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
GNPI = Gross national product of the importing country.
a = Parameter estimate is significant at the 5% level, with minus sign indicating a negative coefficient
b = Parameter estimate is significant at the 10% level, with minus sign indicating a negative coefficient
c = Parameter estimate is significant at the 15% level, with minus sign indicating a negative coefficient
d = Parameter estimate is significant at the 20% level, with minus sign indicating a negative coefficient
All factor endowments, including land, physical capital, and energy, except
human capital have less than one-tenth of their forty-five commodities with same
sign parameter estimates.
Table 6 is created to further the discussion on Table 5.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
Table 6: Land, Human Capital, Capital and Land Intensity for the Forty-
Five Commodities
Land-
Intensive
Human
Capital-
Intensive
Capital- Energy-
Intensive Intensive
1 Animals and Products X X
2 Fish and Preparations X X
3 Food Crops & Products X X
4 Tobacco and Products X
5 Agricultural Commodities X X
6 Beverages
7 Textile Fibers X
8 Crude Rubber X
9 Wood & Cork X X
10 Crude, Ores, etc. X X
11 Coal, Coke, etc. X X X
12 Petroleum and Products X X
13 Nonferrous Metals X X X
14 Spinning, Weaving, etc. X
15 Wearing Apparel
16 Leather and Products X
17 Footwear
18 Wood Products X
19 Furniture and Fixtures
20 Pulp, Paper, etc. X X
21 Paper Products X X
continued
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
Table 6: Land, Human Capital, Capital and Land Intensity for the Forty-
Five Commodities (Continued)
Land-
Intensive
Human
Capital-
Intensive
Capital- Energy-
Intensive Intensive
22 Printing and Publishing
23 Basic Chemicals X
24 Plastic and Products
25 Other Industrial Chemicals X
26 Medicinal & Pharmaceutical Products X
27 Other Chemicals X
28 Rubber Products
29 Sanitary, Plumbing, Heating and Lighting Fixtures
30 Pottery, China, etc.
31 Glass Products
32 Other Nonmetallic Products X
33 Iron and Steel X X
34 Manufactures of Metal X
35 Office and Computing Equipment X X
36 Other Machinery X X X
37 Radio and Television X X
38 Other Electrical Machinery X X X
39 Ships, Boats and Floating Structures X X
40 Railroad Equipment X X
41 Motor Vehicles X X
42 Aircraft X X
43 Motorcycles and Bicycles, etc.
44 Professional Goods X
45 Other Industries
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
Table 6 shows the forty-five commodities and their intensity in land, human capital,
capital and energy. Clearly, some commodities have high intensity in multiple
factor.
LI is expected to be negative and LE is expected to be positive for a land
intensive commodity. The reason is for any land intensive commodity, imports are
expected to decrease if the importing country is well endowed in land relative to the
exporting country, and it is expected to increase if the opposite is true. For the
human capital-intensive and energy-intensive commodity, the same logic applies.
All the land-intensive commodities in Table 6 have a negative LI except commodity
16, leather and products, and a positive LE except commodity 8 , crude rubber. For
the human capital-intensive commodity, although most of these commodities do not
follow the expectation of a negative HKI, all o f them have a positive HKE. For
energy-intensive commodities, about half of them follow the expectation of a
negative El and a positive EE. In the case o f capital-intensive commodity, the
expected signs are more complicated. This is because capital intensive in this study
is measured relative to labor intensity. This may explain why the sign of capital-
intensive commodity parameter estimates is more mixed than the other factor
endowments. Finally, as expected, the sign of GNPI and GNPE is generally negative
and positive, respectively. The larger the size of the importing country, the lower the
overall propensity to import. The larger the market size of the exporting country, the
larger should be that country’s share of imports o f the importing country.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
The focus of this study is on the effect of different trade control measures on
imports within different industries. Table 7 provides the values of the parameter
estimates for the trade control measure variables.
Table 7: Parameter Estimates of Trade Control Measures
TRI TRE NTBE
1 Animals and Products -0.055 *** 0.015 “ * -0.370
2 Fish and Preparations -0.015 *** 0.002 -0.267
3 Food Crops & Products -0.043 ~ 0.016 *** -0.896 —
4 Tobacco and Products -0.025 * * * 0.006 * * -1.401 **•
5 Agricultural Commodities -0.033 *** 0.020 •** -0.513 *
6 Beverages -0.025 *** 0.001 “ -1.025 * * *
7 Textile Fibers -0.007 0.018 * * * 0.197
8 Crude Rubber 0.018 -0.039 •** -0.269
9 Wood 8 > Cork 0.003 -0.013 -0.493 *
10 Crude, Ores, etc. -0.034 * * * 0.014 * * * -0.060
11 Coal, Coke, etc. 0.001 0.002 -0.020
12 Petroleum and Products 0.004 0.065 — -0.600 * *
continued
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
Table 7: Parameter Estimates of Trade Control Measures (Continued)
TRI TRE NTBE
13 Nonferrous Metals -0.029 * * 0.028 * * 0 .0 3 2
14 Spinning, Weaving, etc. -0.014 * * * 0 .0 0 3 0.663 ***
15 Wearing Apparel -0.020 — 0.003 -0.330
16 Leather and Products -0.023 * * * 0 .0 0 0 0.729 ***
17 Footwear -0.026 * * * 0.000 0.030
18 Wood Products -0.079 •** 0 .0 1 3 * 0.103
19 Furniture and Fixtures -0.044 * * * 0.005 0 .2 8 0
20 Pulp, Paper, etc. -0.001 0.029 0 .3 0 8
21 Paper Products -0.042 * * * 0 .0 1 9 * * * 0.434 *
22 Printing and Publishing 0.001 0 .0 3 5 •** -1.243 * * *
23 Basic Chemicals 0.002 0.004 0.698 * * *
24 Plastic and Products -0.020 ” 0 .0 2 4 — 0.337
25 Other Industrial Chemicals 0.005 0 .0 0 5 0 .5 4 0 * *
26 Medicinal & Pharmaceutical Products -0.059 * * * 0 .0 0 4 0.045
27 Other Chemicals 0 .0 2 5 * * * -0.002 0.090
28 Rubber Products -0.000 0.001 0 .9 2 0 ***
29 Sanitary, Plumbing, Heating and Lighting Fixtures -0.013 0 .0 0 2 0.222
30 Pottery, China, etc. 0 .0 2 8 * * * 0.020 *** 0 .7 7 6 ***
continued
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
Table 7: Parameter Estimates of Trade Control Measures (Continued)
TRI TRE N TBE
31 Glass Products -0.008 * * 0.001 -0.563 **
32 Other Nonmetallic Products -0.043 "* -0.003 -0.136
33 Iron and Steel -0.021 0.013 0.355
34 Manufactures of Metal -0.029 *** -0.014 ** 0.233
35 Office and Computing Equipment -0.003 -0.018 ** -1.075 ***
36 Other Machinery -0.017 * -0.059 *** 0.939 ***
37 Radio and Television -0.003 -0.024 — -0.672 **
38 Other Electrical Machinery -0.006 -0.040 *** -0.391
39 Ships, Boats and Floating Structures -0.010 -0.038 * * 0.635 *
40 Railroad Equipment 0.057 *** -0.055 * * -0.217
41 Motor Vehicles 0.002 -0.038 *** 0.180
42 Aircraft -0.002 -0.019 0.275
43 Motorcycles and Bicycles, etc. -0.022 -0.009 0.739 **
44 Professional Goods -0.016 * -0.018 *** -0.157
45 Other Industries -0.011 *** -0.003 -0.817 ***
M ijt = a + ZkiP k Xk it + Zki8 k Zk lt + yiTRlit + Y 2TRIjt+ y4NTBjt + T]iGNP,t + t]2GNPjt + Uijt
***: 1 % sign ifican ce level
**: 5% sign ifican ce level
*: 10% sign ifican ce level
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
The majority of these parameter estimates are negative and significant. The
result coincides with the expectation that the higher trade barrier levels become, an
individual country has less incentive to import the product. The table indicates that,
in general, tariff barriers of an importing country have a relatively stronger impact on
imports than the tariff barriers of an exporting country.
Simulations
Background
This simulation demonstrates how the imports of APEC and ROW adjust to
achievements of the Bogor Declaration’s targets. In particular, it shows how the
elimination of different trade control measures will affect different industries of
APEC member countries and the rest of the world, ROW. Based on estimation
above, four scenarios are constructed. Table 8 identifies the scenarios. The X in a
column indicates that trade barriers are to be eliminated in that scenario.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
Table 8: The Four Scenarios
Scenario
APEC ROW
T R I, T R Ij N T B j T R Ii
Ri)
NTBj
1 X X
2 X X X X
3 X X X
4 X X X X X X
To calculate the impact of the Bogor Declaration, parameter estimates
obtained from the regression are used to multiply the independent variables. To
capture the trend effects of changes in factor endowments and country size measures
in each scenario, the factor endowment and country size variables are projected
ahead another decade but then held constant.
Findings
The following Table 9 shows the percentage change in imports of the four
scenarios.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
Table 9: Percentage Changes in Imports of the Four Scenarios
Scenario 11 Scenario 22 Scenario 33 Scenario 44
Among APEC 19.62% 21.75% 27.17% 31.25%
APEC from the World 13.26% 15.38% 18.77% 22.85%
Rest of the World 2.59% 11.91% 6.17% 17.95%
1 Elimination of tariff barriers only among APEC members
2 Elimination of world tariff barriers
3 Elimination of tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers only among APEC members
4 Elimination of world tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers
The above outcomes are generally comparable to those of existing studies,
especially to the result published by the APEC economic committee in the 1997
APEC Economic Outlook,2
For Scenario 1, when only tariff barriers among APEC members are
eliminated, imports among APEC are estimated to increase by 19.62%, imports of
APEC countries from the World by 13.26% and the rest of the world imports by
2 The CGE model is used in this APEC study. Five scenarios are investigated to show the im pact on
APEC and on global trade under trade liberalization. 1997 APEC Economic Outlook shows that
under the scenario of removing all tariffs within A PEC and of APEC offering lower tariffs to non-
APEC countries unconditionally on an MFN basis, A PEC imports will increase by 20.6% and the
world imports will improve by 11.5% . For the case when global trade liberalization is achieved,
APEC and world trade will increase by 24.3% and 21.6 % .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
2.59%. In Scenario 2, world tariff barriers are eliminated. As expected, imports
among APEC, o f APEC from the world and of the rest of the world tire higher than
in Scenario 1 . Naturally, it is the rest of the world’s imports which are most affected
by this change. The differences in imports between Scenarios I and 3 as well as
between Scenario 2 and 4 reflect the impact of eliminating NTBs. Furthermore,
NTBs have a larger impact on imports when the world is involved in trade
liberalization when compared solely among APEC members. This can be explained
because the use of NTBs is relatively infrequent compared to the rest of the world.
Tables 1 0 and 11 reflect how this change affects individual countries and
commodity trades. Table 10 shows that, on average, APEC’s developing economy
members receive the largest change in imports when APEC liberalizes all trade. The
table also shows that imports of APEC’s newly industrialized economy members are
least affected by eliminating trade control measures of APEC members.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
Table 10: Change in Country Imports as a Percentage Change in the
Total Imports of APEC Members when APEC Liberalized All Trade
Before After Change
Industrialized Economies
Australia 2.58% 2.53% 3.53%
Canada 7.47% 7.23% 3.66%
Japan 13.10% 13.99% 4.22%
New Zealand 0.58% 0.56% 3.94%
United States 33.68% 33.78% 3.28%
Average 3.73%
Newly industrialized Economies
Hong Kong 10.51% 9.91% 2.26%
Korea 4.50% 4.41% 5.45%
Singapore 4.58% 4.32% 2.53%
Taiwan 6.32% 6.09% 5.85%
Average 4.02%
Developing Economies
Chile 0.56% 0.55% 5.26%
China 5.10% 5.73% 22.09%
Indonesia 1.85% 1.83% 6.29%
Malaysia 2.27% 2.17% 6.68%
Mexico 3.71% 3.72% 6.81%
Philippines 0.92% 0.91% 7.34%
Thailand 2.28% 2.27% 10.80%
Average 9.32%
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
Furthermore, China’s relatively high percentage of total change in imports
implies that China has to reduce it currently high tariff and non-tariff barriers relative
to other members in order to take advantage of trade liberalization. On the other
hand, Hong Kong has the lowest percentage change in imports because of its small
size and minimal trade barriers. The increase in imports for Hong Kong is mainly
caused by eliminating trade barriers from its trading partners. The result implies that
the countries that liberalize the most receive the greatest benefit from the Borgor
Declaration. The countries that liberalize the most will expand imports the most.
Table 1 1 shows that commodities with already high existing trade control
measures, such as tobacco and agricultural commodities, incur a greater impact. On
the other hand, imports of commodities such as ores and pulp that have current trade
control measures close to zero for the majority of the world are less affected then
other commodities.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
Table 11: Commodity Composition of the Total Change in Imports of
APEC Members when APEC Liberalizes All Trade
Before After Change
4 Tobacco and Products 0.54% 1.01% 5.80%
3 Food Crops & Products 1.79% 2.02% 4.87%
1 Animals and Products 1.08% 1.40% 4.40%
5 Agricultural Commodities 1.48% 1.81% 4.38%
36 Other Machinery 12.79% 11.97% 3.97%
18 Wood Products 0.51% 0.80% 3.76%
30 Pottery, China, etc. 0.18% 0.58% 3.60%
6 Beverages 0.55% 0.82% 3.47%
41 Motor Vehicles 7.75% 7.46% 2.91%
21 Paper Products 1.26% 1.40% 2.83%
15 Wearing Apparel 3.63% 3.48% 2.79%
17 Footwear 0.99% 1.21% 2.73%
19 Furniture and Fixtures 0.70% 0.83% 2.72%
12 Petroleum and Products 7.79% 7.43% 2.62%
34 Manufactures of Metal 1.62% 1.70% 2.45%
14 Spinning, Weaving, etc. 3.19% 3.02% 2.28%
32 Other Nonmetallic Products 0.90% 0.94% 2.28%
37 Radio and Television 3.85% 3.73% 2.26%
43 Motorcycles and Bicycles, etc. 0.45% 0.59% 2.24%
40 Railroad Equipment 0.11% 0.41% 2.23%
38 Other Electrical Machinery 7.96% 7.45% 2.22%
24 Plastic and Products 1.49% 1.64% 2.20%
16 Leather and Products 0.79% 0.87% Z18%
22 Printing and Publishing 0.44% 0.66% 2.18%
35 Office and Computing Equipment 5.62% 5.24% 2.09%
8 Crude Rubber 0.30% 0.54% 1.91%
39 Ships, Boats and Floating Structures 0.23% 0.44% 1.76%
26 Medicinal & Pharmaceutical Products 0.80% 0.77% 1.68%
45 Other Industries 9.00% 8.18% 1.63%
33 Iron and Steel 2.57% 2.47% 1.61%
23 Basic Chemicals 2.50% 2.38% 1.61%
continued
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
Table 11: Commodity Composition of the Total Change in Imports of
APEC Members when APEC Liberalizes All Trade (Continued)
Before After Change
28 Rubber Products 0.57% 0.60% 1.58%
2 Fish and Preparations 1.38% 1.33% 1.37%
27 Other Chemicals 1.25% 1.22% 1.36%
13 Nonferrous Metals 1.81% 1.80% 1.31%
44 Professional Goods 2.90% 2.76% 1.24%
25 Other Industrial Chemicals 0.78% 0.82% 1.23%
7 Textile Fibers 0.63% 0.72% 1.21%
9 Wood & Cork 1.12% 1.12% 1.12%
29 Sanitary, Plumbing, Heating and Lighting Fixtures 0.24% 0.30% 0.97%
10 Crude, Ores, etc. 1.61% 1.53% 0.94%
31 Glass Products 0.43% 0.45% 0.85%
20 Pulp, Paper, etc. 0.70% 0.70% 0.63%
42 Aircraft 1.80% 1.67% 0.47%
11 Coal, Coke, etc. 1.92% 1.72% 0.07%
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
The table suggests that if priority has to be given for liberalization among the
forty-five commodities, it is logical to start from the top o f the list, with an emphasis
on tobacco and agricultural commodities. The reason is that these commodities will
not only provide the highest benefit but also take a relatively longer time to achieve
free and open trade because of their current high trade barriers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
Part 6: Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
It is encouraging to discover that eliminating tariff barriers of importing
countries plays a major role in improving the trade volume of a country. As indicated
in this study, although global liberalization is preferred to eliminating trade control
measures solely among APEC countries, doing so has the strongest affect for APEC
countries. Consequently, regardless of whether the ROW joins APEC to achieve the
Bogor Declaration by the year 2020, it is important for APEC members to follow
through to receive maximum benefits for themselves. Furthermore, since APEC
trade constitutes 46 percent of global trade, if APEC economies did achieve free and
open trade within the next two decades, the world will be one step closer to
achieving global free trade
The result also suggests that priority in liberalization could be given to
commodities with currently high trade barriers. These commodities provide the
greatest potential benefits from trade liberalization, in addition to requiring a
relatively longer time to fully eliminate all of their trade barriers.
On the other hand, for import commodities which are highly influenced by
non-tariff barriers, tariffication followed by significant liberalization is an answer.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
The Standard World Bank suggests that developing nations adopt tariffication, which
is to convert quotas to tariffs first, and then reduce the tariffs. Tariffication appears
to be welfare increasing under certain conditions (Anderson 1997).
Many benefits result from increased trade caused by the Bogor Declaration.
For example, a trade creation effect points out that an increase in imports brings a
corresponding increase in exports. Technology spillovers are other important gains
brought by the Bogor Declaration.
Even if APEC members never achieve complete free trade, the effort each
member puts forth in the process opens up member communications which otherwise
would not occur. “A successful Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum
would reduce the risk of intra-Asian and trans-Pacific conflicts, which have been so
prevalent over the past centuries-including three wars for the United States”
(Bergsten 1996, p. 106).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
Suggestions for Further Research
In this study, NTBs are treated as dummy variables. Not only do dummy
variables not consider the number of NTBs a country has, but they also do not
distinguish the kind of NTBs. As Daly and Kuwahara (1998) pointed out, NTBs
may have different trade effects on the same industry. Therefore, it is desirable to
improve upon the simple dummy variable measures of NTBs used in this study with
more quantitative indexes of such barriers. Moreover, if quantitative measures of a
country and commodity-specific NTBs were available, it is likely that the collinear
problem between the NTBs of the importing and the exporting countries would be
substantially reduced, allowing the reintroduction of NTBs of importing countries
back into the model.
Another issue is that converting 1970s tariff data into compatible 1980s and
1990s data may cause systematic measure error, because of the complex tariff
schedule. One could compare estimates from the conversion in this study with other
tariff estimates and determine the extent to which the econometric results might be
sensitive to the use of different 1970s tariff data. Another extension could be to use
a completely different means of estimating trade barriers, such as comparative
purchasing price data as in Bradford (1998). This eliminates the aforementioned
troubles in using codes to construct indexes o f tariffs and NTBs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
Statisticians have long observed discrepancies in partner-country data and the
occasional ‘perversity discrepancies’ (Bhagwati 1969 270 and Allen 1960, p.268).
Therefore, it could be interesting to investigate the extent to which the results differ
if the export matrix data and the import matrix data were combined.
Finally, current measures of factor endowments could be refined and
additional independent variables added to the model. On the one hand, the measure
of energy endowments could be broadened to include other natural resources, such
as minerals, rather than merely crude petroleum. On the other hand, it might be
desirable to include the stock of foreign direct investment as an independent variable
in the model. The reason is that technology in the importing county might be
affected by foreign direct investment, thereby reducing the need for imports.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
Bibliography
Allen, L. Soviet Economic Warfare. Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1960.
Anderson, J. Revenue Neutral Trade Reform with Many Households, Quotas and
Tariffs. NBER Working Paper Series. Cambridge, Massachusetts: National
Bureau of Economic Research, 1997.
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. Asia-Pacificeconomic Cooperation 1997.
Singapore: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Secretariat, 1997a.
________ . The Impact o f Subregionalism in APEC. Singapore: Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation Secretariat, 1997b.
________ . The Impact o f Trade Liberalization in APEC. Singapore: Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation Secretariat, 1997c.
________ . 1997 APEC Economic Outlook. Singapore: Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation Secretariat, 1997d.
________ . “Tariffs Database,” [http://www.apectariff.org].
Australia. Department of Customs and Excise. Annotated Customs tariff with
Statistical Key, 1974.
Baker, A. “Into the Dustbin of History: Economist and Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation,” [http://www. econ.duke.edu/Joumal/dje/dje-96/mac2/mac2.html].
Bergsten, C. The Future o f the International Economic Order: An Agenda for
Research. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1973.
________ . “APEC and World Trade,” Foreign Affairs 73, no.3 (1994): 20-26.
________ . “Globalizing Free Trade, ” Foreign Affairs 75, no.3 (1996): 105-120.
________ . Open Regionalism. Washington D.C.: Institute for International
Economics, 1997.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
Bhagwati, J. Trade, Tariffs and Growth. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T.
Press, 1969.
Bhagwati, J., and R. Hudec, ed. Fair Trade and Harmonization. V o l. 1 , Lying Down
with Procrustes: An Analysis o f Harmonization Claims, by D. Leebron.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press, 1996.
Bhagwati, J., and A. Panagariya. “The Economics o f Preferential Trade
Agreements,” The Economics of Preferential Trade Agreements.
Bradford, S. “Rents, Votes and Protection: Explaining the Structure of Protection
Across Industries in Developed Democracies,” Paper Presented at the 73rd
Annual Conf. Of the WE A International in Lake Tahoe, Nevada, June 29, 1998.
Canada. Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise Divisioa The
Customs Tariff and Amendments: with Index to Commodities. 1967.
Cho, G. Trade, Aid and Global Interdependence. New York: Routledge, 1995.
Chu-hai Shu Yuan. Ching Chi Yen Chiu So. Hsiang-kang Tui Wai Mao i T'ung Chi
Fen His Tzu Liao. 1974.
Congress, Senate, Committee on Finance, Harmonized System: Hearing before the
Subcommittee on International Trade. 100th Cong., 1 st sess., 27 January, 1987.
Daly, M., and H. Kuwahara. “The Impact of the Uruguay Round on Tariff and Non
tariff Barriers to Trade in the ‘Quad’,” The World Economy 21, no.2 (1998):
207-233.
Feenstra, R., R. Lipsey, and H. Bowen. World Trade Flows, 1970-1992, with
Production and Tariff Data NBER Working Paper Series. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1997.
Harrigan, J. “Factor Endowments and the international Location of Product:
Econometric Evidence for the OECD, 1970-1985,” Journal o f International
Economics 30(1995): 123-141.
Han’guk Kwanse Yon’guso. Customs Tariff Schedules o f Korea. 1975.
Hsiao, C. Analysis o f Panel Data New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Indonesia. Direktorat Jenderal Bea dan Cukai. Alphabetical Index to the Customs
Tariff o f Indonesia. 1971.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
Japan. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Summary o f Foreign Trade Regulations o f Latin
America: Export, Import, Foreign exchange. Customs Code, and Tariff o f Major
Latin American Countries. 1978.
Johnston, J., and J. DiNardo. Econometric Methods. New York: The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc., 1997.
Laird, S., and A. Yeats. Quantitative Methods fo r Trade-Barrier Analysis. New
York: New York University Press, 1990.
Learner, E. “Path of Development in the Three-Factor, n-Good General equilibrium
Model,” Journal o f Political Economy 95, no.4 (1987): 961-999.
________ . Sources of International Comparative Advantage. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1984.
Lewis, J., S. Robinson, and Z. Wang. Beyond the Uruguay Round: The Implications
o f an Asian Free Trade Area World Bank Policy Research Working Paper.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1995.
________ . “Marshall on Human Capital: Comment,” Journal o f Political Economy
(September 1968).
Madreschee, M. “Factor Prices, factor Proportions, and Factor Endowments in the
Pacific Northwest: a Regional Test of the Heckscher-Ohlin Theorem for the n-
Factor Case,” Regional Science 27, no. 1 (1993): 143-152.
Malaysia. Dicetak oleh Ketua Pengarah. Trade Classification and Customs Tariff,
1978, Effective 1st January, 1978, incorporating all amendments up to 20t h
October, 1978. 1978.
Mookeijee, S. Factor Endowments and International Trade. Bombay: Asia
Publishing House, 1958, 7.
New Zealand. Customs Department. Customs Tariff o f New Zealand 1978.
Nihon Kanzei Kyokai. Import Statistical Schedule, Japan. 1975.
Noland, M. Pacific Basin Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.. Institute for
International Economics, 1990.
International Monetary Fund. International Financial Statistics Yearbook.
Washington D.C.: international Monetary Fund, 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Indicators o f Tariff and
Non-Tariff Trade Barriers. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Co
operation and Development, 1996.
Pacific Economic Cooperation Council for APEC. Survey o f Impediments to Trade
and Investment in the APEC Region. Singapore: Pacific Economic Cooperation
for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Secretariat, 1995.
Philippines. Tariff and Customs Code o f the Philippines. 1973.
Psacharopoulos, G. Returns to Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.,
Publishers, 1973.
Ramazani, R. and K. Maskus. “A Test of the factor Endowments Model of Trade in
a Rapidly Industrializing Country: The Case of Korea,” The Review o f
Economics and Statistics IS, no. 3 (1993): 568-573.
Republic o f China. Chin Jih Tsai Shui She. Standard Classification of Import and
Export Commodities to the Table Correlating the Customs Tariff Numbers, the
Republic of China. 1978.
Republic of China Directorate-General of Budget. Accounting and Statistic.
Statistical Yearbook o f the Republic o f China 1995.
Robinson, S. “Aggregate Production Functions and Growth Models in Economic
Development: A Cross-Section Study.” Ph.D. diss.. Harvard University, 1969.
Saxonhouse, G. “Differentiated Products, Economics Scale, and Access to the
Japanese Market.” Seminar Discussion Paper no.288. Ann Arbor: Research
Seminar in International Economics, Department of Economics, University of
Michigan. 1988.
Singapore. Trade Development Board. Singapore Trade Classification & Customs
Duties. 1975.
Thailand. Department of Customs. Customs Tariff Decree. 1978.
The Europa Yearbook. London: Europa Publication, 1995.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Finance. Harmonized System: Hearing
before the Subcommittee on International Trade. 100th Cong., Ist sess., 27 April
1987.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
Van Dijk, M., and S. Sandro, eds. Multilateralism versus Regionalism: Trade Issues
after the Uruguay Round. Multilateral Trade and Technical Standards:
Theoretical Approaches to Harmonization, by M. Lunati. Portland, Oregon:
Frank Cass, 1996.
Wilson, H., ed. Free Trade vs. Protectionism. New York: H. W. Wilson Company,
1988.
World Bank. World Development Indicators. Washington, DC.: World Bank, 1997.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
A ppen dixes
APPENDIX A: TABLE A-l
APPENDIX B: TABLE B-l
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
Appendix A
Table A-1: MAPA Highlights—Tariff Action Plans of APEC Economies
Economy Action
Australia Phase down exceptions to the 0-5% general applied tariff to the
year 2000, including those on passenger motor vehicles, textiles,
clothing and footwear, cheese and vegetables.
By 2000, review general applied tariff rate and exceptions,
subject to certain conditions.
Brunei Progressively reduce tariffs to zero by 2020, with some
exceptions.
Canada Phase down MFN tariff rates on manufacturing inputs on 1,500
lines by 1999.
Phase down GPT rates by 2004.
Conclude ITA to eliminate tariffs on information technology
products by 2000.
Chile Progressively reduce tariffs to 0% on most products by 2010.
China Reduce simple average tariff to around 15% by 2000.
Hong Kong Progressively bind at 0% on all imports by 2010.
Indonesia Eliminate surcharges and reduce tariffs to a maximum of 5% and
10% by 2003.
Japan Expand Tariff Elimination Initiative on pharmaceuticals by 2000
Conclude ITA to eliminate tariffs on information technology
products by 2000.
continued
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
Table A-1: MAPA Highlights—Tariff Action Plans of APEC Economies
(Continued)
Econom y Action
Korea Eliminate tariffs on ships from 1997 on.
Consider revising the tariff concession schedule.
Malaysia Reduce/abolish import duties on certain items, including canned
food, dental & medical supplies, cosmetics, paper products and
printed paper in 1997.
Continue with unilateral tariff reductions under annual budget
exercise.
Mexico Reduce tariffs on information technology products as part of ITA
under negotiations starting in 1999.
New Zealand Make all imports duty-fee by 2010.
Papua New Guinea Reduce to 5% tariffs on basic steel, aluminum, capital equipment,
machinery, basic chemicals, and chemical agricultural inputs by
1997.
Revise standard rates, with a view to progressive reduction by
2000.
Philippines Progressively reduce to targeted uniform rate of 5%, except
sensitive agricultural products by 2004.
Singapore Progressively bind tariffs at 0% by 2010.
Chinese Taipei Progressively review import duties with a view to reducing
domestic protection.
Review the possibility of revising tariff concession schedule.
Thailand Regularly review import duties with a view to reducing domestic
protection.
Review possibility of revising tariff concession schedule.
United States Propose negotiations towards zero tariff under ITA by 2000.
Source: MAPA Highlights (APEC, 1996)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
Appendix B
Table B-1: Summary of Main Core Non-TarifF Barriers for APEC
Members
Economy Core Non-Tariff Barriers
Australia Tariff quota; local content requirement; import authorizations;
anti-dumping countervailing/investigations, duties and price
undertakings.
Canada Import permits, licences and authorizations; global import quotas,
prohibitions and embargoes; MFA multilateral and unilateral
arrangements; anti-dumping/countervailing investigations, and
duties.
Chile Minimum customs values, and import reference prices;
countervailing duties.
China Import licences and inspection.
Hong Kong Import licences, global quotas (revised quarterly).
Indonesia Licence for selected importers; prohibition; state import
monopoly.
Japan Tariff quotas, import licences, global and MFA quotas; variable
levies; state import monopoly; sole importing agency.
Korea Global quotas; anti-dumping investigations, duties and price
undertakings.
continued
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
Table B-1: Summary of Main Core Non-Tariff Barriers for APEC
Members (Continued)
E co n o m y C ore N on-T ariff B arriers
Malaysia Licences for normally prohibited goods; import licences for non
commercial reasons.
Mexico Import licences; quotas; prohibitions; anti-dumping
countervailing/investigations, duties; sole importing agency.
New Zealand Tariff quotas; global and bilateral quotas; anti-dumping
countervailing/investigations, duties; sole importing agency.
Philippines Import authorizations and licences for selected purchasers;
global quota; prohibition, including for health and sanitary
reasons; bank authorization; state import monopoly.
Singapore Prohibitions including for health and sanitary reasons.
Thailand Import licences, including linked to purchase of local goods;
prohibitions; sole importing agency.
Chinese Taipei Import licences and permits including those from the Bureau of
Foreign Trade and licences for selected purchasers; import
approvals from relevant authorities; prohibitions; state trading
monopoly.
United States Tariff quotas; import licences; quotas, including bilateral
prohibitions and embargoes; voluntary export restraints; orderly
marketing arrangements; MFA arrangements; textile export
restraints; and quota agreements; anti-dumping investigation,
duties and price undertakings; countervailing investigations;
duties, and price undertakings; voluntary export price restraints.
Note: Data is for 1993 for all economies except 1989 for Singapore; 1990 for Indonesia and the
Philippines; 1991 for Chile, Malaysia, Mexico and Thailand; and 1992 for Korea and Chinese
Taipei. Data for Brunei and PNG were not available.
Source: Compiled from TRAINS, UNCTAD
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (Q A -3 )
150mm
IM/4GE. Inc
1653 East Main Street
Rochester, N Y 14609 USA
Phone: 716/482-0300
Fax: 716/288-5989
0 1993. Applied Image. Inc.. A H Rights Reserved
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

How financial statements in Mexican firms reflect changes in the financial/economic environment from 1978 to 1996

PDF

Growth, human capital, and technological change in a centrally planned economy: Evidence from Cuba

PDF

Essays on social security

PDF

An enquiry into the effectiveness of export assistance organizations serving southern California SMEs

PDF

Cost analysis of three pharmacy counseling programs for diabetics in a health maintenance organization

PDF

Economic analysis of ground lease-based land use system

PDF

Decentralizing of public finance: Centralizing forces in developing countries

PDF

An analysis of SME export assistance needs

PDF

The role of information in economic and public policies: Empirical applications for measuring human capital and water regulatory contracts

PDF

An evaluation of the conventional wisdom on capital flow volatility: FDI inter-flow correlation and financial account volatility

PDF

Business group affiliation in India

PDF

Farewell to the empire? National identity, domestic structures, and foreign economic policies of the post -Soviet states

PDF

Corruption, illegal trade and compliance with the Montreal Protocol

PDF

A study concerning the relevance of using quality measures of education in economic growth models of sub-Saharan African nations

PDF

Inflation stabilization, monetary policy instruments and borrowing constraints

PDF

Income inequality and economic growth: A theoretical and empirical analysis

PDF

Dependence on foreign labor, quality of education and unemployment in the GCC countries: In search of solutions

PDF

A model of student performance in principles of macroeconomics

PDF

The reorientation of Japanese trade patterns: Selected prewar and postwar periods

PDF

Insurance mechanisms, forest clearance, and the effect of government policies in rural economies

Asset Metadata

Creator Chan, Kitty Kay Kay Yan (author)

Core Title An inquiry into trade liberalization of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

School Graduate School

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Economics

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag economics, general,OAI-PMH Harvest,political science, international law and relations

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Betts, Caroline Marie (committee member), Chen, Baizhu (committee member), Nugent, Jeffrey B. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-24522

Unique identifier UC11341129

Identifier 1393166.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-24522 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 1393166.pdf

Dmrecord 24522

Document Type Thesis

Rights Chan, Kitty Kay Kay Yan

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA