Ukrainian foreign trade partners Pareto distribution

Determination of target groups of Ukrainian foreign trade partners by other features than geographical ones, and their belonging to economic groups. Classification of target groups according to economic indicators. Pareto classification methodology.

Рубрика Международные отношения и мировая экономика
Вид статья
Язык английский
Дата добавления 20.07.2017
Размер файла 685,5 K

Отправить свою хорошую работу в базу знаний просто. Используйте форму, расположенную ниже

Студенты, аспиранты, молодые ученые, использующие базу знаний в своей учебе и работе, будут вам очень благодарны.

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Ukrainian foreign trade partners Pareto distribution

O.O. Kim, PhD, associated Professor

Simon Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Economics

Abstract

This paper looks for target groups of Ukrainian foreign trade partners defining, other than geographical or economic unions. The fact is foreign trade partners have different competitive advantages, so competitive position of the country must be described in comparison with countries, but not unions or geographical regions. The target groups are classified by the following indicators: exports, imports, net exports, which show how different countries transform their competitive advantages into revenue (exports to the partner countries) and where do they spend their revenues (imports from the partner countries) - answers on those questions uncover the situation on the international market - the result of international trade with foreign trade partners determines positive or negative net exports with certain partner. The methodology of classification is Pareto distribution, the result is the minority of countries that are most important partners in exports, imports and net exports impact of the Ukraine determination.

Key words: imports, exports, net exports, Pareto distribution, Ukraine.

Анотація

Розподіл зовнішньоторгових партнерів України по Парето

О. О. Кім, к. е. н., доцент, доцент кафедри міжнародної економіки та менеджменту зовнішньоекономічної діяльності Харківського національного економічного університету імені Семена Кузнеця

В статті проведено дослідження щодо визначення цільових груп українських зовнішньоторгових партнерів за іншими ознаками, ніж географічні та належність до економічних угрупувань. Оскільки зовнішньоторгові партнери мають різноманітні конкурентні переваги, конкурентна позиція країни повинна бути охарактеризована у порівнянні із країнами, а не угрупуваннями та географічними регіонами. Цільові групи класифіковані за наступними показниками: експорт, імпорт, чистий експорт, які показують, як різні країни трансформують власні конкурентні переваги у доходи (експорт до країн партнерів) і напрями, де витрачаються ці доходи (імпорт з країн партнерів) - відповіді на ці питання відкривають ситуацію на міжнародному ринку - результат міжнародної торгівлі із зовнішньоторговими партнерами визначає позитивне або негативне значення чистого експорту із певним партнером. Методологія класифікації - розподіл по Парето, в результаті проведення якого бенеть визначена меншість країн, які є найбільш важливими партнерами України за показниками експорту, імпорту та за впливом на чистий експорт.

Ключові слова: імпорт, експорт, чистий експорт, Парето розподіл, Україна.

Introduction

Problem definition: the Ukrainian international trade has dramatic impact on the national economy. This study is dedicated to uncover the most significant Ukrainian trade partners using Pareto distribution tool to discover the issue of international trade relations effectiveness and comparative competitiveness. The goal of current study is to define most important international supplier and consumer countries for Ukraine, considering impact on net exports of goods. The position in global supply chains for individual economy may be described as the result of partner countries analysis, which can be defined as net supplier country or net consumer country. Current issue results may also be the basis for the researches of individual economy international supply chains and for individual economies comparative competitiveness analysis.

Analysis of recent research and publications: Ukrainian economy researches, first of all, shows negative value of balance of payments current account, from the point of export capability conditioned by: low labor productiveness and higher resource intensity [2, p. 24], low possibilities of domestic demand on capital goods stimulating, Russian embargo, grain exports decrease and transaction costs for exports to Central Asia growth [3, p. 9, 14], low investment attractiveness and insufficient participation in global value chains [10, p. 9-10], and also financing problem for Ukrainian industry technical modernization [11, p. 64], which describes important growth deterring factor - inadequacy of Ukrainian goods to world and European standards. Import dependence is also impacted by following factors: oil and gas prices declining, possible increase of real aggregate demand with fragmental adequacy of domestic supply [3, p. 9, 14], trade war - bilateral impact on exports and imports [1, p. 82-85]. The issue of competitiveness and economy efficiency rises from researches from one point of view.

From the other point of view, Ukrainian economy suffers of distortion in income distribution that leads to the oligarchy concentration [14, p. 43-44], which leads to income distortion deepening and further economy efficiency decrease, as it was shown in a study by [9, p. 54-57], which describes this decrease and distortion deepening. And another income distribution distortion - global, which is directly related to international trade and international debt, as an instrument of international income distribution, the «financial singularity» phenomena, which is proposed as hypothesis in the paper, assessed and analyzed [12, p. 8, 12-14], and the crucial debt impact on the economy system institutes [13, p. 70].

Those two issues are the parts of Ukrainian sustainable development complex issue, and this complex issue requires further research. Pareto analysis theoretical basis was created by V. Pareto. The previous studies issue considered Ukrainian international trade commodity structure [5], China interdependence between economy efficiency and social equity of income distribution [6], Ukrainian trade with China [7] and the trade balance structure dynamics correlation with Ukrainian GDP [8].

However, recent studies consider Ukrainian foreign trade environment in two main dimensions: geographical (considering main geographical regions) and political (considering economic and political unions, international integration groups). This approach is not satisfying for me personally, because foreign trade has lots of distortions and statistical mismatches with those dimensions. For example, some researches, conducted in those dimensions do not differ countries of European Union [4, p. 8-10], declaring strongly negative role of Ukrainian trade with countries of EU. This statement is true, basically, but I may suppose that Ukrainian foreign trade with EU countries will not show same statistics. If it is so, new geo-economics strategy is possible - differentiation for foreign trade development and institutional environment. The international trade with the countries of the world impact on Ukrainian trade balance forming is still unsolved and countries are still ungrouped in accordance of their impact on the foreign trade volumes and results. So there is necessity in another approach implication - country-based.

The purpose of current issue is to describe main objects in Ukrainian foreign trade environment. The previous studies have inspired to conduct current research, which is composed of Pareto analysis of Ukrainian most important net supplier and consumer countries, which is based on Ukrainian partners' exports and imports and correlation with positive and negative net exports. Narrowing of the countries set is required for international trade environment analysis. As the narrowing principle Pareto distribution is used - 80 % of exports, imports and trade balance in goods (negative and positive impact separately).

1. Ukraine's partner countries Pareto distribution by exports and imports

1.1 Pareto distribution of the Ukraine partner countries by exports

foreign trade economic pareto

The Ukrainian net international trade in goods in 2015 year was equal to -3.3 bn. USD [15, 16]. This means that the most important net suppliers (partner countries by imports and the partner countries by negative trade balance) have more significant impact on the Ukrainian net exports, than the most important net consumers. The Pareto principle used for the most important net suppliers and net consumers by exports is determined by the structure of the data set. The list of international trade partners consists of 158 partner countries, including several countries with partially empty fields (the countries like Angola, which is the net consumer of the Ukrainian goods, and the imports field of this country is equal to zero, or Jamaica, with the opposite field filling). The result of the Pareto distribution is shown on the Figure 1: the 27 most important consumer countries are defined. The information is taken from the State Statistics Service of Ukraine [17].

Pareto distribution is built by principle of data set sorting by lowering value criteria and defining of Pareto distribution line (PDL) as perpendicular line from point of intersection of accumulation percentage line of export (red) and edge line, equal to 80 % (green) to x-axis. The rectangle, formed by x-axis line, PDL and opposite lines forms Pareto distribution box (PDB). The consumer countries, which value of exports is inside of PDB are most important consumer countries (MICC). As it is shown on Figure 1, there is 1 country with consuming of more than 10 % of total exports - Russian Federation, 5 countries with percentage from 5 to 10 - Turkey, China, Egypt, Italy and Poland; and rest 21 countries from 5 % and lower. The total of 27 MICC is 17.5 % of consumer countries total quantity- this indicates that Pareto distribution applied on data set shows 17.5 % of consumer countries that consume 80 % (79,63 precisely) of Ukraine's exports. The figure above shows only top of consumer countries list to show every country name. The names of countries, selected in Figure 1 will be defined as group 1 in further research. The median value of the exports is between export value of Oman (79 place in rating - 27.99 million USD) and Croatia (80 place in rating - 26.09 million USD). Indicator sum from Oman to rating end is equal to 1.47 % of total. Arithmetic average for total data series is 246.68 million USD, and countries arithmetic average for time series except of mentioned above 27 MICC is equal to 61.004 million USD. Indicators, shown above are the evidence of Pareto distribution adequacy to current time series in opposite to Gaussian distribution.

On Figure 2 consumer countries Pareto distribution is shown: 26 MICC are defined. As it is shown on the Figure 1 and 2, Azerbaijan is missing in 2015 year, Georgia and republic of Korea was added in 2015. Also outlier in 2014 (export to Russian Federation value) was much bigger - in 2014 it was equal to 18.2 % of total Ukraine's export, and in 2015 it was reduced to 12.69 % of total.

Full list of MICC is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 MICC of Ukraine's goods (2011-2015, thousand current USD)

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Export

% of total

Export

% of total

Export

% of total

Export

% of total

Export

% of total

RussianFederation

4827718

12.69

9798226

18.2

15065124

38.41

17631750

25.62

19819616

29.03

Turkey

2771758

7.29

3561365

6.61

3805478

4.02

3685113

5.36

3748582

5.49

China

2399079

6.31

2674126

4.97

2726677

3.72

1777178

2.58

2180034

3.19

Egypt

2079784

5.47

2862068

5.32

2720563

3.35

2898300

4.21

1335645

1.96

Italy

1979844

5.21

2468271

4.58

2357634

3.12

2480017

3.6

3039541

4.45

Poland

1977330

5.2

2644657

4.91

2547823

3.13

2576196

3.74

2794088

4.09

India

1444087

3.8

1815850

3.37

1974747

1.64

2290932

3.33

2265303

3.32

Germany

1328677

3.49

1590590

2.95

1603785

1.56

1645030

2.39

1763831

2.58

Spain

1043603

2.74

1166565

2.17

987672

1.37

1539019

2.24

BPDL*

n/a

Hungary

909721

2.39

1509894

2.8

1556953

1.43

1510219

2.19

1340723

1.96

Netherlands

905655

2.38

1106096

2.05

1041337

1.4

829939

1.21

833395

1.22

Belarus

870696

2.29

1617084

3

1983616

2.46

2251119

3.27

1922330

2.82

Saudi Arabia

761562

2

1031360

1.92

782117

1.11

926404

1.35

816960

1.2

Kazakhstan

712745

1.87

1069434

1.99

2120025

2.53

2459251

3.57

1857550

2.72

Israel

597067

1.57

593066

1.1

701826

0.88

796370

1.16

970613

1.42

Romania

569947

1.5

584082

1.08

BPDL

n/a

551597

0.8

950691

1.39

Czech Republic

540951

1.42

772542

1.43

823750

1.21

707040

1.03

842432

1.23

Iran

533571

1.4

703422

1.31

793925

1.19

1164713

1.69

1127514

1.65

Moldova

524294

1.38

743630

1.38

902757

1.3

822691

1.2

874399

1.28

France

497949

1.31

532716

0.99

690507

0.88

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

USA

481846

1.27

667927

1.24

888273

1.25

1014659

1.47

1113752

1.63

Iraq

472533

1.24

710614

1.32

767805

1.09

872262

1.27

BPDL

n/a

Slovakia

468529

1.23

670153

1.24

752826

0.93

672630

0.98

842969

1.23

Bulgaria

419501

n/a

550603

1.02

BPDL

n/a

568755

0.83

755414

1.11

Georgia

402726

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

Korea, republic of

395389

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

United Kingdom

367897

n/a

589211

1.09

BPDL

n/a

551421

0.8

BPDL

n/a

Lebanon

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

1423910

2.07

1362225

1.99

Azerbaijan

BPDL

n/a

591533

1.1

867570

1.24

766643

1.11

708322

1.04

Syrian Arab Republic

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

578864

0.84

920641

1.35

*BPDL means «below PDL» - e.g., excluded from (or not yet included to) MICC

Data in Table 1 is the basis for three subgroups of countries defining: resilient partners (19 countries specified in list through all 5 years - subgroup 1.1 - green), rising (restored) partners (5 countries, among them Spain, France, Iraq, Georgia and republic of Korea are rising - their consumption was below the PDL before and during the period of 2011-2015 their consumption raised over PDL; 3 countries, among them are: Romania, Bulgaria and United Kingdom are restored their positions in rating after the period of being below PDL - subgroup 1.2 - yellow) and diminishing partners - subgroup 1.3 (orange - Lebanon, Azerbaijan and Syrian Arab Republic that were excluded from list in 2015 and earlier). Further research will operate the group of resilient and rising partners (group 1 - 27 countries, as it was mentioned above).

For resilient partners of MICC (sub group 1.1) export sum is calculated and for examined years it is equal to 68.67 % of total in 2015, 70.38 % in 2014, 74.67 in 2013, 69.96 in 2012 and 72.48 in 2011 year. Those figures are another evidence of subgroup 1.1 resilience.

1.2 Pareto distribution of Ukraine partner countries by imports

The next step of research is Pareto distribution of Ukraine partner countries by imports -defining of Ukraine's most important supplier countries (MISC). As one can see from part 2.1 of current research, MICC list defines main participants of demand on Ukraine's international market. The MISC group of countries defines main supply participants to Ukraine's international market. The MISC group of countries in 2015 year is defined on Figure 3 - 18 countries. Information is taken from State Statistics Service of Ukraine [17].

As one can see, Figure 3 is built using same principle as previous methodology for MICC investigation: partners in PDB belong to MISC group. By criteria of imports, MISC group contains 11.53 % of full list of supplier countries that provide 80 % of total imports to Ukraine.

Figure 4 provides similar analysis for MISC of Ukraine in 2014 year. During that year MISC group contained 17 countries, so amount of supplier countries increased last year.

As one can see, MISC group during 2014 year consists of the same countries as in 2015 - exception is Spain, Norway and Switzerland, which was below PDL in 2014. In opposite, Romania and Japan was in MISC group in 2014, but it was below PDL in 2015. As far as some changes in MISC structure is observed, time series analysis is the next step for MISC group describing. Table 2 shows dynamics of MISC group during the period of 2011-2015 years.Table 2 MISC of Ukraine's goods (2011-2015, million current USD)

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Import

% of total

Import

% of total

Import

% of total

Import

% of total

Import

% of total

Russian Federation

7492.72

19.99

12699.99

23.35

23234.21

30.19

27418.30

32.39

29132.20

35.27

Germany

3975.63

10.60

5361.52

9.86

6771.00

8.80

6807.14

8.04

6865.71

8.31

China

3770.99

10.06

5410.95

9.95

7900.75

10.27

7899.64

9.33

6268.33

7.59

Belarus

2449.15

6.53

3970.79

7.30

3605.24

4.68

5068.57

5.99

4211.75

5.10

Poland

2324.05

6.20

3070.82

5.65

4068.69

5.29

3567.10

4.21

3183.39

3.85

Hungary

1608.54

4.29

1463.97

2.69

1400.52

1.82

1159.57

1.37

1326.71

1.61

USA

1480.70

3.95

1928.92

3.55

2759.36

3.59

2905.21

3.43

2591.23

3.14

Italy

976.33

2.60

1508.97

2.77

2086.66

2.71

2234.55

2.64

2005.75

2.43

France

892.79

2.38

1269.21

2.33

1729.73

2.25

1664.41

1.97

1501.47

1.82

Turkey

851.74

2.27

1299.54

2.39

1852.69

2.41

1951.86

2.31

1481.24

1.79

Norway

741.69

1.98

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

United Kingdom

570.13

1.52

692.04

1.27

1132.42

1.47

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

Lithuania

552.61

1.47

1032.19

1.90

966.68

1.26

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

Czech Republic

479.72

1.28

687.86

1.26

999.33

1.30

1246.70

1.47

1181.27

1.43

Switzerland

457.72

1.22

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

1149.47

1.36

1128.55

1.37

Netherlands

452.61

1.21

763.90

1.40

1061.75

1.38

BPDL

n/a

1186.84

1.44

India

443.66

n/a

656.77

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

Spain

440.75

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

Romania

BPDL

n/a

847.69

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

Japan

BPDL

n/a

612.58

n/a

984.96

1.28

1197.79

1.41

BPDL

n/a

Austria

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

968.52

1.26

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

Kazakhstan

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

1494.88

1.77

1675.95

2.03

Korea, republic of

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

1547.23

1.83

1235.96

1.50

As one can see on Table 2, amount of MISC has increased from 15 in 2011 and 2012 to 16 in 2013, 17 in 2014 and 18 in 2015. Also structure of MISC list has changed significantly - during this period 23 countries were included into MISC group, among them - resilient subgroup 2.1 (11 countries from Russian Federation to Turkey and Czech Republic - green), rising - 2.2 (Norway, United Kingdom, Lithuania, India and Spain - yellow) and restored partners - 2.3 (Switzerland and Netherlands - blue), and diminishing subgroup (Romania, Japan, Austria, Kazakhstan and the Republic of Korea - orange).

1.3 Most important partner countries of Ukraine

After defining and structuring MICC and MISC groups next step is to find out partner countries that are in both of these groups - most important partner countries (MIPC). MIPC is defined as intersection countries, which belong simultaneously to MICC and MISC group.

As one can see on Figure 5, there are only 3 countries, which do not belong to MICC group simultaneously with MISC belonging. The total sum of balance (net exports) of those 18 countries is equal to -7.24 billion USD, and sum of marked countries equals to -5.86 billion USD.

As one can see, Figure 6 contains much more countries then Figure 5 - quantity of MICC is 27, so there are 12 countries, not marked on the Figure 6. The total of net exports of all 27 countries (MICC group) is positive - equals to 19.24 million USD, while total of marked countries (MIPC) is negative and still equals -5.86 billion USD.

Next step of analysis is aggregation of data of exports and imports into cumulative and average indicators. As it was investigated, group of countries, during the period of 2011-2015 ones or more times were in the MICC or MISC consists of 35 countries and is named G35. Table 3 shows data of Ukrainian foreign trade with those countries (with no exceptions - BPDL exports and imports in tables 1-2 data inserted from data source in this table [17]).

Table 3 G35 exports (from), imports (to) and net exports of goods (aggregated data 2011-2015, million current USD)

Export

Import

Net export

Total

% exports

average

median

Total

% imports

average

median

Total

average

median

Russian Federation

67142.44

27.52

13428.49

15065.12

99977.42

34.28

19995.48

23234.21

-32834.98

-6567.00

-8169.09

Turkey

17572.30

7.20

3514.46

3685.11

7437.07

2.55

1487.41

1481.24

10135.23

2027.05

1952.79

China

11757.10

4.82

2351.42

2399.08

31250.66

10.72

6250.13

6268.33

-19493.56

-3898.71

-4088.30

Egypt

11896.36

4.88

2379.27

2720.56

530.79

0.18

106.16

104.65

11365.57

2273.11

2583.88

Italy

12325.30

5.05

2465.06

2468.27

8812.26

3.02

1762.45

2005.75

3513.04

702.61

959.30

Poland

12540.10

5.14

2508.02

2576.20

16214.05

5.56

3242.81

3183.39

-3673.95

-734.79

-426.16

India

9790.92

4.01

1958.18

1974.75

3771.99

1.29

754.40

812.35

6018.93

1203.79

1159.08

Germany

7931.92

3.25

1586.38

1603.79

29781.00

10.21

5956.20

6771.00

-21849.08

-4369.82

-5101.88

Spain

5707.47

2.34

1141.49

1043.60

3343.82

1.15

668.76

685.31

2363.65

472.73

558.98

Hungary

6827.50

2.80

1365.50

1509.89

6959.31

2.39

1391.86

1400.52

-131.81

-26.36

45.92

Netherlands

4716.44

1.93

943.29

905.66

4587.15

1.57

917.43

1061.75

129.29

25.86

-20.41

Belarus

8644.85

3.54

1728.97

1922.33

19305.50

6.62

3861.10

3970.79

-10660.65

-2132.13

-2289.42

Saudi Arabia

4318.40

1.77

863.68

816.96

776.24

0.27

155.25

149.62

3542.16

708.43

724.43

Kazakhstan

8219.01

3.37

1643.80

1857.55

4612.02

1.58

922.40

683.02

3606.99

721.40

688.84

Israel

3658.95

1.50

731.79

701.83

1228.52

0.42

245.70

266.79

2430.43

486.09

427.12

Romania

3214.54

1.32

642.91

569.95

4118.38

1.41

823.68

897.02

-903.84

-180.77

-263.61

Czech Republic

3686.71

1.51

737.34

772.54

4594.88

1.58

918.98

999.33

-908.17

-181.63

-175.58

Iran

4323.14

1.77

864.63

793.93

281.08

0.10

56.22

52.95

4042.06

808.41

710.24

Moldova

3867.77

1.59

773.55

822.69

457.62

0.16

91.52

102.14

3410.15

682.03

700.67

France

2841.00

1.16

568.20

549.13

7057.61

2.42

1411.52

1501.47

-4216.61

-843.32

-930.78

USA

4166.46

1.71

833.29

888.27

11665.42

4.00

2333.08

2591.23

-7498.96

-1499.79

-1477.48

Iraq

3432.81

1.41

686.56

710.61

44.30

0.02

8.86

0.15

3388.51

677.70

666.85

Slovakia

3407.11

1.40

681.42

672.63

2628.55

0.90

525.71

587.69

778.56

155.71

122.20

Bulgaria

2885.53

1.18

577.11

568.76

1342.61

0.46

268.52

269.65

1542.92

308.58

290.32

Georgia

2622.58

1.07

524.52

533.63

754.94

0.26

150.99

153.66

1867.64

373.53

340.97

Korea, republic of

2262.70

0.93

452.54

467.58

4348.37

1.49

869.67

830.54

-2085.67

-417.13

-423.01

United Kingdom

2541.48

1.04

508.30

547.21

4672.61

1.60

934.52

1128.55

-2131.13

-426.23

-585.21

Norway

227.39

0.09

45.48

60.56

2344.13

0.80

468.83

380.43

-2116.74

-423.35

-307.94

Lithuania

1519.43

0.62

303.89

317.11

4286.24

1.47

857.25

911.92

-2766.81

-553.36

-632.86

Switzerland

744.87

0.31

148.97

148.64

3441.43

1.18

688.29

764.32

-2696.56

-539.31

-615.68

Lebanon

3732.31

1.53

746.46

373.72

11.08

0.00

2.22

1.81

3721.23

744.25

371.91

Azerbaijan

3252.88

1.33

650.58

708.32

876.42

0.30

175.28

77.78

2376.46

475.29

546.22

Syrian Arab Republic

2225.40

0.91

445.08

430.11

113.76

0.04

22.75

10.11

2111.64

422.33

420.00

Japan

1376.61

0.56

275.32

235.57

4191.72

1.44

838.34

984.96

-2815.11

-563.02

-526.52

Austria

2542.18

1.04

508.44

530.90

3391.18

1.16

678.24

713.31

-849.00

-169.80

-124.63

Data, shown on Table 3 is aggregated by country for the period of 2011-2015 years, e. g., and presents the sum of period's indicator values for corresponding country. Countries highlighted in blue (G10 - first level of partnership - 3.1) are «robust partners» in subgroups 1.1 and 2.1; second level of partnership (3.2): green are the rest of the subgroup 1.1, purple - France - is the rest of subgroup 2.1 (G20=G10+3.2); third level of partnership (3.3): yellow are subgroup 1.2, orange are subgroup 2.2 (G30); fourth level of partnership (3.4): grey - subgroup 1.3 and 2.3. (G35). Those groups are characterized with diminishing international correlations (and international economic relations in trade of goods): 3.1 -partners with significant impact to export and import; 3.2 -partners with significant impact in exports or imports (France is robust partner in imports and rising partner in exports); 3.3 -rising and restored partners in imports or in exports (UK is rising partner in exports and imports); 3.4 - diminishing partners in exports or imports.

The aggregated indicators are shown in Table 4. Additionally to previous indicators (Table 3) the Table 4 shows foreign trade turnover indicator (sum of exports and imports).

Table 4 The G10, G20, G30, G35 comparison with total indicators (aggregated data, 2011-2015, million current USD)

All partners

G10

%

G20

%

G30

%

G35

%

Exports

Total

292553.5

152594.7

52.16

209633.8

71.66

234792.6

80.26

247922

84.74

average

58510.7

30518.94

52.16

41926.76

71.66

46958.52

80.26

49584.39

84.74

median

63320.7

33359.11

52.68

45839.77

72.39

50841.51

80.29

53525.96

84.53

Imports

Total

336257.7

235997.6

70.18

261929.1

77.9

290626

86.43

299210.1

88.98

average

67251.54

47199.51

70.18

52385.83

77.9

58125.19

86.43

59842.03

88.98

median

76986.8

54678.45

71.02

60484.67

78.56

66961.14

86.98

69004.32

89.63

Net export

Total

-43704.2

-83402.9

190.83

-52295.4

119.66

-55833.4

127.75

-51288.2

117.35

average

-8740.84

-16680.6

190.83

-10459.1

119.66

-11166.7

127.75

-10257.6

117.35

median

-13666.1

-19682.7

144.03

-14485.2

105.99

-15621.7

114.31

-14312.5

104.73

Turnover

Total

628811.2

388592.3

61.8

471562.9

74.99

525418.6

83.56

547132.1

87.01

average

125762.2

77718.45

61.8

94312.58

74.99

105083.7

83.56

109426.4

87.01

median

140307.5

88037.56

62.75

106324.4

75.78

117802.7

83.96

122530.3

87.33

As one can see on Table 4, significant outlier shows net exports indicators in G10 group: total value and average shows 190.83 % and median shows 144.03 %. Further groups have significantly lower percentage of net exports total value (average) and median: G20 - 119.66 % and 105.99 %, G30 - 127.75 % and 114.31 %, G35 - 117.35 % and 104.73 %. As one may ensure that G30 matches both of criterion of Pareto distribution - 30 countries is 18.98 % of all partner countries of Ukraine in 2015 year and percentage of all indicators is higher than 80 % in G30.

The Ukraine's foreign trade in goods general tendency may be described in following way: most important partners of Ukraine (3.1) are the countries with more developed competitive advantages that give them comparative preferences in foreign trade, so balance of foreign trade with G10 is substantially negative (considering countries like Russian Federation, Germany, China, Belarus, USA, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary with exception of Turkey and Italy, which balance is positive). The next step in analysis is exploration of impact of trade partners on net exports.

1.4 Ukrainian trade partners, which impact on trade balance is positive

First step in trade partners' impact on trade balance analysis is defined as positive impact partners grouping according to methodology of Pareto distribution. Methodology of grouping into positive and negative impact also defines «impact on trade balance» for both of groups as the percentage of trade balance in total sum of corresponding Meta group of countries - with positive or negative trade balance. E. g., current grouping (P23) is defined as the percentage of top countries in total of positive trade balance. P23 group is shown on figure 7.

The tendency on Figure 7 shows not quite correlation with Pareto principle - 23 countries from 97 in Meta group of countries with positive trade balance is 23.7 %, that creates 80 % of positive impact on trade balance. But 20 % of positive trade balance countries creates only 74.98 % of total positive balance, so there is a choice -first criterion may harm second criterion and vice versa. So next to be done in analysis is the time series investigation of positive impact on trade balance.

Aggregated data, average, median and ranking through the period of 2011-2015 is shown on Table 5 (rankings marked n/a means that partner country indicator is below PDL, so country is out of rankings) for PITBP (positive impact on trade balance partners).

Table 5 Trade balance in goods indicators for Ukrainian PITBP (million current USD)

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Total

Average

Median

value

rank

value

rank

value

rank

value

rank

value

rank

value

value

value

Egypt

2024.17

1

2770.98

1

2583.88

1

2755.54

1

1230.99

4

11365.56

2273.11

2583.88

Turkey

1920.02

2

2261.82

2

1952.79

2

1733.25

2

2267.34

1

10135.22

2027.04

1952.79

India

1000.43

4

1159.08

3

1136.25

4

1270.22

4

1452.95

2

6018.93

1203.79

1159.08

Iran

503.05

7

650.47

9

710.24

8

1097.31

5

1080.99

5

4042.06

808.41

710.24

Lebanon

298.82

15

270.9

21

371.9

15

1420.53

3

1359.05

3

3721.2

744.24

371.9

Saudi Arabia

616.6

5

826.1

5

598.25

9

776.78

9

724.43

9

3542.16

708.43

724.43

Kazakhstan

335.17

13

688.84

6

1437

3

964.37

6

BPDL

n/a

3425.38

856.35

826.61

Moldova

483.05

8

681.77

7

800.61

5

700.67

10

744.04

8

3410.14

682.03

700.67

Iraq

472.5

9

666.85

8

767.65

7

872.03

7

609.48

10

3388.51

677.7

666.85

Italy

1003.52

3

959.3

4

BPDL

n/a

BPDL

n/a

1033.79

6

2996.61

998.87

1003.52

Azerbaijan

288.54

16

546.22

11

789.79

6

686.91

11

BPDL

n/a

2311.46

577.87

616.57

Spain

602.85

6

558.98

10

BPDL

n/a

792.23

8

285.3

16

2239.36

559.84

580.92

Israel

427.12

11

267.42

22

378.66

14

529.58

13

367.26

14

1970.04

394.01

378.66

Georgia

340.97

12

334.31

14

315.72


Подобные документы

  • Research of the theoretical foundations of the concept of foreign trade’s "potential in the sphere of high-technological products", the commodity and geographical structure of Ukraine’s foreign trade in the sphere of high-technological products.

    статья [319,0 K], добавлен 21.09.2017

  • Forum for 21 Pacific Rim countries that seeks to promote free trade and economic cooperation throughout the Asia-Pacific region. History of establishment Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), speciality of membership, scope of work and structure.

    реферат [366,7 K], добавлен 16.01.2012

  • Integration, globalization and economic openness - basical principles in attraction of capital inflows. Macroeconomic considerations. Private investment. Problems of official investment and managing foreign assets liabilities. Positive benefits from capit

    курсовая работа [52,4 K], добавлен 25.02.2002

  • Regulation of International Trade under WTO rules: objectives, functions, principles, structure, decision-making procedure. Issues on market access: tariffs, safeguards, balance-of-payments provisions. Significance of liberalization of trade in services.

    курс лекций [149,5 K], добавлен 04.06.2011

  • Legal regulation of the activities of foreign commercial banks. Features of the Russian financial market. The role and place of foreign banks in the credit and stock market. Services of foreign banks in the financial market on the example of Raiffeisen.

    дипломная работа [2,5 M], добавлен 27.10.2015

  • Russian Federation Political and Economic relations. Justice and home affairs. German-Russian strategic partnership. The role of economy in bilateral relations. Regular meetings make for progress in cooperation: Visa facilitations, Trade relations.

    реферат [26,3 K], добавлен 24.01.2013

  • Natural gas is one of the most important energy resources. His role in an international trade sector. The main obstacle for extending the global gas trading. The primary factors for its developing. The problem of "The curse of natural resources".

    эссе [11,4 K], добавлен 12.06.2012

  • The study of the history of the development of Russian foreign policy doctrine, and its heritage and miscalculations. Analysis of the achievements of Russia in the field of international relations. Russia's strategic interests in Georgia and the Caucasus.

    курсовая работа [74,6 K], добавлен 11.06.2012

  • A monetary union is a situation where сountries have agreed to share a single currency amongst themselves. First ideas of an economic and monetary union in Europe. Value, history and stages of economic and money union of Europe. Criticisms of the EMU.

    реферат [20,8 K], добавлен 06.03.2010

  • A peaceful Europe (1945-1959): The R. Schuman declaration, attempts of Britain, government of M. Thatcher and T. Blair, the Treaty of Maastricht, social chapter, the treaty of Nice and Accession. European economic integration. Common agricultural policy.

    курсовая работа [47,4 K], добавлен 09.04.2011

Работы в архивах красиво оформлены согласно требованиям ВУЗов и содержат рисунки, диаграммы, формулы и т.д.
PPT, PPTX и PDF-файлы представлены только в архивах.
Рекомендуем скачать работу.