Global Enabling Trade Report 2009

International trade has long been viewed as an essential element of national prosperity
The
and well-being. Further enabling trade across borders in the wake of the global financial
International tradetrade
International has has
long been
long viewed
been as an
viewed essential
asborders inelement
an essentialtheelementof of
national
of prosperity
national prosperity
The
and well-being. Further enabling trade across
cover.mech.r2.pantone280pc wake
6/24/09 3:24 PM Page 1
crisis will not only
the global financial
enhance trade and boost economic growth in the longer term, but
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009

and well-being. Further enabling trade across borders in thein wake of the
of global financial
The
and
crisis well-being.
will not only Further
enhance enabling
trade trade
and across
boost borders
economic the in
wake the global financial
will also contribute to mitigate thegrowth
effects of the
the longer
current term,
crisis but
by reducing the transaction
Global
crisis will
crisis not
will only
not enhance
only trade
enhance and
trade
will also contribute to mitigatecost boost
and
theofeffects economic
boost economic growth in
growth the
in longer
the term,
longer
trade. of the current crisis by reducing the transaction but
term, but
The Global Enabling Trade
Global
will
costalso contribute
willofalso to mitigate
contribute
trade. the effects
to mitigate of the
the effects of current crisiscrisis
the current by reducing the transaction
Global
In this context, The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 measures and analyzes institutions,

costcost
of trade.
of trade.
policies, and services enabling trade in national economies around the world, highlighting
In this context, The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009strengths
measures andchallenges
analyzestoinstitutions,
The
TheGlobal
Report 2009 Enabling
Global EnablingTrade
Trade
Enabling
for policymakers a country’s and the be addressed. The Report
Inpolicies,
this context,
In this The
context, Global
The Enabling
Global Trade
Enabling
includes
and services enabling trade the Report
Trade 2009
Report
most current
in national measures
2009
economies and
measures
data and recent analyzes
and
analysis
around the of the institutions,
analyzes
world, institutions,
factors enabling trade in indus-
highlighting
Report 2009
policies, and
policies, services
and enabling
services trade
enabling in
trade
trialized national
and in economies
national
emerging economies
economies, around
as asthe
around
well the world,
the
latest highlighting
world,
thinkinghighlighting
and research from trade
Enabling
for policymakers a country’s strengths and the challenges to be addressed. The Report
Report
Report2009
2009
experts and industry practitioners. Report
for policymakers a country’s strengths and the
haschallenges tofactors
be asaddressed. The
Enabling
for policymakers
includes the most a country’s
current data strengths
International
and recent and
trade the
longchallenges
analysis been viewed
of the to be addressed.
anenabling
essential The
element
trade Report
inofindus-
national prosperity
The
includes the
includes most
the current
most data
current and
and
data
trialized and emerging economies, recent
well-being.
and analysis
Further
recent
as well of
analysis
as the the
enablingof factors
trade
the acrossenabling
factors
latest thinking
borders intrade
enabling
and Enabling
research in
the wake
trade
from indus-
ofinthe global financial
indus-
trade
The Report presents the rankings of the updated Trade Index (ETI), developed
crisis will not only enhance trade and boost economic growth in the longer term, but
Trade
trialized
experts and
trialized emerging
andand
industry economies,
emerging by theas
economies,
practitioners. well as the
asEconomic
World well latest
as Forum inthinking
the latest andwith
thinking
collaboration research
and from
research
international trade
from
trade tradeand leaders
experts
will also contribute to mitigate the effects of the current crisis by reducing the transaction
experts and and
experts industry from
practitioners.
industry the
practitioners. logistics and transport industry. It is a comprehensive index intended to capture
Global
cost of trade.
the full range of issues that contribute to impeding trade, ranking nations according to
The Report presents the rankings of the updated Enabling Trade Index (ETI), developed
factors that facilitate the free flow of goods across national borders and to destination.
Trade
The Report
The presents
Report the
presents rankings
the In thisofcontext,
rankings the
of updated
the GlobalEnabling
Theupdated Enabling Trade
Trade
Enabling Index
Report
Trade (ETI),
2009
tradeIndex developed
measures
(ETI), and analyzes institutions,
developed
Report
by the World Economic Forum in collaboration with international experts and leaders
Since the publication of the Report in 2008, the Index has been enhanced by explicitly
Trade
byfrom
the
by World
the Economic
the logistics
World and Forum
Economic in collaboration
Forum
introducing
transport industry.the It iswith
in collaboration
export international
with
a dimension. The last trade
international
comprehensive section
index experts
trade
of and
experts
the Report
intended leaders
and leaders
tocontains
capture detailed profiles
Report 2009
Enabling
from the
thefrom logistics
full range of and
the logistics transport
and
issues that industry.
transport
for the 121
contribute It isimpeding
industry.
economies
to Ita is
comprehensive
a comprehensive
covered by the index
ETI.
trade, ranking intended
index
nations to capture
intended to capture
according to
includes the most current data and recent analysis of the factors enabling trade in indus-
the full
the range
factors full
that of issues
range
facilitate thatfree
of issues
the contribute
that
trialized andto
contribute impeding
to impeding
emerging trade, ranking
trade,
economies, asnations
ranking
as well according
nations
the and
latest andto
according
thinking to from trade
research
Inflow of
addition, goods across
the Report national
includes borders
insightful contributions to destination.
from a number of trade experts.
2009
Report
factors that
factors facilitate
the that the
facilitateoffree
the flow
experts
thefree
Report ofand
flow goods
inof across
industry
goods
2008, the national
across has borders
practitioners.
national and and
borders to destination.
to destination.
Since publication Among these essays areIndex
explorations been enhanced
of different aspectsby of explicitly
trade facilitation, such
Report
Since the publication
Since thethe
introducing publication
export of Report
of dimension.
the the in
as Report
theThe 2008,
availability
last the
in 2008, Index
of trade
section hasin
thefinance
ofIndex
the been
has
Report enhanced
the been
currentenhanced
financial
contains by explicitly
by explicitly
climate,
detailed analysis of non-tariff
profiles
introducing the
forintroducing export dimension.
the export The
barriers,
dimension. lastETI.
and
The section
global
last section of Report
of the
efforts in the area of
the Report contains
trade detailed
facilitation.
contains A profiles
particular
detailed focus this year is
profiles
Trade
the 121 economies covered byWorld
by the the Economic Forum in collaboration with international trade experts and leaders
on customs, a key area of the Doha negotiations.
for the
for 121 economies
the 121 covered
economies bythe
covered
from the ETI.
bylogistics
the ETI.and transport industry. It is a comprehensive index intended to capture
In addition, the Report includes insightful contributions from a number of trade
appealsexperts.
2009
Written in a nontechnical language and style, the Report to a broad audience
Report factors that facilitate the free flow of goods across of
national borders and to destination.
InAmong
addition, the
In addition, the includes
Report insightful
includes contributions
insightful contributions from a
from number
a number trade
of experts.
trade experts.
2009
that includes policymakers, business leaders, and members of the academic community.
Report 2009
these essays are explorations of different aspects of trade facilitation, such
Amongthe these
as Among essays
these
availability of are
essays
tradeexplorations
are It providesof
explorations
finance in the different
a yardstick to aspects
measure
of different of extent
the
aspects trade facilitation,
to
of tradewhich suchhave
countries
facilitation, suchin place the nec-
introducing the current financial
export dimension. climate,
The analysis
last section of non-tariff
of the Report contains detailed profiles
essary attributes for facilitating the free flow of goods, and aims to provoke dialogue
asbarriers,
the
as availability
the and of trade
availability
global finance
of trade
efforts finance
infor
the inarea
the the
121 current
ineconomies
the
of trade financial
current byclimate,
financial
covered
facilitation. analysis
Aclimate,
the ETI.
particular of non-tariff
analysis
focus of non-tariff
this year is
among stakeholders about how best to improve the situation to offset the present crisis
barriers, and and
onbarriers,
customs, global efforts
global
a key ofinthe
efforts
area the area
inDoha
the of trade
area facilitation.
of trade
negotiations. A particular
facilitation. focus
A particular this this
focus yearyear
is is
and ultimately raise the prosperity of the world’s citizens.
In addition, the Report includes insightful contributions from a number of trade experts.
on customs, a key
on customs, areaarea
a key of the
of Doha
the Dohanegotiations.
negotiations.
Among these essays are explorations of different aspects of trade facilitation, such
Written in a nontechnical language and style,
as the availability Reportinappeals
the finance
of trade the currenttofinancial
a broad audience
climate, analysis of non-tariff
Written in
Writtena nontechnical
in a language
nontechnical languageand
barriers, style,
and
and global the
style, Report
the
efforts in the appeals
Report
area of to
appeals
trade a broad
to a
facilitation.
that includes policymakers, business leaders, and members of the academic community. audience
broad
A audience
particular focus this year is
that includes
that
It provides apolicymakers,
includesyardstick business
policymakers, leaders,
onbusiness
customs,
to measure the
key and
aleaders,
extent members
to and
area of of the
themembers
which of academic
countries the
haveacademic
Doha negotiations. community.
in place community.
the nec- Lawrence
It essary
provides a
It provides yardstick
a to
yardstick measure
to the
measure extent
the to
extent which
to countries
which have
countries in
have place
in the
place nec-
the nec- Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University
attributes for facilitating the free flow of goods, and aims to provoke dialogue
Written in a nontechnical language and style, the Report appeals to a broad audience Drzeniek
essary attributes for facilitating thebest
free flow of goods, and and
aimsto to provoke Hanouz Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, World Economic Forum
essary
among attributes
stakeholders for facilitating
about how the to
that includes
free flow
improve ofthe
policymakers,
goods,
situation
business
aims
leaders, offset the dialogue
to provoke
and members
dialogue
present crisis community.
of the academic
among stakeholders
among about
stakeholders how
about It best
how to
best
provides a improve
to the
improve
yardstick to situation
the
measure to
situation
the offset
extentto
to the
offset
which present
the crisis
present
countries have incrisis
place the nec- Moavenzadeh John Moavenzadeh, World Economic Forum
and and
ultimately raiseraise
ultimately the prosperity
essaryof theof world’s
attributes
the prosperity citizens.
theforworld’s
facilitating the free flow of goods, and aims to provoke dialogue
citizens.
ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-22-7
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University
Drzeniek
Lawrence Robert
RobertZ. Lawrence,
Z. Lawrence,Harvard
HarvardUniversity
University
Drzeniek
Drzeniek
Hanouz
Drzeniek
Margareta
Robert Drzeniek
Z. Lawrence, Hanouz, World Economic Forum
Harvard University
HanouzHanouz Margareta
Margareta
Margareta Drzeniek
Drzeniek Hanouz,Hanouz,
Drzeniek Hanouz, World Economic
World Forum
Economic Forum
Hanouz
Moavenzadeh John Moavenzadeh, World
World Economic Forum
Economic Forum
Moavenzadeh
Moavenzadeh
Moavenzadeh John
John Moavenzadeh,
John Moavenzadeh,
Moavenzadeh, World
World Economic Economic
WorldForum Forum
Economic Forum
ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-22-7
ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-22-7
ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-22-7
ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-22-7
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page iv
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page i

Geneva, Switzerland 2009
Sean Doherty
Project Leader
Qin He
Project Manager

Report 2009
Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University

Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, World Economic Forum
John Moavenzadeh, World Economic Forum
Editors
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page ii
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 is World Economic Forum

published by the World Economic Forum Geneva
within the framework of the Global
Competitiveness Network and the Industry Copyright © 2009
Partnership Programme for Logistics and by the World Economic Forum
Transport.
This publication is available online at
http://www.weforum.org/getr
Professor Klaus Schwab All rights reserved. No part of this publication

Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval sys-
tem, or transmitted, in any form or by any
Robert Greenhill means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
Chief Business Officer, World Economic or otherwise without the prior permission of
Forum the World Economic Forum.
ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-22-7
EDITORS
This book is printed on paper suitable for
At the John F. Kennedy School of Government,
recycling and made from fully managed and
Harvard University:
sustained forest sources.
Robert Z. Lawrence, Albert L. Williams
Professor of Trade and Investment Printed and bound in Switzerland by SRO-Kundig.
At the World Economic Forum:

Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, Director, Senior Economist
Qin He, Project Manager, Logistics and Transportation
John Moavenzadeh, Senior Director,
Sustainable Mobility and Strategy
LOGISTICS AND TRANSPORT TEAM
Sean Doherty, Head of Logistics and Transport Industry

Yasmina Makar, Team Coordinator, Mobility Industries
China Ziegenbein, Team Coordinator, Mobility Industries
GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS NETWORK
Jennifer Blanke, Director, Senior Economist,

Head of Global Competitiveness Network
Ciara Browne, Senior Community Manager
Agustina Ciocia, Community Manager
Thierry Geiger, Economist, Global Leadership Fellow
Irene Mia, Director, Senior Economist
Pearl Samandari, Team Coordinator
Eva Trujillo Herrera, Research Assistant
A special thank you to Hope Steele for her

superb editing work and Neil Weinberg for
his excellent graphic design and layout.
The terms country and nation as used in this

report do not in all cases refer to a territorial
entity that is a state as understood by inter-
national law and practice. The terms cover
well-defined, geographically self-contained
economic areas that may not be states but
for which statistical data are maintained on a
separate and independent basis.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page iii
Contents
Partner Institutes v 1.8 Implementing Trade Facilitation 83

by Jean-François Arvis, Gerald McLinden, and Monica Alina
Mustra, The World Bank, and Lauri Ojala, Turku School of
Preface xi Economics, Finland
by Robert Greenhill, World Economic Forum
Executive Summary xiii

by Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University, and
Part 2: Country/Economy Profiles 95
Sean Doherty, Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, and Qin He,
2.1 Country/Economy Profiles 97
How to Read Country/Economy Profiles .....................................99
by Eva Trujillo Herrera, World Economic Forum
List of Countries/Economies ......................................................103
Part 1: Selected Issues on Enabling Trade 1 Country/Economy Profiles..........................................................104
1.1 Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis 3

Technical Notes and Sources 347
by Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University, and
Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, Thierry Geiger, and Qin He, iii
About the Authors 353
1.2 Finance for Trade: Efforts to Restart the Engine 37

Acknowledgments 357
by Marc Auboin, World Trade Organization (WTO)
1.3 Managing Borders in the 21st Century 45

by Kunio Mikuriya, World Customs Organization (WCO)
1.4 IATA e-Freight: Taking the Paper Out of Air Cargo 53

by Steve Smith and Michael Moosberger, International Air
Transport Association (IATA)
1.5 A Tour of the Ongoing Work of the World Trade 59

Organization on Trade Facilitation: The Traders’
Perspective
by John Simpson, Global Express Association (GEA)
1.6 Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the 69

Business Sector: A Cross-Country Comparison
by Mondher Mimouni, Carolin Averbeck, Olga Skorobogatova,
International Trade Centre (ITC)
1.7 Enabling Trade: Relationship to Clusters and Setting 77

an Openness Agenda
by Sam Sidiqi and Fouad Alame, Agility
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page iv
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page v
Partner Institutes
Partner Institutes
The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Belgium

Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School
Network is pleased to acknowledge and thank the fol-
Lutgart Van den Berghe, Professor, Executive Director and
lowing organizations as our valued Partner Institutes, Chairman, Competence Centre Entrepreneurship, Governance
without whom the realization of The Global Enabling and Strategy
Trade Report 2009 would not have been feasible: Bieke Dewulf, Associate, Competence Centre Entrepreneurship,
Governance and Strategy
Wim Moesen, Professor
Albania
Benin
Institute for Contemporary Studies (ISB)
Micro Impacts of Macroeconomic Adjustment Policies (MIMAP)
Artan Hoxha, President
Benin
Elira Jorgoni, Senior Expert and Project Manager
Epiphane Adjovi, Business Coordinator
Denalada Kuzumi, Researcher
Maria-Odile Attanasso, Deputy Coordinator
Algeria Fructueux Deguenonvo, Researcher
Centre de Recherche en Economie Appliquée pour le
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Développement (CREAD)
MIT Center, School of Economics and Business in Sarajevo,
Youcef Benabdallah, Assistant Professor
University of Sarajevo
Yassine Ferfera, Director
Zlatko LagumdÏija, Professor
Argentina Z̆eljko S̆ain, Executive Director
IAE—Universidad Austral Jasmina Selimovic, Assistant Director
María Elina Gigaglia, Project Manager
Brazil
v
Eduardo Luis Fracchia, Professor
Fundação Dom Cabral
Armenia Marina Araújo, Researcher
Economy and Values Research Center Carlos Arruda, Professor and Coordinator of Competitiveness
Manuk Hergnyan, Chairman and Innovation Center
Sevak Hovhannisyan, Board Member and Senior Associate Juan Rios, Research Assistant
Gohar Malumyan, Research Associate Movimento Brasil Competitivo (MBC)
Australia Cláudio Leite Gastal, Director President
Australian Industry Group Lucas Tadeu Melo Câmara, Director
Nicholas James, Economist Bulgaria
Tony Pensabene, Associate Director, Economics & Research Center for Economic Development
Heather Ridout, Chief Executive Anelia Damianova, Senior Expert
Austria Burkina Faso
Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO) Société d’Etudes et de Recherche Formation pour le
Karl Aiginger, Director Développement (SERF)
Gerhard Schwarz, Coordinator, Survey Department Abdoulaye Tarnagda, Director General
Azerbaijan Burundi
Azerbaijan Marketing Society University Research Centre for Economic and Social
Fuad Aliyev, Executive Director Development (CURDES), National University of Burundi
Ashraf Hajiyev, Project Coordinator Richard Ndereyahaga, Head of CURDES
Saida Talibova, Consultant Gilbert Niyongabo, Dean, Faculty of Economics & Management
Bahrain Cambodia
Bahrain Competitiveness Council, Bahrain Economic Economic Institute of Cambodia
Development Board Sok Hach, Director
Nada Azmi, Business Intelligence Specialist, Tuy Chak Riya, Research Associate
Research Services Unit Hang Sambopisith, Researcher
Jawad Habib, Senior Partner, BDO Jawad Habib
Rima Al Kilani, Director, International Marketing Cameroon
Comité de Compétitivité (Competitiveness Committee)
Bangladesh Lucien Sanzouango, Permanent Secretary
Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD)
Khondaker Golam Moazzem, Senior Research Fellow Canada
Kazi Mahmudur Rahman, Senior Research Associate Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity
Mustafizur Rahman, Executive Director Lance Bialas, Researcher
Roger Martin, Chairman and Dean of the Rotman School of
Management, University of Toronto
James Milway, Executive Director
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page vi
Partner Institutes
Chad Ethiopia
Groupe de Recherches Alternatives et de Monitoring African Institute of Management, Development
du Projet Pétrole-Tchad-Cameroun (GRAMP-TC) and Governance
Antoine Doudjidingao, Researcher Tegegne Teka, General Manager
Gilbert Maoundonodji, Director
Finland
Celine Nénodji Mbaipeur, Program Officer
ETLA—The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy
Chile Petri Rouvinen, Research Director
Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez Pasi Sorjonen, Head of the Forecasting Group
Ignacio Briones, Associate Professor of Economics, Pekka Ylä-Anttila, Managing Director
School of Government
France
Leonidas Montes, Dean, School of Government
HEC School of Management, Paris
China Bertrand Moingeon, Professor, Deputy Dean
Institute of Economic System and Management Bernard Ramanantsoa, Professor, Dean of HEC
National Development and Reform Commission School of Management
Zhou Haichun, Deputy Director and Professor
Gambia, The
Chen Wei, Research Fellow
Gambia Economic and Social Development Research
Dong Ying, Professor
Institute (GESDRI)
China Center for Economic Statistics Research, Makaireh A. Njie, Director
Tianjin University of Finance and Economics
Lu Dong, Professor Germany
Jian Wang, Associate Professor WHU—Otto Beisheim School of Management, Vallendar
Huazhang Zheng, Associate Professor Ralf Fendel, Professor of Monetary Economics
Michael Frenkel, Professor, Chair of Macroeconomics
Colombia and International Economics
National Planning Department
Orlando Gracia Fajardo, Entrepreneurial Development Director Ghana
Carolina Rentería Rodríguez, General Director Association of Ghana Industries (AGI)
Mauricio Torres Velásquez, Advisor Carlo Hey, Project Manager
Cletus Kosiba, Executive Director
Côte d’Ivoire Tony Oteng-Gyasi, President
Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie de Côte d’Ivoire
Mamadou Sarr, General Director Greece
SEV Hellenic Federation of Enterprises
Croatia Michael Mitsopoulos, Coordinator, Research and Analysis
vi National Competitiveness Council Thanasis Printsipas, Economist, Research and Analysis
Martina Hatlak, Research Assistant
Mira Lenardic, General Secretary Guatemala
FUNDESA
Cyprus Edgar A. Heinemann, President of the Board of Directors
Cyprus College Research Center Pablo Schneider, Economic Director
Bambos Papageorgiou, Head of Socioeconomic Juan Carlos Zapata, General Manager
and Academic Research
Guyana
The Cyprus Development Bank
Institute of Development Studies, University of Guyana
Maria Markidou-Georgiadou, Manager, International
Karen Pratt, Research Associate
Banking Services Unit and Business Development
Clive Thomas, Director
Czech Republic
Hong Kong SAR
CMC Graduate School of Business
Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce
Dagmar Glückaufová, Academic Dean
David O’Rear, Chief Economist
Filip Hrnãífi, President
Federation of Hong Kong Industries
Denmark Alexandra Poon, Director
Copenhagen Business School, Department of International
Hungary
Economics and Management
KOPINT-TÁRKI Economic Research Ltd.
Lise Peitersen, Administrative Director
Ágnes Nagy, Project Manager
Ole Risager, Professor
Éva Palócz, Chief Executive Officer
Ecuador
India
Escuela de Postgrado en Administración de Empresas (ESPAE)
Confederation of Indian Industry
Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL)
Chandrajit Banerjee, Director-General
Elizabeth Arteaga, Project Assistant
Tarun Das, Chief Mentor
Virginia Lasio, Acting Director
T S Vishwanath, Senior Director and Head,
Sara Wong, Professor
International Trade Policy
Egypt
Indonesia
The Egyptian Center for Economic Studies
Kadin Indonesia
Hanaa Kheir-El-Din, Executive Director and Director of Research
M.S. Hidayat, Chairman
Estonia Tulus Tambunan, Director
Estonian Institute of Economic Research
Evelin Ahermaa, Head of Economic Research Sector
Marje Josing, Director
Estonian Development Fund
Kitty Kubo, Head of Foresight
Ott Pärna, Chief Executive Officer
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page vii
Partner Institutes
Ireland Lesotho
Competitiveness Survey Group, Department of Economics, Mohloli Chamber of Business
University College Cork Refiloe Kepa, General Manager
Eleanor Doyle, Professor, Department of Economics
Lithuania
Niall O’Sullivan
Statistics Lithuania
Bernadette Power
Ona Grigiene, Head, Economical Survey Division
National Competitiveness Council Algirdas ?emeta, Director General
Adrian Devitt, Manager
Caoimhe Gavin, Policy Advisor Luxembourg
Gráinne Greehy, Graduate Trainee Chamber of Commerce of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
François-Xavier Borsi, Attaché, Economic Department
Israel Philippe Courtin, Attaché, Economic Department
Manufacturers’ Association of Israel (MAI) Carlo Thelen, Chief Economist, Member of the Managing Board
Shraga Brosh, President
Dan Catarivas, Director Macedonia, FYR
Yehuda Segev, Managing Director National Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness Council (NECC)
Dejan Janevski, Project Coordinator
Italy Zoran Stavreski, President of the Managing Board
SDA Bocconi School of Management Saso Trajkoski, Executive Director
Secchi Carlo, Full Professor of Economic Policy, Bocconi University
Paola Dubini, Associate Professor, Bocconi University Madagascar
Francesco A. Saviozzi, SDA Assistant Professor, Strategic Centre of Economic Studies, University of Antananarivo
and Entrepreneurial Management Department Pépé Andrianomanana, Director
Razato Raharijaona Simo, Executive Secretary
Jamaica
Mona School of Business (MSB), University of the West Indies Malawi
Patricia Douce, Survey Coordinator Malawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry
Michelle Tomlinson, Survey Coordinator Chancellor L. Kaferapanjira, Chief Executive Officer
Neville Ying, Executive Director and Professor
Malaysia
Japan Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS)
Hitotsubashi University, Graduate School of International Tan Sri Mohamed Jawhar Hassan, Chairman and
Corporate Strategy (ICS) Chief Executive Officer
in cooperation with Keizai Doyukai (Japan Association Mahani Zainal Abidin, Director-General
of Corporate Executives) Steven C.M. Wong, Assistant Director-General
Yoko Ishikura, Professor Malaysia Productivity Corporation (MPC) vii
Kiyohiko Ito, Vice-President and General Manager Dato’ Nik Zainiah Nik Abdul Rahman, Director General
for Policy Studies, Keizai Doyukai Chan Kum Siew, Director, International Competitiveness Division
Jordan Mali
Ministry of Planning & International Cooperation Groupe de Recherche en Economie Appliquée et Théorique
Jordan National Competitiveness Team (GREAT)
Rafat Al-Rawabdeh, Senior Researcher Massa Coulibaly, Coordinator
Kazakhstan Mauritania
Corporation for Export Development and Promotion Centre d’Information Mauritanien pour le Développement
Vakhit Mamatayev, Consultant Economique et Technique (CIMDET/CCIAM)
Gaziz Myltykbayev, Deputy Chairman of the Board Lô Abdoul, Consultant and Analyst
Kassen Pernebayev, Director, Analytical Department Khira Mint Cheikhnani, Director
Habib Sy, Analyst
Kenya
Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi Mauritius
Mohamud Jama, Director and Associate Professor Joint Economic Council of Mauritius
Paul Kamau, Research Fellow Raj Makoond, Director
Dorothy McCormick, Associate Professor Board of Investment, Investmauritius
Dev Chamroo, Director, Planning & Policy
Korea, Republic of
Manisha Dookhony, Manager, Planning & Policy
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology-KAIST
Raju Jaddoo, Managing Director
Myungchul Shin, Head, School Administration
Bae Soonhoon, Vice President and Professor, Graduate School of Mexico
Management Center for Intellectual Capital and Competitiveness
Youjin Sung, Manager, Exchange Program Erika Ruiz Manzur, Executive Director
René Villarreal Arrambide, President and Chief Executive Officer
Kuwait
Jesús Zurita González, General Director
Economics Department, Kuwait University
Abdullah Alsalman, Assistant Professor Instituto Mexicano Para la Competitividad (IMCO)
Mohammed El-Sakka, Professor Gabriela Alarcon Esteva, Economist
Reyadh Faras, Assistant Professor Manuel J. Molano Ruiz, Deputy General Director
Roberto Newell Garcia, General Director
Kyrgyz Republic
Economic Policy Institute “Bishkek Consensus” PROMEXICO Trade & Investment
Lola Abduhametova, Program Coordinator Jose Gustavo Hernandez Rodriguez, Business Intelligence Unit
Marat Tazabekov, Chairman Lisette Jimenez del Rio, Business Intelligence Unit
Bernardo von Raesfeld Porras, Business Intelligence Unit
Latvia
Institute of Economics, Latvian Academy of Sciences, Riga
Raita Karnite, Director
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page viii
Partner Institutes
Moldova Philippines
Center for Strategic Territorial Development Makati Business Club
Ruslan Codreanu, Executive Director Alberto A. Lim, Executive Director
Roman Smolnitchi, Program Coordinator Michael B. Mundo, Chief Economist
Mark P. Opulencia, Deputy Director
Mongolia
Open Society Forum (OSF) Poland
Munkhsoyol Baatarjav, Manager of Economic Policy Warsaw School of Economics
Erdenejargal Perenlei, Executive Director Bogdan Radomski, Associate Professor
Morocco Portugal
Université Hassan II PROFORUM, Associação para o Desenvolvimento da Engenharia
Fouzi Mourji, Professor of Economics Ilídio António de Ayala Serôdio, Vice President of the
Board of Directors
Mozambique
EconPolicy Research Group, Lda. Forum de Administradores de Empresas FAE
Peter Coughlin, Director Pedro do Carmo Costa, Member of the Board of Directors
Donaldo Miguel Soares, Researcher Adilia Lisboa, General Director
Ema Marta Soares, Assistant
Qatar
Namibia Qatari Businessmen Association (QBA)
Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit (NEPRU) Issa Abdul Salam Abu Issa, Secretary-General
Joel Hinaunye Eita, Senior Researcher Bassam Ramzi Massouh, General Manager
Lameck Odada, Research Assistant Ahmed El-Shaffee, Economist
Klaus Schade, Acting Director
Romania
Nepal Group of Applied Economics (GEA)
Centre for Economic Development and Administration (CEDA) Anca Rusu, Program Coordinator
Ramesh Chandra Chitrakar, Executive Director Liviu Voinea, Executive Director
Menaka Rajbhandari Shrestha, Researcher
Russian Federation
Santosh Kumar Upadhyaya, Researcher
Bauman Innovation, Academy of National Economy under
Netherlands the Government of the Russian Federation
Erasmus Strategic Renewal Center, Erasmus University Rotterdam Alexei Prazdnitchnykh, Principal, Associate Professor
Frans A. J. Van den Bosch, Professor Stockholm School of Economics, Russia
Henk W. Volberda, Professor Igor Dukeov, Research Fellow
viii Carl F. Fey, Associate Dean of Research
New Zealand
Business New Zealand Saudi Arabia
Marcia Dunnett, Manager, Sector Groups National Competitiveness Center (NCC)
Phil O’Reilly, Chief Executive Awwad Al-Awwad, Deputy Governor for Investment
The New Zealand Institute Khaldon Mahasen, Manager, Investment Performance Assessment
David Skilling, Chief Executive Officer
Senegal
Nigeria Centre de Recherches Economiques Appliquées (CREA),
Nigerian Economic Summit Group (NESG) University of Dakar
Felix Ogbera, Associate Director, Research Aly Mbaye, Director
Chris Okpoko, Senior Consultant, Research
Singapore
Norway Economic Development Board
BI Norwegian School of Management Lim Hong Khiang, Director Planning 2
Eskil Goldeng, Researcher Chua Kia Chee, Head, Research and Statistics Unit
Torger Reve, Professor
Slovak Republic
HSH, The Federation of Norwegian Commercial Business Alliance of Slovakia (PAS)
and Service Enterprises Robert Kicina, Executive Director
Vibeke H. Madsen, Chief Executive Officer
Slovenia
Oman Institute for Economic Research
The International Research Foundation Art Kovacic, Researcher
Azzan Al Busaidi, Chief Executive Officer Peter Stanovnik, Senior Researcher
Salem Ben Nasser Al-Ismaily, Chairman
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics
Pakistan Mateja Drnovs̆ek, Assistant Professor
Competitiveness Support Fund Ales̆ Vahcic, Professor
Arthur Bayhan, Chief Executive Officer
South Africa
Amir Jahangir, Manager, Communications
Business Leadership South Africa
Paraguay Connie Motshumi, Director
Centro de Análisis y Difusión de Economia Paraguaya (CADEP) Michael Spicer, Chief Executive Officer
Dionisio Borda, Director Business Unity South Africa
Jaime Escobar, Research Member Jerry Vilakazi, Chief Executive Officer
Fernando Masi, Research Member Vic Van Vuuren, Chief Operating Officer
Peru
Centro de Desarrollo Industrial (CDI), Sociedad Nacional
de Industrias
Néstor Asto, Project Director
Luis Tenorio, Executive Director
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page ix
Partner Institutes
Spain Uganda
IESE Business School, International Center for Competitiveness, Makerere Institute of Social Research, Makerere University
Anselmo Rubiralta Center for Globalization and Strategy Robert Apunyo, Research Associate
Eduardo Ballarín, Professor Delius Asiimwe, Senior Research Fellow
María Luisa Blázquez, Research Associate Catherine Ssekimpi, Research Associate
Almudena Clemente Tiemblo, Research Associate
Ukraine
Sri Lanka CASE Ukraine, Center for Social and Economic Research
Institute of Policy Studies Dmytro Boyarchuk, Executive Director
Indika Siriwardena, Database Manager Vladimir Dubrovskiy, Senior Economist
The Ceylon Chamber of Commerce United Arab Emirates
Prema Cooray, Secretary General Economic & Policy Research Unit (EPRU), Zayed University
Jay Squalli, Assistant Professor
Sweden
Nico Vellinga, Professor
Center for Strategy and Competitiveness, Stockholm
School of Economics Dubai Competitiveness Council
Christian Ketels, Senior Research Fellow Adel Alfalasi, Director
Örjan Sölvell, Professor
United States
Switzerland US Chamber of Commerce
University of St. Gallen, Executive School of Management, Scott Eisner, Deputy Chief of Staff
Technology and Law (ES-HSG) Cecile Remington, Marketing Manager
Franz Jaeger, Professor James Robinson, Senior Vice President and Counselor
Beat Bechtold, Project Manager to the President
Syria Uruguay
Ministry of Economy and Trade Universidad ORT
Amer Housni Louitfi, Minister of Economy and Trade Isidoro Hodara, Professor
State Planning Commission Venezuela
Tayseer Al-Ridawi, Head of State Planning Commission CONAPRI—Venezuelan Council for Investment Promotion
UNDP Damascus, “Towards Changing the Mindset for Ana Acosta, Economic Analyst
Competitiveness” Adolfo Castejón, Investor Services Manager
Nuhad Dimashkiyyah, National Project Director Giuseppe Rionero, Economic Affairs Manager
Taiwan, China Vietnam

Council for Economic Planning and Development, Executive Yuan Central Institute for Economic Management (CIEM) ix
Tain-Jy Chen, Chairman Dinh Van An, President
J. B. Hung, Director, Economic Research Department Phan Thanh Ha, Deputy Director, Department of
Chung Chung Shieh, Researcher, Economic Research Department Macroeconomic Management
Pham Hoang Ha, Senior Researcher, Department of
Tajikistan Macroeconomic Management
The Center for Sociological Research “Zerkalo”
Institute for Economic Research of HCMC
Qahramon Baqoev, Director
Nguyen Van Quang, Vice Director
Ol’ga Es’kina, Researcher
Du Phuoc Tan, Head, Department of Urban Development Studies
Alikul Isoev, Sociologist and Economist
Trieu Thanh Son, Research Fellow
Tanzania
Zambia
Economic and Social Research Foundation
Institute of Economic and Social Research (INESOR),
Irene Alenga, Commissioned Studies Department
University of Zambia
Haidari Amani, Executive Director and Professor
Mutumba M. Bull, Director
Dennis Rweyemamu, Commissioned Studies Department
Patricia Funjika, Staff Development Fellow
Thailand Jolly Kamwanga, Coordinator
Sasin Graduate Institute of Business Administration,
Zimbabwe
Chulalongkorn University
Graduate School of Management, University of Zimbabwe
Pongsak Hoontrakul, Senior Research Fellow
A. M. Hawkins, Professor
Toemsakdi Krishnamra, Director of Sasin
Piyachart Phiromswad, Faculty of Economics Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,
Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI) Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama
Somchai Jitsuchon, Research Director INCAE Business School, Latin American Center for
Chalongphob Sussangkarn, Distinguished Fellow Competitiveness and Sustainable Development
Yos Vajragupta, Senior Researcher Arturo Condo, Rector
Marlene de Estrella, Director of External Relations
Tunisia Luis Reyes, Manager
Institut Arabe des Chefs d’Entreprises Roy Zuñiga, Dean
Majdi Hassen, Executive Counsellor
Chekib Nouira, President Latvia, Lithuania
Stockholm School of Economics in Riga
Turkey Karlis Kreslins, Executive MBA Program Director
TUSIAD Sabanci University Competitiveness Forum Anders Paalzow, Rector
A. Gunduz Ulusoy, Director and Professor
Hande Yegenoglu, Project Specialist
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page x
Preface
Preface
ROBERT GREENHILL
Chief Business Officer, World Economic Forum
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 is being across borders and to develop the ETI. In this year’s
launched at a crucial time for global trade. As overall edition, the Index has been further refined to capture
economic activity has declined and liquidity has become the flow of goods out of countries as well as into them.
scarce, trade finance has dried up alongside mounting The Report contains detailed profiles for each of
insecurity about the future. According to some esti- the economies covered by the study.They provide an
mates, trade volumes have seen a larger decline than overview of the results on all indicators included in
during the Great Depression. And as governments have the ETI. In addition, the Report contains thoughtful
responded through countercyclical policies, calls for pro- contributions by a number of trade experts and industry
tecting local profits and jobs have been on the rise. practitioners.These essays explore different aspects of
Despite pledges to keep markets open, some countries trade facilitation, such as the availability of trade finance in
have reverted to protectionist measures. times of the financial crisis, analysis of non-tariff barriers,
Protectionism is not the cause of the crisis, but it and logistics performance of countries. A particular
could be one of its most important consequences.When focus has been placed this year on customs, one the key
17 of the G-20 countries acted against their pledge areas of the Doha negotiations on trade facilitation.
to keep markets open and World Trade Organization The Global Enabling Trade Report would not have
(WTO) members increased protection without breaking been possible without the distinguished academics and
trade rules, it became apparent that the present global practitioners who have shared with us their knowledge xi
institutions are not able to prevent a larger protectionist and experience.We thank our Data Partners—the
backlash if the recession continues. Limiting global trade Global Express Association (GEA), the International Air
would not only amplify the current downturn, in the Transport Association (IATA), the International Trade
longer term it would also reduce growth—in particular Centre (ITC), the United Nations Conference on Trade
in developing countries—plunging millions of people and Development (UNCTAD),The World Bank, the
back into poverty. World Customs Organization (WCO), and the World
In today’s highly interdependent world, recovery Trade Organization (WTO) for their help in developing
will necessitate that countries increase the amount of and updating the ETI and for making trade-related
goods that they purchase from each other, thus spurring data available.We are grateful to the Industry Partners
demand. Further lowering barriers to trade would sup- contributing to this Report—Agility, Deutsche Post
port this process, while raising barriers would reduce DHL, DP World, FedEx Corporation, GeoPost
demand. Against this background, The Global Enabling Intercontinental, Stena,TNT N.V.,Transnet, and UPS.
Trade Report 2009 provides an assessment of the obsta- We also wish to thank the editors of this volume,
cles to trade in 121 countries around the world. At the Robert Z. Lawrence of Harvard University and
core of the Report is the Enabling Trade Index (ETI), Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz and John Moavenzadeh
which has been developed by the World Economic from the World Economic Forum, for their enthusiasm
Forum for the purpose of this Report. Beyond tariffs and and their commitment to the project. And we would
quotas, the Index captures barriers to trade related to like to express our gratitude to the management team
border administration, infrastructure, logistics, and the of the project, Sean Doherty and Qin He, for driving
business environment, all of which can have a significant the process smoothly throughout the year. Appreciation
effect on trade.The aim of this Report is to provide goes also to Jennifer Blanke, Head of the Global
countries with a yardstick on how they do in terms Competitiveness Network Team and other team members:
of enabling trade and to spur discussion among stake- Ciara Browne, Agustina Ciocia,Thierry Geiger,Yasmina
holders about how to improve the situation in order Makar, Irene Mia, Pearl Samandari, and Eva Trujillo
to better benefit from trade. Herrera. Last but not least, this Report would have not
The Report is a result of work undertaken within been possible without the hard work and enthusiasm of
the context of the World Economic Forum’s industry our network of 150 Partner Institutes worldwide, who
partnership in logistics and transportation. Over the past carry out the Executive Opinion Survey, which provides
two years, the Forum has engaged key industry leaders, the basis of this Report.
academics, and international organizations active in the
area of trade to identify the main obstacles to trading
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xii
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xiii
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
ROBERT Z. LAWRENCE, Harvard University
SEAN DOHERTY, MARGARETA DRZENIEK HANOUZ and QIN HE, World Economic Forum
Launched in the midst of a dramatic slump in world The ETI was developed within the context of the
trade that has been driven by declines in overall economic World Economic Forum’s Industry Partnership
activity, lowered sales, and unwanted inventories, The Programme for the Logistics and Transport sector. A
Global Enabling Trade Report’s assessment of obstacles to number of Data Partners have collaborated in this
trade may seem less acute than before. However, as busi- endeavor: the Global Express Association (GEA), the
nesses take on fewer trading risks, as the psychological International Air Transport Association (IATA), the
barriers to serving new markets mount, and as the trade International Trade Centre (ITC), the United Nations
financing to bridge the time between production and Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD),The
delivery has become harder to obtain, the continued World Bank, the World Customs Organization (WCO),
importance of smoothing the path between buyers and and the World Trade Organization (WTO).We have also
sellers and reducing the cost of the transaction itself is received important feedback from companies that are
evident. Industry Partners in the effort, namely Agility, Deutsche
As trade volumes fall and public authorities adopt Post DHL, DP World, FedEx Corporation, GeoPost
countercyclical stimulus policies and institutional reform, Intercontinental, Stena,TNT N.V.,Transnet, and UPS.
it is worth remembering the fundamental attributes that The Index mirrors the main enablers of trade,
govern nations’ ability to benefit from trade, be they breaking them into four overall issue areas, called
market access, border administration, infrastructure, or subindexes: (1) market access, (2) border administration, xiii
the business environment.This reminder is particularly (3) transport and communications infrastructure, and (4)
timely, as measures of some countries overtly favor the business environment.The first subindex measures
domestic industries while other countries impose barri- the extent to which the policy framework welcomes
ers to trade to protect companies and jobs at home. foreign goods into the country and enables access to
Although these measures are not the main driver of foreign markets for domestic exporters.The second
the present slump in world trade, the risk of protectionism subindex assesses the extent to which the administration
is still present. By ranking countries according to the at the border facilitates the entry and exit of goods.The
barriers to trade they have in place, the Report serves as a third subindex takes into account whether the country
reminder both of the risks of protectionism demonstrated has in place the transport and communications infra-
in previous downturns and of the widespread prosperity structure necessary to facilitate the movement of goods
and poverty reduction associated with the expansion of within the country and across the border. Finally, the
international trade in the years leading up to 2008. fourth subindex looks at the quality of governance as
The Report is intended to be a motivator and a well as the overarching regulatory and security environ-
foundation for dialogue, providing a yardstick of the ment impacting the business of importers and exporters
extent to which countries enjoy the factors facilitating active in the country.
the free flow of goods, and identifying areas of the Index Each of these four subindexes is composed in turn
where improvements are most needed.The contributions of a number of pillars of enabling trade, of which there
from industry and leading international trade organiza- are nine in all.These are:
tions highlight current priorities and tools to manage
the rapidly changing situation. 1. Domestic and foreign market access
2. Efficiency of customs administration
3. Efficiency of import-export procedures
The Enabling Trade Index
4. Transparency of border administration
A key purpose of this Report is to assess the extent to
5. Availability and quality of transport
which countries around the globe have in place the
infrastructure
institutions and policies for enabling trade.To this end,
Chapter 1.1 features the Enabling Trade Index (ETI), 6. Availability and quality of transport services
which was introduced in the last edition.The ETI meas- 7. Availability and use of ICTs
ures the institutions, policies, and services facilitating the 8. Regulatory environment
free flow of goods over borders and to final destinations. 9. Physical security
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xiv
Executive Summary
Each of these pillars is in turn composed of a num- excellent regulatory environment facilitates operations
ber of individual variables that are obtained from both of traders through openness to foreign participation,
hard data and the World Economic Forum’s Executive fair domestic competition, and a highly transparent and
Opinion Survey (Survey).The hard data were taken from efficient government.
publicly available sources and international organizations Hong Kong SAR’s open domestic market mirrors
active in the area of trade (for example the World Bank, the economy’s high dependence on exports and imports.
the ITC, UNCTAD, the ITU, and IATA).The Survey Hong Kong does not apply tariffs on imported products,
is carried out annually by the World Economic Forum yet its exported products face more barriers than
among top business leaders in all economies covered by Singapore’s, as reflected in tariffs faced (119th) combined
this study. It captures their perceptions on qualitative with a low margin of preference in target markets (112th).
aspects of the business environment in which they oper- Hong Kong’s strong ranking also rests on its efficient
ate, including a number of specific aspects of international customs procedures, well-developed transport and
trade. communications infrastructure, and a regulatory envi-
The Index instrument has been revised following ronment that promotes and facilitates an open and
feedback received from academics and users of the secure business environment.The economy’s openness
methodology.The main changes concern the explicit to foreign participation is attested to by the prevalence
inclusion of exports into the market access and border of foreign ownership and relative absence of capital
administration subindexes. Further, an assessment of controls (1st).Traders could, however, further benefit
overall governance conditions has been added to the from improvements to the very congested roads (89th)
business environment subindex. and more commitments to open up the transport sector
Additional analysis using a gravity model shows under the General Agreement on Trade in Services
that the revised ETI has notable explanatory power (GATS) framework (55th).
with respect to a country’s trade performance. In fact, a Switzerland places 3rd overall, scoring very high
1 percent increase in a country’s ETI score is associated in three of the four main components of the Index.
with 1.7 percent more exports and 2.3 percent more It ranks 10th for the quality of border administration,
imports. despite the country’s very high costs to import (84th)
xiv and export (92nd).The ETI also reveals the very high
quality of the transport infrastructure (9th) and of the
The Enabling Trade Index 2009 rankings associated services (12th), and when it comes to the
The rankings of the 121 economies included are shown availability and use of information and communications
in Tables 1 through 5, including the overall ETI as well technologies (ICTs), Switzerland is second to none.
as the results on the four subindexes and the individual Finally, the environment offered to business is particularly
pillars. Since the previous edition of this Report, four new friendly (6th) thanks to its excellent institutions, fierce
countries have been added to the study: Côte d’Ivoire, competition, openness to foreign participation, and low
The Gambia, Ghana, and Malawi; one country covered prevalence of crime. Switzerland’s major weakness resides
last year, Uzbekistan, could not be included this year in the market access component, in which it ranks 38th
because of a lack of data. because of the high level of complexity of the import
tariff structure and fairly high protection of agricultural
The top 10 markets.
Two Asian economies, Singapore and Hong Kong, take Denmark (4th) ranks among the top five countries
up the top two positions in the ETI ranking.The results in seven out of the nine pillars of the Index. In particular,
mirror the openness of these countries to international it ranks 2nd both for the efficiency and the transparency
trade and investment as part of their successful economic of border administration, notably thanks to the low level
development strategy. of overall corruption.This, along with several other fac-
Singapore’s positive results reflect high rankings in tors such as the government’s efficiency (4th), the intensity
all four subindexes.The country’s very open market, as of local competition (4th), and the high level of security
well as a highly efficient and transparent border admin- (4th) contributes to creating an extremely conducive
istration, a well-developed transport and communica- business environment in Denmark, where the only
tions infrastructure, and an open business environment drawback remains the relative difficulty of hiring foreign
all contribute to this result. Customs procedures are labor (36th).The data also reveal high levels of quality
assessed as the least burdensome in the world, and time and availability of transport (5th) and ICT (4th) infra-
and cost for both import and export are among the structure. Such strong results contrast with Denmark’s
lowest for all countries covered. Singapore’s exporters 86th rank in the market access component, which mainly
also face relatively low tariffs in target markets (13th). reflects European Union (EU) policies in the area of
However, less congested roads and improvements to the agriculture as well as the complex tariff structure
ICT infrastructure could further increase the ease of applied by the European Union.
getting goods across borders in Singapore.The country’s
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xv
Executive Summary
Ranked just behind Denmark at 5th place over- The Netherlands (10th) completes the top 10 of
all, Sweden, like its neighbor, possesses a world-class the ETI. One of the world’s main hubs for trade, the
infrastructure, very transparent and efficient border country receives outstanding marks for the quality of
administration, and a highly favorable business environ- its transport infrastructure (ranking 2nd, behind only
ment.Yet crime and violence seem to be more of a Germany), and the associated services (ranking 2nd,
problem (22nd), and so are the difficulties of hiring behind Singapore). In particular, the quality of the
foreign workers (50th).With respect to market access, country’s seaports and its connectivity to the rest of the
Sweden (88th) posts a comparable performance to world come as no surprise, given that Rotterdam has
Denmark, the only difference coming from the slightly one of the world’s largest and busiest maritime ports.
lower score on the Index of non-tariff measures. This, combined with an efficient and speedy border
Coming in at 6th, Canada is one of the three administration (4th), makes the movement of goods to
non-European countries within the top 10. It posts a and from the Netherlands almost seamless.
strong and remarkably consistent performance across the
board. In particular, it is second only to France for the Asia and the Pacific
availability and quality of transport infrastructure, which Outside the top 10, in the Asia and Pacific region, New
is excellent across all modes of transportation. Border Zealand comes in 11th. Its highly efficient and trans-
administration (12th) is characterized by efficient customs parent border administration contributes to this ranking,
services (15th), speedy and hassle-free clearance proce- as do the country’s very low tariffs for agricultural prod-
dures, and low levels of corruption, with the only dent ucts and transparent border administration. Exports,
being the cost to import (95th) and export (96th). however, face high barriers.The country’s regulatory
Canada ranks a high 13th in the market access pillar. environment is characterized by fairly good ratings on
The import-weighted tariffs average is just 2.4 percent, ethics and a low level of corruption, as well as an effec-
and nearly 90 percent of imports enter the country free tive domestic competition policy, though obstacles still
of duty. Finally, Canada makes little use of non-tariff persist in hiring foreign labor and regulation of FDI.
barriers (21st) in international comparison, although Upgrading the quality of infrastructure, especially roads
the tariff structure in place is highly complex (79th). and railroads, would be beneficial to
At 7th place overall, and third among the Nordic further facilitate a smooth flow of goods both across xv
countries, Norway owes its rank to a consistent per- borders and to destinations inside the country.
formance across all the pillars.The business environment Australia occupies the 14th position overall.The
is particularly supportive of trade (5th), thanks to favor- rating reflects many aspects that the country does partic-
able regulation, the efficiency of government operations, ularly well in facilitating the flow of goods across borders
its low prevalence of crime and violence (3rd), and— and to destination, including its strong performances with
despite a certain reluctance—foreign participation respect to transparent border administration, the quality
(44th). Another strength is Norway’s efficient import of transport services, and its high level of commitment
and export procedures (6th). In the market access pillar, in the sector under GATS, as well as its regulatory envi-
Norway, at 21st, displays much better results than the ronment, which promotes intense domestic competition.
Nordic members of the European Union, yet high agri- The results are, however, somewhat offset by high
cultural tariffs and a complex tariff structure remain a domestic and foreign market barriers. Australia applies
challenge. very high tariffs for non-agricultural products in com-
In 8th position, Finland is the last-ranked Nordic parison with economies at a similar level of development,
country. Its performance is very much in line with its placing the country 96th on this indicator. Lowering
fellow EU members, with the major exception of the these tariffs would further boost the country’s openness
customs service index, on which Finland ranks a low to trade.
55—far behind Sweden (2nd) and Denmark (10th). On Japan takes up the 23rd position in the ETI
the other hand, the country ranks slightly higher on the ranking.The country’s highly efficient and transparent
market access pillar, thanks to its less frequent recourse border administration and its well-developed infrastruc-
to non-tariff measures. ture, together with its excellent transport services, all
Austria comes in at 9th position and if it was not contribute to this rating.The ranking is, however,
for its low 84th rank in the market access component, severely offset by Japan’s high barriers to market access
it would feature even higher in the ETI ranking.The in domestic and foreign markets (115th), as reflected in
country ranks no lower than 8th in the three other com- the high tariffs on agricultural products and the com-
ponents of the Index and no worse than 18th in each of plexity of tariffs, as well as barriers faced when exporting.
the associated pillars. Customs are rated as being among In addition, the country’s costly import and export pro-
the most efficient in the world (3rd) and, overall, border cedures and limited openness to foreign participation are
administration is deemed efficient, transparent, and rapid, not conductive to facilitating trade flows. Japan could
although not cheap. also benefit from improving its somewhat burdensome
customs procedures (43rd).
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xvi
Executive Summary
Table 1: The Enabling Trade Index 2009
SUBINDEXES
Market Border Transport and communi- Business
OVERALL INDEX access administration cations infrastructure environment
Country/Economy Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
Singapore 1 5.97 2 5.63 1 6.49 3 5.64 3 6.13

Hong Kong SAR 2 5.57 20 4.75 7 5.89 5 5.57 4 6.08
Switzerland 3 5.44 38 4.48 10 5.80 9 5.49 6 6.01
Denmark 4 5.44 86 3.81 3 6.31 8 5.50 2 6.15
Sweden 5 5.44 88 3.81 2 6.41 4 5.63 7 5.90
Canada 6 5.35 13 4.96 12 5.64 17 5.27 17 5.52
Norway 7 5.33 21 4.72 18 5.47 20 5.11 5 6.02
Finland 8 5.33 78 3.84 9 5.80 16 5.37 1 6.29
Austria 9 5.29 84 3.81 6 5.92 6 5.55 8 5.89
Netherlands 10 5.27 87 3.81 4 6.04 2 5.64 15 5.59
New Zealand 11 5.27 39 4.39 5 5.95 22 4.97 11 5.75
Germany 12 5.24 90 3.79 11 5.65 1 5.77 10 5.75
Luxembourg 13 5.12 58 4.00 24 5.19 13 5.41 9 5.89
Australia 14 5.07 97 3.72 17 5.54 14 5.39 14 5.62
Ireland 15 5.02 96 3.73 8 5.82 23 4.94 16 5.59
United States 16 5.02 49 4.16 15 5.58 10 5.48 36 4.85
France 17 5.02 89 3.81 19 5.46 7 5.54 23 5.26
United Arab Emirates 18 4.97 65 3.95 20 5.34 24 4.91 13 5.68
Chile 19 4.96 3 5.58 21 5.31 43 3.87 29 5.09
United Kingdom 20 4.93 79 3.84 14 5.62 11 5.47 39 4.81
Belgium 21 4.92 80 3.82 29 5.02 12 5.45 20 5.40
Estonia 22 4.84 71 3.91 16 5.58 27 4.64 24 5.25
Japan 23 4.78 115 3.10 13 5.63 15 5.38 31 5.02
Bahrain 24 4.76 26 4.65 25 5.17 41 4.07 27 5.14
Taiwan, China 25 4.75 99 3.70 27 5.15 19 5.12 30 5.03
Korea, Rep. 26 4.73 106 3.47 22 5.28 21 4.99 26 5.16
Spain 27 4.72 75 3.86 28 5.07 18 5.13 38 4.82
xvi Malaysia 28 4.70 32 4.60 33 4.66 29 4.59 33 4.96
Israel 29 4.66 35 4.54 23 5.25 32 4.37 56 4.46
Portugal 30 4.63 63 3.96 35 4.63 26 4.74 25 5.21
Slovenia 31 4.61 82 3.82 26 5.16 31 4.55 35 4.89
Cyprus 32 4.56 74 3.88 47 4.31 28 4.60 18 5.45
Mauritius 33 4.54 10 4.99 37 4.62 55 3.55 32 5.00
Oman 34 4.52 23 4.69 49 4.23 45 3.74 19 5.43
Qatar 35 4.50 102 3.62 34 4.63 42 4.04 12 5.70
Czech Republic 36 4.39 94 3.76 30 4.92 35 4.32 50 4.58
Jordan 37 4.39 61 3.97 36 4.62 52 3.61 22 5.36
Hungary 38 4.39 81 3.82 31 4.69 34 4.34 45 4.70
Croatia 39 4.36 28 4.63 52 4.16 37 4.18 55 4.49
Lithuania 40 4.36 60 3.97 42 4.46 36 4.28 41 4.75
Tunisia 41 4.36 70 3.91 32 4.67 59 3.46 21 5.40
Saudi Arabia 42 4.36 40 4.39 38 4.61 47 3.70 42 4.73
Costa Rica 43 4.36 5 5.44 46 4.31 70 3.24 58 4.44
Latvia 44 4.33 73 3.90 39 4.60 39 4.09 43 4.72
Italy 45 4.30 66 3.94 48 4.25 25 4.75 66 4.27
Slovak Republic 46 4.30 93 3.77 40 4.52 33 4.36 51 4.56
Greece 47 4.30 59 3.98 57 3.99 30 4.58 47 4.65
Turkey 48 4.19 14 4.93 56 4.05 49 3.65 75 4.15
China 49 4.19 103 3.60 43 4.43 38 4.16 49 4.58
Thailand 50 4.18 98 3.72 41 4.48 40 4.07 59 4.44
Uruguay 51 4.18 22 4.71 53 4.15 78 3.09 40 4.76
Moldova 52 4.15 6 5.38 72 3.59 58 3.46 73 4.16
Panama 53 4.06 54 4.06 50 4.22 44 3.75 71 4.21
Romania 54 4.05 72 3.90 44 4.39 51 3.62 65 4.28
Morocco 55 4.01 51 4.09 51 4.21 65 3.36 63 4.38
El Salvador 56 4.00 1 5.64 61 3.90 91 2.90 104 3.58
Poland 57 3.98 77 3.85 45 4.37 46 3.71 80 3.99
Guatemala 58 3.97 8 5.08 55 4.07 72 3.22 109 3.50
Kuwait 59 3.96 76 3.86 78 3.52 54 3.55 34 4.90
Namibia 60 3.93 33 4.60 79 3.47 75 3.16 54 4.51
South Africa 61 3.92 92 3.78 54 4.12 50 3.62 76 4.14
Indonesia 62 3.82 53 4.07 66 3.75 79 3.04 60 4.43
Albania 63 3.82 30 4.63 60 3.91 94 2.82 83 3.91
Armenia 64 3.81 42 4.25 87 3.25 61 3.42 64 4.33
Peru 65 3.81 25 4.65 59 3.93 89 2.94 95 3.70
(Cont’d.)
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xvii
Executive Summary
Table 1: The Enabling Trade Index 2009 (cont’d.)
SUBINDEXES
Honduras 66 3.80 16 4.87 82 3.42 82 3.01 84 3.91

Gambia, The 67 3.78 108 3.37 70 3.63 84 3.00 28 5.13
Macedonia, FYR 68 3.78 62 3.97 71 3.60 57 3.46 78 4.09
Malawi 69 3.77 12 4.97 97 3.06 112 2.44 48 4.60
Azerbaijan 70 3.77 52 4.07 103 2.91 62 3.40 46 4.68
Ukraine 71 3.76 24 4.68 95 3.07 60 3.43 85 3.87
Bulgaria 72 3.76 55 4.02 69 3.64 48 3.68 97 3.68
Madagascar 73 3.75 4 5.45 86 3.26 115 2.37 82 3.93
Mexico 74 3.74 43 4.25 62 3.87 74 3.20 98 3.67
Egypt 75 3.72 117 3.05 65 3.78 66 3.35 44 4.71
India 76 3.72 116 3.06 58 3.94 64 3.36 53 4.51
Nicaragua 77 3.71 15 4.91 83 3.38 105 2.54 79 4.01
Sri Lanka 78 3.70 64 3.95 67 3.75 69 3.29 90 3.82
Jamaica 79 3.70 85 3.81 73 3.59 53 3.56 89 3.83
Zambia 80 3.64 19 4.76 102 2.96 111 2.45 62 4.39
Dominican Republic 81 3.64 69 3.91 64 3.80 73 3.20 99 3.64
Philippines 82 3.62 56 4.02 68 3.72 77 3.09 100 3.63
Senegal 83 3.62 109 3.36 76 3.54 81 3.01 52 4.55
Colombia 84 3.61 48 4.16 74 3.55 76 3.13 103 3.58
Uganda 85 3.60 9 5.06 99 2.99 98 2.61 94 3.76
Ghana 86 3.60 67 3.94 80 3.45 102 2.56 57 4.44
Brazil 87 3.58 100 3.67 77 3.53 68 3.33 93 3.79
Bolivia 88 3.55 11 4.98 75 3.55 106 2.53 118 3.16
Vietnam 89 3.54 112 3.24 85 3.28 71 3.24 61 4.40
Lesotho 90 3.51 7 5.25 105 2.84 118 2.33 101 3.63
Cambodia 91 3.50 27 4.65 98 3.00 109 2.50 87 3.85
Tanzania 92 3.50 41 4.33 92 3.17 119 2.25 67 4.24
Kazakhstan 93 3.49 45 4.20 119 2.27 63 3.39 77 4.10 xvii
Mozambique 94 3.49 17 4.84 90 3.21 117 2.36 107 3.56
Ethiopia 95 3.48 91 3.79 89 3.22 96 2.71 72 4.20
Benin 96 3.47 47 4.17 101 2.97 99 2.60 74 4.16
Argentina 97 3.46 95 3.75 84 3.35 67 3.33 111 3.42
Kenya 98 3.45 34 4.59 108 2.77 93 2.88 105 3.58
Mali 99 3.44 37 4.51 111 2.64 113 2.40 68 4.23
Pakistan 100 3.43 111 3.26 63 3.85 80 3.04 102 3.58
Kyrgyz Republic 101 3.43 18 4.77 116 2.46 86 2.98 108 3.53
Bosnia and Herzegovina 102 3.42 107 3.41 81 3.44 85 2.98 86 3.87
Ecuador 103 3.41 36 4.53 107 2.80 87 2.97 112 3.36
Burkina Faso 104 3.41 46 4.20 112 2.64 101 2.58 69 4.22
Paraguay 105 3.39 31 4.62 93 3.16 103 2.56 115 3.22
Cameroon 106 3.35 83 3.82 96 3.07 104 2.55 81 3.97
Mauritania 107 3.31 44 4.24 110 2.67 110 2.47 88 3.84
Syria 108 3.30 121 2.25 91 3.17 88 2.96 37 4.83
Russian Federation 109 3.29 113 3.16 106 2.82 56 3.49 96 3.70
Nepal 110 3.22 29 4.63 113 2.58 107 2.51 117 3.17
Bangladesh 111 3.20 57 4.01 104 2.88 108 2.50 110 3.42
Algeria 112 3.18 118 2.76 88 3.24 90 2.90 92 3.81
Mongolia 113 3.17 110 3.36 109 2.71 95 2.82 91 3.81
Tajikistan 114 3.14 104 3.57 118 2.40 116 2.37 70 4.22
Guyana 115 3.13 114 3.13 94 3.14 92 2.90 113 3.34
Burundi 116 2.99 68 3.92 114 2.57 120 2.16 114 3.30
Nigeria 117 2.97 120 2.72 100 2.98 100 2.60 106 3.57
Zimbabwe 118 2.91 101 3.67 117 2.42 114 2.38 116 3.17
Venezuela 119 2.84 105 3.48 120 2.25 83 3.01 121 2.61
Côte d’Ivoire 120 2.78 119 2.74 115 2.55 97 2.70 119 3.15
Chad 121 2.77 50 4.16 121 2.00 121 1.96 120 2.96
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xviii
Executive Summary
Table 2: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Market access
PILLARS
MARKET ACCESS 1. Domestic and foreign market access
Country/Economy Rank Score Rank Score
El Salvador 1 5.64 1 5.64

Singapore 2 5.63 2 5.63
Chile 3 5.58 3 5.58
Madagascar 4 5.45 4 5.45
Costa Rica 5 5.44 5 5.44
Moldova 6 5.38 6 5.38
Lesotho 7 5.25 7 5.25
Guatemala 8 5.08 8 5.08
Uganda 9 5.06 9 5.06
Mauritius 10 4.99 10 4.99
Bolivia 11 4.98 11 4.98
Malawi 12 4.97 12 4.97
Canada 13 4.96 13 4.96
Turkey 14 4.93 14 4.93
Nicaragua 15 4.91 15 4.91
Honduras 16 4.87 16 4.87
Mozambique 17 4.84 17 4.84
Kyrgyz Republic 18 4.77 18 4.77
Zambia 19 4.76 19 4.76
Hong Kong SAR 20 4.75 20 4.75
Norway 21 4.72 21 4.72
Uruguay 22 4.71 22 4.71
Oman 23 4.69 23 4.69
Ukraine 24 4.68 24 4.68
Peru 25 4.65 25 4.65
Bahrain 26 4.65 26 4.65
Cambodia 27 4.65 27 4.65
Croatia 28 4.63 28 4.63
xviii Nepal 29 4.63 29 4.63
Albania 30 4.63 30 4.63
Paraguay 31 4.62 31 4.62
Malaysia 32 4.60 32 4.60
Namibia 33 4.60 33 4.60
Kenya 34 4.59 34 4.59
Israel 35 4.54 35 4.54
Ecuador 36 4.53 36 4.53
Mali 37 4.51 37 4.51
Switzerland 38 4.48 38 4.48
New Zealand 39 4.39 39 4.39
Saudi Arabia 40 4.39 40 4.39
Tanzania 41 4.33 41 4.33
Armenia 42 4.25 42 4.25
Mexico 43 4.25 43 4.25
Mauritania 44 4.24 44 4.24
Kazakhstan 45 4.20 45 4.20
Burkina Faso 46 4.20 46 4.20
Benin 47 4.17 47 4.17
Colombia 48 4.16 48 4.16
United States 49 4.16 49 4.16
Chad 50 4.16 50 4.16
Morocco 51 4.09 51 4.09
Azerbaijan 52 4.07 52 4.07
Indonesia 53 4.07 53 4.07
Panama 54 4.06 54 4.06
Bulgaria 55 4.02 55 4.02
Philippines 56 4.02 56 4.02
Bangladesh 57 4.01 57 4.01
Luxembourg 58 4.00 58 4.00
Greece 59 3.98 59 3.98
Lithuania 60 3.97 60 3.97
Jordan 61 3.97 61 3.97
Macedonia, FYR 62 3.97 62 3.97
Portugal 63 3.96 63 3.96
Sri Lanka 64 3.95 64 3.95
United Arab Emirates 65 3.95 65 3.95
Italy 66 3.94 66 3.94
Ghana 67 3.94 67 3.94
(Cont’d.)
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xix
Executive Summary
Table 2: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Market access (cont’d.)
PILLARS
Burundi 68 3.92 68 3.92

Dominican Republic 69 3.91 69 3.91
Tunisia 70 3.91 70 3.91
Estonia 71 3.91 71 3.91
Romania 72 3.90 72 3.90
Latvia 73 3.90 73 3.90
Cyprus 74 3.88 74 3.88
Spain 75 3.86 75 3.86
Kuwait 76 3.86 76 3.86
Poland 77 3.85 77 3.85
Finland 78 3.84 78 3.84
United Kingdom 79 3.84 79 3.84
Belgium 80 3.82 80 3.82
Hungary 81 3.82 81 3.82
Slovenia 82 3.82 82 3.82
Cameroon 83 3.82 83 3.82
Austria 84 3.81 84 3.81
Jamaica 85 3.81 85 3.81
Denmark 86 3.81 86 3.81
Netherlands 87 3.81 87 3.81
Sweden 88 3.81 88 3.81
France 89 3.81 89 3.81
Germany 90 3.79 90 3.79
Ethiopia 91 3.79 91 3.79
South Africa 92 3.78 92 3.78
Slovak Republic 93 3.77 93 3.77
Czech Republic 94 3.76 94 3.76
Argentina 95 3.75 95 3.75
Ireland 96 3.73 96 3.73 xix
Australia 97 3.72 97 3.72
Thailand 98 3.72 98 3.72
Taiwan, China 99 3.70 99 3.70
Brazil 100 3.67 100 3.67
Zimbabwe 101 3.67 101 3.67
Qatar 102 3.62 102 3.62
China 103 3.60 103 3.60
Tajikistan 104 3.57 104 3.57
Venezuela 105 3.48 105 3.48
Korea, Rep. 106 3.47 106 3.47
Bosnia and Herzegovina 107 3.41 107 3.41
Gambia, The 108 3.37 108 3.37
Senegal 109 3.36 109 3.36
Mongolia 110 3.36 110 3.36
Pakistan 111 3.26 111 3.26
Vietnam 112 3.24 112 3.24
Russian Federation 113 3.16 113 3.16
Guyana 114 3.13 114 3.13
Japan 115 3.10 115 3.10
India 116 3.06 116 3.06
Egypt 117 3.05 117 3.05
Algeria 118 2.76 118 2.76
Côte d’Ivoire 119 2.74 119 2.74
Nigeria 120 2.72 120 2.72
Syria 121 2.25 121 2.25
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xx
Executive Summary
Table 3: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Border administration
PILLARS
BORDER 2. Efficiency of customs 3 Efficiency of import- 4. Transparency of
ADMINISTRATION administration export procedures border administration
Country/Economy Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
Singapore 1 6.49 1 6.43 1 6.46 4 6.57

Sweden 2 6.41 2 6.41 4 6.21 1 6.61
Denmark 3 6.31 4 6.00 2 6.33 2 6.59
Netherlands 4 6.04 5 5.94 9 5.94 7 6.22
New Zealand 5 5.95 8 5.71 20 5.58 3 6.57
Austria 6 5.92 3 6.04 18 5.72 11 6.00
Hong Kong SAR 7 5.89 14 5.42 3 6.26 12 5.98
Ireland 8 5.82 6 5.86 15 5.74 14 5.84
Finland 9 5.80 29 4.75 5 6.16 5 6.50
Switzerland 10 5.80 9 5.70 26 5.36 6 6.33
Germany 11 5.65 21 5.17 8 5.97 15 5.81
Canada 12 5.64 15 5.39 28 5.34 9 6.17
Japan 13 5.63 11 5.52 19 5.71 16 5.66
United Kingdom 14 5.62 7 5.75 21 5.56 18 5.53
United States 15 5.58 10 5.66 16 5.73 21 5.36
Estonia 16 5.58 13 5.44 7 6.03 24 5.27
Australia 17 5.54 24 5.14 32 5.27 8 6.20
Norway 18 5.47 35 4.35 6 6.09 13 5.97
France 19 5.46 25 5.11 10 5.92 22 5.35
United Arab Emirates 20 5.34 19 5.19 14 5.78 26 5.06
Chile 21 5.31 20 5.19 40 5.17 17 5.58
Korea, Rep. 22 5.28 18 5.27 13 5.80 33 4.79
Israel 23 5.25 27 5.04 17 5.73 28 4.99
Luxembourg 24 5.19 49 3.98 24 5.48 10 6.11
Bahrain 25 5.17 16 5.31 23 5.50 35 4.69
Slovenia 26 5.16 12 5.46 59 4.73 23 5.28
Taiwan, China 27 5.15 23 5.15 27 5.35 30 4.93
xx Spain 28 5.07 26 5.06 41 5.14 27 5.00
Belgium 29 5.02 33 4.38 34 5.24 19 5.43
Czech Republic 30 4.92 17 5.28 44 5.12 36 4.35
Hungary 31 4.69 28 4.90 53 4.85 38 4.32
Tunisia 32 4.67 30 4.49 39 5.18 37 4.35
Malaysia 33 4.66 44 4.17 22 5.51 40 4.31
Qatar 34 4.63 69 3.42 43 5.13 20 5.36
Portugal 35 4.63 59 3.66 31 5.28 29 4.95
Jordan 36 4.62 34 4.35 54 4.81 34 4.69
Mauritius 37 4.62 37 4.30 35 5.23 39 4.32
Saudi Arabia 38 4.61 31 4.46 25 5.45 51 3.94
Latvia 39 4.60 39 4.27 33 5.25 41 4.28
Slovak Republic 40 4.52 22 5.17 80 4.26 44 4.12
Thailand 41 4.48 43 4.19 11 5.85 67 3.41
Lithuania 42 4.46 48 4.03 29 5.29 48 4.06
China 43 4.43 45 4.15 30 5.28 55 3.85
Romania 44 4.39 42 4.22 45 5.05 54 3.88
Poland 45 4.37 55 3.73 36 5.20 43 4.17
Costa Rica 46 4.31 41 4.23 65 4.62 46 4.10
Cyprus 47 4.31 46 4.15 98 3.66 25 5.12
Italy 48 4.25 53 3.79 47 4.98 50 3.99
Oman 49 4.23 62 3.56 74 4.31 32 4.83
Panama 50 4.22 73 3.27 12 5.85 63 3.53
Morocco 51 4.21 40 4.24 56 4.77 62 3.62
Croatia 52 4.16 47 4.14 68 4.52 56 3.82
Uruguay 53 4.15 68 3.42 87 4.10 31 4.92
South Africa 54 4.12 38 4.29 94 3.85 42 4.23
Guatemala 55 4.07 32 4.40 85 4.11 57 3.71
Turkey 56 4.05 72 3.29 46 4.98 53 3.89
Greece 57 3.99 81 3.02 51 4.88 47 4.07
India 58 3.94 51 3.83 62 4.67 70 3.32
Peru 59 3.93 79 3.12 61 4.68 49 4.00
Albania 60 3.91 60 3.63 64 4.65 66 3.44
El Salvador 61 3.90 78 3.12 52 4.87 58 3.70
Mexico 62 3.87 52 3.80 78 4.27 64 3.53
Pakistan 63 3.85 56 3.73 57 4.76 80 3.06
Dominican Republic 64 3.80 76 3.18 42 5.13 77 3.11
Egypt 65 3.78 77 3.17 38 5.18 91 2.97
Indonesia 66 3.75 75 3.18 37 5.18 94 2.89
(Cont’d.)
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xxi
Executive Summary
Table 3: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Border administration (cont’d.)
PILLARS
Sri Lanka 67 3.75 71 3.31 55 4.78 75 3.15

Philippines 68 3.72 54 3.77 48 4.92 115 2.48
Bulgaria 69 3.64 61 3.61 79 4.27 82 3.05
Gambia, The 70 3.63 80 3.10 60 4.70 78 3.10
Macedonia, FYR 71 3.60 101 2.51 63 4.66 61 3.64
Moldova 72 3.59 67 3.45 97 3.66 59 3.67
Jamaica 73 3.59 65 3.47 72 4.32 87 2.99
Colombia 74 3.55 89 2.69 75 4.30 60 3.66
Bolivia 75 3.55 63 3.55 89 4.09 85 3.00
Senegal 76 3.54 82 2.97 58 4.75 93 2.91
Brazil 77 3.53 98 2.57 67 4.57 65 3.45
Kuwait 78 3.52 112 2.23 69 4.42 52 3.91
Namibia 79 3.47 84 2.91 101 3.39 45 4.11
Ghana 80 3.45 102 2.49 66 4.59 72 3.28
Bosnia and Herzegovina 81 3.44 96 2.61 50 4.88 97 2.82
Honduras 82 3.42 95 2.63 71 4.36 71 3.28
Nicaragua 83 3.38 92 2.67 70 4.40 81 3.06
Argentina 84 3.35 83 2.93 77 4.29 96 2.83
Vietnam 85 3.28 117 2.17 49 4.90 99 2.78
Madagascar 86 3.26 111 2.23 76 4.29 73 3.25
Armenia 87 3.25 64 3.49 99 3.59 106 2.67
Algeria 88 3.24 105 2.40 88 4.10 74 3.23
Ethiopia 89 3.22 50 3.93 109 2.59 76 3.14
Mozambique 90 3.21 87 2.78 92 3.88 92 2.96
Syria 91 3.17 94 2.63 81 4.25 107 2.63
Tanzania 92 3.17 113 2.21 73 4.32 90 2.98
Paraguay 93 3.16 86 2.88 95 3.85 102 2.76
Guyana 94 3.14 100 2.51 84 4.14 103 2.76 xxi
Ukraine 95 3.07 110 2.24 91 3.95 84 3.02
Cameroon 96 3.07 93 2.66 90 4.02 113 2.52
Malawi 97 3.06 66 3.46 111 2.34 68 3.39
Cambodia 98 3.00 91 2.67 86 4.10 118 2.23
Uganda 99 2.99 70 3.41 106 2.94 108 2.61
Nigeria 100 2.98 107 2.36 96 3.76 98 2.81
Benin 101 2.97 118 2.03 93 3.88 86 3.00
Zambia 102 2.96 57 3.68 112 2.21 89 2.99
Azerbaijan 103 2.91 36 4.35 118 1.79 112 2.58
Bangladesh 104 2.88 115 2.20 82 4.24 119 2.20
Lesotho 105 2.84 99 2.53 100 3.41 110 2.58
Russian Federation 106 2.82 74 3.20 107 2.67 109 2.59
Ecuador 107 2.80 121 1.74 83 4.15 114 2.50
Kenya 108 2.77 109 2.30 102 3.33 105 2.67
Mongolia 109 2.71 88 2.75 108 2.60 101 2.76
Mauritania 110 2.67 116 2.19 103 3.14 104 2.68
Mali 111 2.64 108 2.35 110 2.49 79 3.09
Burkina Faso 112 2.64 97 2.60 116 1.95 69 3.37
Nepal 113 2.58 119 2.00 105 2.98 100 2.78
Burundi 114 2.57 85 2.90 117 1.94 95 2.86
Côte d’Ivoire 115 2.55 114 2.21 104 3.05 116 2.40
Kyrgyz Republic 116 2.46 58 3.67 121 1.33 117 2.38
Zimbabwe 117 2.42 90 2.67 115 2.02 111 2.58
Tajikistan 118 2.40 104 2.45 119 1.71 83 3.03
Kazakhstan 119 2.27 106 2.39 120 1.42 88 2.99
Venezuela 120 2.25 103 2.46 114 2.10 120 2.18
Chad 121 2.00 120 1.94 113 2.12 121 1.95
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xxii
Executive Summary
Table 4: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Transport and communications infrastructure
PILLARS
TRANSPORT AND COMMUNI- 5. Availability and quality 6. Availability and quality 7. Availability and
CATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE of transport infrastructure of transport services use of ICTs
Germany 1 5.77 8 5.28 3 5.85 3 6.20

Netherlands 2 5.64 14 5.12 2 5.91 10 5.89
Singapore 3 5.64 12 5.14 1 5.96 11 5.83
Sweden 4 5.63 6 5.35 11 5.30 2 6.25
Hong Kong SAR 5 5.57 11 5.15 6 5.55 6 6.00
Austria 6 5.55 9 5.20 5 5.76 15 5.69
France 7 5.54 1 5.83 10 5.33 24 5.47
Denmark 8 5.50 5 5.44 17 4.97 4 6.10
Switzerland 9 5.49 18 5.04 12 5.17 1 6.27
United States 10 5.48 3 5.54 14 5.08 12 5.81
United Kingdom 11 5.47 21 4.96 7 5.50 8 5.95
Belgium 12 5.45 7 5.33 8 5.47 19 5.56
Luxembourg 13 5.41 19 5.02 13 5.16 5 6.04
Australia 14 5.39 17 5.07 9 5.43 17 5.67
Japan 15 5.38 23 4.77 4 5.84 21 5.52
Finland 16 5.37 4 5.50 18 4.89 13 5.72
Canada 17 5.27 2 5.58 25 4.64 18 5.58
Spain 18 5.13 15 5.12 15 5.06 26 5.21
Taiwan, China 19 5.12 26 4.65 22 4.73 7 5.97
Norway 20 5.11 10 5.17 35 4.22 9 5.93
Korea, Rep. 21 4.99 29 4.55 23 4.72 14 5.70
New Zealand 22 4.97 20 4.97 31 4.40 20 5.54
Ireland 23 4.94 31 4.47 20 4.84 22 5.50
Italy 25 4.75 50 3.98 21 4.80 23 5.48
Portugal 26 4.74 28 4.64 24 4.70 29 4.87
Estonia 27 4.64 40 4.20 42 4.03 16 5.68
xxii Cyprus 28 4.60 16 5.08 40 4.07 32 4.66
Malaysia 29 4.59 22 4.95 16 5.00 43 3.82
Greece 30 4.58 24 4.74 29 4.58 35 4.41
Slovenia 31 4.55 34 4.37 33 4.30 28 4.99
Israel 32 4.37 54 3.88 43 3.96 25 5.28
Slovak Republic 33 4.36 41 4.15 28 4.60 37 4.34
Hungary 34 4.34 60 3.73 26 4.64 31 4.66
Czech Republic 35 4.32 46 4.09 34 4.26 33 4.61
Lithuania 36 4.28 35 4.34 55 3.68 30 4.81
Croatia 37 4.18 42 4.12 37 4.16 38 4.26
China 38 4.16 30 4.48 19 4.87 60 3.12
Latvia 39 4.09 37 4.31 45 3.93 40 4.04
Thailand 40 4.07 33 4.39 27 4.62 59 3.19
Bahrain 41 4.07 36 4.31 63 3.50 36 4.38
Qatar 42 4.04 47 4.08 60 3.54 34 4.49
Chile 43 3.87 48 4.05 51 3.82 44 3.73
Panama 44 3.75 27 4.65 70 3.34 57 3.26
Oman 45 3.74 43 4.12 32 4.33 74 2.77
Poland 46 3.71 83 3.16 49 3.85 39 4.12
Saudi Arabia 47 3.70 55 3.86 52 3.81 53 3.42
Bulgaria 48 3.68 77 3.31 53 3.79 41 3.95
Turkey 49 3.65 62 3.66 48 3.86 52 3.42
South Africa 50 3.62 44 4.11 44 3.95 72 2.81
Romania 51 3.62 84 3.15 41 4.06 46 3.63
Jordan 52 3.61 59 3.78 39 4.10 65 2.96
Jamaica 53 3.56 58 3.79 76 3.22 45 3.68
Kuwait 54 3.55 70 3.57 79 3.17 42 3.92
Mauritius 55 3.55 32 4.44 106 2.77 49 3.44
Macedonia, FYR 57 3.46 65 3.62 59 3.56 58 3.21
Moldova 58 3.46 75 3.39 38 4.15 71 2.83
Tunisia 59 3.46 39 4.21 74 3.24 67 2.92
Ukraine 60 3.43 63 3.65 77 3.22 51 3.43
Armenia 61 3.42 69 3.58 50 3.83 70 2.85
Azerbaijan 62 3.40 45 4.11 62 3.51 80 2.59
Kazakhstan 63 3.39 49 4.05 75 3.23 68 2.88
India 64 3.36 51 3.98 46 3.89 93 2.20
Morocco 65 3.36 52 3.95 67 3.43 76 2.69
Egypt 66 3.35 53 3.90 58 3.62 81 2.52
(Cont’d.)
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xxiii
Executive Summary
Table 4: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Transport and communications infrastructure (cont’d.)
PILLARS
Argentina 67 3.33 91 2.99 66 3.44 47 3.57

Brazil 68 3.33 93 2.99 56 3.66 54 3.35
Sri Lanka 69 3.29 38 4.28 81 3.15 84 2.43
Costa Rica 70 3.24 66 3.61 103 2.86 56 3.26
Vietnam 71 3.24 108 2.59 36 4.17 66 2.96
Guatemala 72 3.22 81 3.24 69 3.35 61 3.07
Mexico 74 3.20 85 3.12 65 3.48 63 2.99
Namibia 75 3.16 25 4.71 115 2.59 95 2.16
Colombia 76 3.13 76 3.31 84 3.10 64 2.98
Philippines 77 3.09 92 2.99 47 3.88 86 2.41
Uruguay 78 3.09 99 2.83 101 2.95 48 3.48
Indonesia 79 3.04 82 3.24 54 3.69 91 2.21
Pakistan 80 3.04 56 3.84 80 3.15 98 2.14
Senegal 81 3.01 72 3.45 72 3.33 89 2.26
Honduras 82 3.01 71 3.48 104 2.86 77 2.68
Venezuela 83 3.01 96 2.88 86 3.09 62 3.05
Gambia, The 84 3.00 57 3.80 97 3.00 90 2.21
Kyrgyz Republic 86 2.98 61 3.68 87 3.09 94 2.17
Ecuador 87 2.97 86 3.10 78 3.21 79 2.61
Syria 88 2.96 74 3.44 96 3.00 83 2.44
Peru 89 2.94 90 3.02 90 3.08 75 2.72
Algeria 90 2.90 68 3.58 111 2.70 85 2.42
El Salvador 91 2.90 98 2.87 93 3.03 73 2.79
Guyana 92 2.90 107 2.59 108 2.75 55 3.34
Kenya 93 2.88 78 3.30 73 3.26 99 2.07
Albania 94 2.82 97 2.87 85 3.10 82 2.48 xxiii
Mongolia 95 2.82 67 3.60 112 2.70 96 2.16
Ethiopia 96 2.71 80 3.25 71 3.33 121 1.54
Côte d’Ivoire 97 2.70 95 2.93 95 3.01 97 2.15
Uganda 98 2.61 87 3.08 89 3.09 118 1.65
Benin 99 2.60 114 2.44 61 3.51 111 1.85
Nigeria 100 2.60 112 2.49 92 3.05 88 2.26
Burkina Faso 101 2.58 89 3.02 98 3.00 116 1.73
Ghana 102 2.56 79 3.26 119 2.49 107 1.92
Paraguay 103 2.56 104 2.72 113 2.62 87 2.33
Cameroon 104 2.55 94 2.95 107 2.77 108 1.92
Nicaragua 105 2.54 100 2.81 102 2.87 103 1.94
Bolivia 106 2.53 88 3.06 116 2.59 106 1.93
Nepal 107 2.51 101 2.81 88 3.09 120 1.63
Bangladesh 108 2.50 102 2.78 105 2.79 102 1.95
Cambodia 109 2.50 105 2.71 91 3.05 115 1.75
Mauritania 110 2.47 117 2.24 82 3.15 100 2.03
Zambia 111 2.45 111 2.53 100 2.98 110 1.86
Malawi 112 2.44 109 2.58 83 3.12 119 1.63
Mali 113 2.40 116 2.29 94 3.02 109 1.87
Zimbabwe 114 2.38 106 2.60 109 2.74 113 1.78
Madagascar 115 2.37 103 2.72 118 2.56 112 1.82
Tajikistan 116 2.37 118 2.18 110 2.71 92 2.21
Mozambique 117 2.36 110 2.54 114 2.60 105 1.93
Lesotho 118 2.33 120 2.02 99 2.98 101 1.99
Tanzania 119 2.25 115 2.36 121 2.44 104 1.94
Burundi 120 2.16 119 2.13 117 2.57 114 1.77
Chad 121 1.96 121 1.70 120 2.47 117 1.70
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xxiv
Executive Summary
Table 5: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Business environment
PILLARS
BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT 8. Regulatory environment 9. Physical security
Country/Economy Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
Finland 1 6.29 3 5.88 1 6.70

Denmark 2 6.15 2 5.92 4 6.38
Singapore 3 6.13 1 6.13 9 6.12
Hong Kong SAR 4 6.08 6 5.67 3 6.48
Norway 5 6.02 10 5.50 2 6.54
Switzerland 6 6.01 5 5.77 6 6.24
Sweden 7 5.90 4 5.79 13 6.01
Austria 8 5.89 13 5.40 5 6.37
Luxembourg 9 5.89 8 5.53 7 6.24
Germany 10 5.75 12 5.42 11 6.07
New Zealand 11 5.75 9 5.52 15 5.97
Qatar 12 5.70 17 5.23 8 6.18
United Arab Emirates 13 5.68 15 5.25 10 6.10
Australia 14 5.62 11 5.49 23 5.75
Netherlands 15 5.59 7 5.66 31 5.52
Ireland 16 5.59 14 5.34 18 5.83
Canada 17 5.52 16 5.25 21 5.79
Cyprus 18 5.45 24 4.89 12 6.02
Oman 19 5.43 21 4.98 16 5.88
Belgium 20 5.40 20 4.98 20 5.82
Tunisia 21 5.40 18 5.00 22 5.79
Jordan 22 5.36 30 4.73 14 5.99
France 23 5.26 22 4.93 29 5.59
Estonia 24 5.25 29 4.77 24 5.72
Portugal 25 5.21 36 4.57 17 5.85
Korea, Rep. 26 5.16 27 4.80 32 5.52
Bahrain 27 5.14 28 4.78 34 5.50
Gambia, The 28 5.13 32 4.65 27 5.60
xxiv Chile 29 5.09 37 4.56 26 5.61
Taiwan, China 30 5.03 34 4.59 37 5.47
Japan 31 5.02 26 4.83 44 5.21
Mauritius 32 5.00 33 4.64 40 5.36
Malaysia 33 4.96 25 4.86 49 5.06
Kuwait 34 4.90 43 4.21 28 5.60
Slovenia 35 4.89 44 4.16 25 5.62
United States 36 4.85 23 4.90 63 4.80
Syria 37 4.83 66 3.83 19 5.83
Spain 38 4.82 40 4.44 45 5.19
United Kingdom 39 4.81 19 5.00 73 4.62
Uruguay 40 4.76 38 4.48 50 5.04
Lithuania 41 4.75 54 3.97 33 5.52
Saudi Arabia 42 4.73 31 4.73 68 4.73
Latvia 43 4.72 56 3.96 36 5.48
Egypt 44 4.71 49 4.05 39 5.37
Hungary 45 4.70 58 3.90 35 5.49
Azerbaijan 46 4.68 59 3.90 38 5.45
Greece 47 4.65 53 3.98 41 5.33
Malawi 48 4.60 47 4.10 48 5.11
China 49 4.58 45 4.15 52 5.02
Czech Republic 50 4.58 61 3.90 43 5.27
Slovak Republic 51 4.56 52 3.99 47 5.13
Senegal 52 4.55 87 3.56 30 5.53
India 53 4.51 46 4.13 57 4.88
Namibia 54 4.51 42 4.29 70 4.72
Croatia 55 4.49 77 3.64 42 5.33
Israel 56 4.46 39 4.47 83 4.46
Ghana 57 4.44 63 3.86 51 5.03
Costa Rica 58 4.44 41 4.38 80 4.51
Thailand 59 4.44 48 4.09 64 4.79
Indonesia 60 4.43 55 3.97 56 4.89
Vietnam 61 4.40 64 3.86 54 4.94
Zambia 62 4.39 57 3.92 59 4.87
Morocco 63 4.38 51 4.01 66 4.76
Armenia 64 4.33 91 3.50 46 5.16
Romania 65 4.28 85 3.60 53 4.95
Italy 66 4.27 84 3.60 55 4.93
Tanzania 67 4.24 73 3.67 61 4.80
(Cont’d.)
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xxv
Executive Summary
Table 5: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Business environment (cont’d.)
PILLARS
Mali 68 4.23 72 3.72 69 4.73

Burkina Faso 69 4.22 67 3.83 75 4.61
Tajikistan 70 4.22 80 3.63 62 4.80
Panama 71 4.21 60 3.90 79 4.52
Ethiopia 72 4.20 81 3.62 65 4.78
Moldova 73 4.16 94 3.45 58 4.87
Benin 74 4.16 82 3.62 71 4.70
Turkey 75 4.15 65 3.85 84 4.46
South Africa 76 4.14 35 4.59 105 3.70
Kazakhstan 77 4.10 75 3.66 78 4.55
Macedonia, FYR 78 4.09 86 3.58 77 4.60
Nicaragua 79 4.01 106 3.19 60 4.83
Poland 80 3.99 88 3.52 82 4.46
Cameroon 81 3.97 103 3.25 72 4.69
Madagascar 82 3.93 90 3.51 86 4.34
Albania 83 3.91 105 3.20 74 4.62
Honduras 84 3.91 68 3.81 95 4.01
Ukraine 85 3.87 107 3.14 76 4.61
Bosnia and Herzegovina 86 3.87 113 3.00 67 4.74
Cambodia 87 3.85 89 3.52 89 4.18
Mauritania 88 3.84 102 3.27 85 4.41
Jamaica 89 3.83 62 3.86 102 3.80
Sri Lanka 90 3.82 50 4.02 109 3.63
Mongolia 91 3.81 108 3.14 81 4.48
Algeria 92 3.81 101 3.29 87 4.33
Brazil 93 3.79 95 3.43 90 4.14
Uganda 94 3.76 92 3.50 93 4.02
Peru 95 3.70 79 3.64 103 3.76
Russian Federation 96 3.70 109 3.13 88 4.27 xxv
Bulgaria 97 3.68 99 3.31 91 4.04
Mexico 98 3.67 78 3.64 106 3.69
Dominican Republic 99 3.64 97 3.39 99 3.88
Philippines 100 3.63 98 3.32 97 3.94
Lesotho 101 3.63 96 3.40 100 3.85
Pakistan 102 3.58 76 3.65 112 3.52
Colombia 103 3.58 71 3.73 114 3.43
El Salvador 104 3.58 70 3.78 115 3.37
Kenya 105 3.58 83 3.61 111 3.55
Nigeria 106 3.57 74 3.67 113 3.47
Mozambique 107 3.56 100 3.29 101 3.82
Kyrgyz Republic 108 3.53 111 3.09 96 3.96
Guatemala 109 3.50 69 3.81 119 3.20
Bangladesh 110 3.42 110 3.11 104 3.73
Argentina 111 3.42 117 2.80 92 4.04
Ecuador 112 3.36 116 2.80 98 3.91
Guyana 113 3.34 93 3.46 118 3.22
Burundi 114 3.30 114 2.95 108 3.65
Paraguay 115 3.22 115 2.86 110 3.57
Zimbabwe 116 3.17 120 2.33 94 4.02
Nepal 117 3.17 104 3.21 121 3.12
Bolivia 118 3.16 118 2.64 107 3.68
Côte d’Ivoire 119 3.15 112 3.03 117 3.27
Chad 120 2.96 119 2.58 116 3.34
Venezuela 121 2.61 121 2.09 120 3.13
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xxvi
Executive Summary
Taiwan, China and Korea, Rep. follow at 25th India occupies the 76th position, reflecting a mixed
and 26th, respectively, among the countries covered. Both performance on the four pillars. Although the country
economies boast very good infrastructure. In addition, has a fairly good border administration and business envi-
infrastructure-related services are efficient and widely ronment, domestic and foreign market access continues
available, and the use of ICTs is widespread.Traders to be significantly restricted. India ranks 116th on the
benefit particularly from efficient customs administration applicable component, with tariff barriers representing
in Korea, while Taiwan is doing especially well on the a more serious impediment than non-tariff barriers.
use of ICTs, which improves the connectivity of com- India’s border administration meets many needs of
panies and the ability to track consignments. Both importers and exporters, although it continues to be
economies are, however, hampered by restricted access affected by corrupt practices.Trade-related transport
to domestic and foreign markets and a regulatory envi- infrastructure and the relevant services are equally fairly
ronment that does not facilitate the entry of foreign well developed in India, ranking 51st and 46th, respec-
investment and labor. tively.The country is well connected through maritime
Malaysia occupies the 28th position in the ETI routes, although it needs more airports and high-quality
rankings. Efficient import procedures, a low cost of roads. India could also benefit from improvement in ease
importing and exporting goods, and the quality of of hiring foreign labor as well as reduced business costs
transport infrastructure and related transport services of terrorism.
all contribute to this good rating, particularly given the
country’s level of development. Improvements to the Europe and North America
transparency of border administration as well as less The world’s biggest exporter, Germany ranks 12th
congested roads would further enhance the country’s overall.The country is the world leader on the quality
strengths.The regulatory framework also provides a of transport infrastructure, in particular thanks to high
good trading environment by means of efficient govern- levels of maritime connectivity.There exists some room
ment operations and fair domestic competition policies. for improvement in terms of customs administration,
Improving the usage of the latest ICTs and lowering particularly an upgrading of customs services. As for the
business costs of terrorism would allow the country to regulatory environment (12th), Germany ranks reason-
xxvi even further reap the harvest of international trade. ably well on all the indicators, with the exception of the
China ranks 49th among the countries covered. openness to foreign participation where it places 25th
This ranking underscores a number of characteristics in because of the difficulty of hiring foreign labor (76th).
China’s economy and its trading regime. China relies Market access is Germany’s Achilles’ heel, where it ranks
heavily on its successful export performance, although lower than most EU countries because of the pervasive-
imports are still significantly inhibited by tariff barriers. ness of non-tariff measures.
The country performs particularly well in its low cost The United States comes in at 16th position
to import and export (3rd). Furthermore, because of overall. Its performance is uneven across the nine pillars
large trade volumes, the country is extremely well con- of the Index.The country obtains high rankings for the
nected to international markets through its vast port quality of transport infrastructure (3rd) and the associated
facilities, with the services provided by liner companies services (14th), as well as for the availability and use of
being second to none. However, improvement in the ICTs (12th).The country also owes much to the extent
overall transport infrastructure—such as airport density and availability of customs services (2nd). Also praised
and the quality of air transport infrastructure—would are the efficiency of customs administration (10th) and
further facilitate the flow of goods across borders and of import and export procedures (16th). On a less posi-
to destinations within China, in particular to the inland tive note, the business environment is less supportive of
provinces. In addition, more transparency in border trade than it could be (36th). Among other issues, busi-
administration and improvements to the regulatory nesses voice their concern about the level of security and
environment that would allow more foreign participa- indicate that the threat of terrorism and crime and vio-
tion would help enable trade. lence impose significant costs. Finally, the United States
Indonesia comes in at 62nd place, reflecting a ranks 49th in the market access component. Although
pretty balanced performance on all four pillars of the only a small share of goods is subjected to duties and
Index.The flow of goods in and out of the country agricultural markets are less protected than in other
benefits from the low cost of import and export proce- countries, the US tariff structure is complex (89th) and
dures, as well as a regulatory environment that is fairly US exporters face some of the highest barriers in the
open toward foreign participation, although businesses are world.
concerned about the level of corruption at borders and France ranks 17th overall, helped by its strong
the high costs incurred to fight terrorism. Improvements performance in terms of quality of infrastructure across
in transport infrastructure and wide adoption of ICTs all modes. In addition, France is very well connected
would tremendously help the country to better connect to major maritime trade routes. Efficient border admin-
with its trading partners. istration (19th) constitutes another of France’s relative
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xxvii
Executive Summary
strengths. France ranks 1st for the number of documents procedures are not among the least costly and rapid
required for import and export—only two signatures (40th), transport infrastructure and the related services
need to be obtained. But there is room for improve- are below international standards, and the availability
ment, notably in reducing the cost to import and and use of ICTs is not on a par with countries at the
export, and also, to a lesser extent, in making customs same level of development. On a more positive note, the
procedures more transparent. France’s regulatory country is very open to foreign participation.
environment is quite favorable, although the business Costa Rica’s ranking of 43rd certainly reflects
community voices some concern about the efficiency efforts undertaken in the past decades.The country
of government operations (35th), security (29th), and— ranks a very high 5th in terms of domestic and foreign
most importantly—about limited openness toward for- market access because of its relatively low tariff and non-
eign participation (50th). Finally, in line with its fellow tariff barriers, its simple and transparent tariff structure,
EU members, market access is restricted (89th). and the fairly low tariff barriers faced by exporters in
With the exception of the market access pillar target markets.The country’s trade performance also
where it ranks a low 79th, the United Kingdom’s benefits from a favorable regulatory environment (41st).
performance (20th) mirrors that of the United States. Yet, although Costa Rica’s trade policy is firmly geared
The efficiency of border administration (14th) and the toward openness, streamlining import and export proce-
quality of infrastructure (11th) are the country’s two dures, upgrading the quality of infrastructure and that of
major strengths, while the quality of the business envi- related services, and reducing the cost to business result-
ronment is affected by security concerns.The business ing from crime and violence could contribute to further
community shares the same concern as its American boosting the country’s trade performance by lowering
counterpart about the costs associated with the threat the transaction costs associated with trade.
of terrorism (112th) as well as crime and violence Mexico ranks 74th in this year’s ETI.The results
(81st). show that, despite the country’s past export success,
The Russian Federation ranks a low 109th.There there remains untapped potential for further enabling
is only one pillar—availability and use of ICTs—where trade, which continues to be hampered by a number of
the country appears in the top half of the ranking (50th). barriers related to trade policy, border administration,
In all categories, the need for improvement is huge.The and physical security. Moreover, trade policy continues xxvii
main area of concern is the extremely restricted access to be heavily biased toward protectionism, and although
to markets (113th). Not yet a WTO member, Russia import and export procedures have been streamlined,
has import tariffs that average 15 percent (114th) overall, they remain costly.The most serious challenge to be
and 26 percent (106th) on agricultural imports.The addressed, however, concerns the government’s inability
complexity of the tariff structure is also extremely high to provide the required level of physical security, a prob-
(90th). Barriers to market access are likely to diminish in lem that has been affecting the country for a number of
the process of joining the WTO. Russia also does poorly years and has been increasingly exacerbated by drug-
with respect to border administration (106th), as reflected related conflicts. On a positive note, Mexico’s exporters
in the results associated with import and export proce- enjoy rather low tariffs for their products in target mar-
dures, which are bleak by every measure, and with low kets and benefit from high margins of preference. Some
levels of transparency. Russia’s business environment aspects of transport infrastructure and the related servic-
(96th) is not particularly welcoming to international es are also assessed positively, in particular those related
participation either, especially with respect to investments to maritime shipping services and services offered by
(the country ranks 119th for the measure of openness to the logistics industry. Mexico also benefits from its
foreign ownership). Furthermore, executives have little openness to foreign participation. Further enabling mar-
trust in the government and doubts about its ability to ket access and restoring physical security would allow
enforce law and order. On a positive note, Russia does Mexico to benefit from these advantages.
somewhat better on the use of ICTs. Latin America’s largest economy, Brazil, ranks 87th
for enabling trade across borders.This low ranking is a
Latin America and the Caribbean reflection of Brazil’s varied performance across the nine
Chile, ranked 19th, leads the rankings in Latin America pillars of the ETI.The country displays strengths in the
and the Caribbean by a considerable margin.This excel- quality of transport services and the use and prevalence
lent showing is not surprising, given Chile’s role as Latin of the latest technologies.To a somewhat lesser extent,
America’s leading example on how to benefit from this also holds true for the transparency and efficiency
global trade and investment linkages.The country has of overall border procedures, although dealing with cus-
shown commitment to free trade by reducing the com- toms appears to be burdensome.These positive aspects
plexity of tariffs (2nd) and successfully negotiating access are partially offset by the level of protection in Brazil,
to foreign markets for domestic exporters, who face less which remains relatively high, in particular for agricul-
tariff burdens than in any other country covered by the tural products. Other areas to be addressed include the
Index.Yet, despite these pronounced strengths, border quality of transport infrastructure (93rd) across all modes
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xxviii
Executive Summary
of transport as well as making the business environment ity and availability of facilities remains behind standards
and the overall security situation more conducive to found in countries at a similar level of development.
trade (93rd). Tunisia ranks 41st overall for enabling trade across
Argentina ranks 97th in the ETI. Its position borders.Weaknesses in trade policy (70th) are partially
mirrors a mixed performance across the four pillars. compensated for by an effective customs administration
To further enable trade, Argentina will have to address (30th), fairly efficient import-export procedures (39th),
a number of challenges, most importantly those related and a propitious regulatory environment (18th).
to the regulatory environment and physical security. Nevertheless, a number of weaknesses remain.Tunisia
Upgrading the country’s infrastructure, in particular imposes high tariffs on imports. It ranks 119th on tariffs
for transport by air, would further contribute to lower- for both agricultural and non-agricultural products—
ing the transport cost of goods. At the same time, the in absolute terms, the tariffs on agricultural products
country can build on a number of important strengths. amount to 56 percent ad valorem—and subjects a large
Here the positive assessments of ICT infrastructure, the majority of its imports to tariffs (over 75 percent, ranking
quality of transport services, and to a lesser degree also 93rd). In addition to the high level of tariffs, businesses
the efficiency of import-export procedures are worth face a complex tariff structure.While further reduction
noting. Furthermore, the competitiveness of Argentina’s in tariffs would be desirable,Tunisia has very successfully
exporters is supported by reasonably low tariffs faced improved access to the main target markets for its
abroad and a considerable margin of preference in key exporters, mainly through preferential trading agreements
target markets. with the European Union, currently the destination for
about 80 percent of the country’s exports. In addition,
Middle East and North Africa the country has preferential access to its main markets
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) leads the rankings with a fairly high preference margin (rank 21). Last but
for the region at 18th position.The country boasts a not least, importers and exporters alike would benefit
very efficient and transparent border administration from enhanced transport services.
and has one of the lowest costs to import and among Saudi Arabia ranks 42nd in the ETI, showing
the least burdensome customs procedures of all countries solid performance across many indicators in the analysis.
xxviii covered, ranking 5th and 6th, respectively, on the rele- Import and export procedures, including customs, are
vant indicators. Further strengths include an excellent relatively efficient by international comparison, ranking
transport infrastructure (13th) and a regulatory environ- 31st and 25th, respectively. Among other strengths is the
ment that is particularly conducive to trade, the result of country’s regulatory environment, which is supportive
its strong institutional framework and also of its open- of trade (31st) because of a transparent and efficient
ness to foreign participation (19th). Last but not least, institutional framework, which compensates for the rela-
the country is relatively secure (ranking 10th). tive lack of openness to foreign participation. However,
Strengthening the country’s position on the Index Index results also indicate that physical security in gener-
would require further lowering tariff barriers, in particu- al and the threat of terrorism in particular impose signif-
lar for agricultural tariff products, although it has the icant cost on businesses. Enhancing the use of ICTs and
advantage of a very simple tariff structure. Also, further the availability and the quality of transport services
preferential agreements with main markets would help would also be beneficial.Yet most of all, further enabling
lower the relatively high tariffs faced by the country in trade in Saudi Arabia will require opening domestic
its target markets. markets to trade, in particular in agricultural products,
Israel enters the ETI rankings at 29th place. where the country ranks a low 83rd.Tariff reductions
Following its gradual liberalization over the past years, are under way as commitments of WTO membership
Israel presently has a reasonably open trade policy with are being implemented over a 10-year period (since
the exception of agricultural policies, which remain 2005).
protective of local producers, ranking 102nd in the Egypt ranks 75th for the ease of getting goods
ETI sample.The country’s border procedures are not across the border and to destination.The country’s most
perceived as burdensome, the cost of importing and notable strengths include a business environment that is
exporting is among the lowest among the countries fairly conducive to trade. In particular, it is easy to hire
assessed, and the widespread use of ICTs (25th) facilitates foreign labor, and the business cost of threats to security
communication and customs clearance. Although the is assessed as low. Despite efforts to liberalize trade over
regulatory environment is fairly open to foreign owner- the past years, trade policy in Egypt remains rather pro-
ship, the lack of physical security, and in particular the tectionist. Egypt applies very high tariff rates (particularly
threat of terrorism, imposes a significant cost on on some agricultural products), and the tariff structure is
importers and exporters; addressing these issues would complex. In terms of border administration, although
assist in enabling trade. Israel’s trade could be additionally importing goods into Egypt is neither costly nor time
enabled though investment in infrastructure, as the qual- consuming, importers raise concerns about the efficiency
of customs and, to an even greater extent, of other border
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xxix
Executive Summary
agencies. On a positive note, Egypt boasts fairly well its transport services and further open the economy to
developed transport infrastructure (53rd) including the foreign participation.
related services (58th). South Africa enters the ranking at 61st position.
Algeria ranks 112th in the overall ETI.The country The country’s relatively good marks on transport and
remains fairly sheltered from international competition, communications infrastructure and border administra-
despite its ongoing efforts to join the WTO. Market tion are offset by weaknesses in market access and in its
access remains restricted (118th on the market access security environment. South Africa has pursued a trade
component), yet tariffs are likely to be lowered signifi- liberalization program since 1994, which contributed
cantly as Algeria advances toward WTO membership. significantly to opening its economy.Yet, although tariffs
WTO accession is also bound to lower the tariffs faced apply to relatively few import products, they remain
by Algerian exporters, which are currently among the rather high in international comparison and their struc-
highest among the countries covered in this study ture is complex. It is appropriate that a review of the
(116th). In addition to the restrictive trade policy, tariff structure to reduce complexity and lower tariffs for
importers and exporters in Algeria are burdened by a strategically important upstream sectors is under way.
fairly inefficient and opaque border administration, and a Other than that, South Africa boasts relatively efficient
cumbersome, time-consuming, and costly clearance infrastructure facilities, and the respective services are
process that affects customs as well as other border agen- also assessed as good.The country’s solid institutional
cies.Trade would also benefit from a more transparent framework, with an efficient government and well-
institutional framework, more domestic competition, defined property rights, is beneficial for importers and
and greater openness to foreign participation. exporters.The main areas of concern in South Africa
relate to the lack of physical security (105th) and insuffi-
Sub-Saharan Africa cient openness to foreign participation, in particular to
At 33rd position, Mauritius is, by a large margin, the hiring foreign labor.
highest-ranked country in sub-Saharan Africa.The open Senegal ranks 83rd overall for getting goods across
access to the country’s markets, the efficiency of the borders and to destination.The country’s strengths
border administration, and a regulatory environment include a secure and open business environment and
that is conducive to trade all contribute to this high relatively simple and fast import and export procedures. xxix
showing. Access to domestic and foreign markets is Imports benefit from the country’s very simple tariff
among the most open worldwide; a large share of structure (9th) with no tariff peaks and only four differ-
goods is imported duty-free, and tariff and non-tariff ent types of tariffs overall, which makes it transparent
barriers are reasonable. And although Mauritian and easy to navigate. However, the overall level of pro-
exporters face fairly high barriers abroad, they benefit tection remains high with respect to both tariff and
from a high margin of preference in their main target non-tariff barriers, ranking 90th and 94th, respectively.
markets. Against this overall very positive assessment In addition to lowering tariffs, to further benefit from
stand weaknesses in the quality of transport services that international trade Senegal should upgrade its institutional
make tracking and tracing difficult and lead to delays in framework, which is prone to undue influence (105th)
shipments; addressing these weaknesses would enhance and lack of transparency (101st). As a result, border
the country’s trade. Equally, more could be done to better administration is also heavily affected by corrupt prac-
leverage ICTs for development, where the country tices (93rd). More transparent border administration
ranks 49th. would improve revenue collection and allow the coun-
Namibia is placed at 60th position, the second-best try to further lower tariffs while maintaining current
nation in Africa in terms of enabling trade across borders. revenue levels.
This good showing mirrors the favorable results obtained Tanzania occupies the 92nd position in the ETI.
by Namibia in terms of market access, in particular its This result is based on a number of pronounced
high share of duty-free imports and high preference strengths and weaknesses throughout the nine pillars of
margins for exporters. Despite the fairly open access to the Index.While Tanzania has a relatively transparent
markets, Namibia’s trade is burdened by heavy adminis- and simple tariff structure (40th) and its exporters face
tration at the borders.The country ranks a low 84th and very low tariffs in target markets (5th), burdensome cus-
101st for the efficiency of customs procedures and over- toms and border administration represents a significant
all import-export procedures, respectively, although busi- hindrance for both importers and exporters. An upgraded
ness leaders attest that the lack of transparency is not a transport infrastructure as well as improved quality and
major problem. Additional strengths include the coun- availability of transport services along with more intense
try’s well-developed transport infrastructure and a regu- use of ICTs would enable the country to harvest the
latory environment that is more efficient and transparent benefits of international trade.
than in most neighboring countries.To further enable
trade, Namibia will have to address the poor quality of
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xxx
Executive Summary
General findings of the Enabling Trade Index interruption of trade credit and trade itself, as well as to
The results of the ETI show a strong correlation between ensure that the solutions proposed by the public sector
a country’s level of income and its ease of getting goods meet the demand from trade bankers and traders.The
across borders.Although this does not provide information WTO will continue to monitor developments with
about the direction of causality, high-income countries partner institutions and mobilize political energy.
on average tend to be more open to trade, have better In Chapter 1.3, entitled “Managing Borders in the
infrastructure facilities, and boast favorable business 21st Century,” Kunio Mikuriya from the World Customs
environments and efficient border administrations. Organization (WCO) takes a detailed look at a number
Low-income countries, on the other hand, tend to show of trade facilitation and border management instru-
weaknesses particularly with respect to ICT infrastruc- ments, tools, and measures developed by the WCO for
ture, along with a low transparency and efficiency of its members.The rapidly changing international trade
border administration and, in a number of countries, environment has placed numerous demands on the
less open trade policies. At the same time, regulatory customs community. Being faced with increasing calls
environments and physical security are at levels compa- to facilitate legitimate trade and secure the global trade
rable with the high-income group. In this sense, the supply chain at the same time has impelled customs to
results of the ETI provide support for the growing focus concentrate its efforts on managing national borders
on trade facilitation observed over recent decades in the more effectively both now and in preparation for the
activities of a number of international organizations, and future. Inefficient procedures, outdated information
they indicate which areas these programs and countries technology systems, and inadequate infrastructure result
should tackle as a priority. in high transaction costs and long delays in the clearance
of imports, exports, and transit goods; they also present
significant opportunities for administrative corruption at
Chapters summary borders.To overcome these barriers to trade, customs
This Report includes insightful contributions from a recognizes that its business model must become more
number of trade experts that examine different aspects responsive, have greater flexibility, generate even more
of enabling trade with particular reference to the global innovation, and actively champion a beneficial partner-
xxx financial crisis.These excellent contributions are highly ship with all legitimate economic operators.
relevant and complement the analysis of the ETI in Having developed an armory of trade facilitation
Chapter 1.1 and the Country/Economy Profiles found and border management instruments and tools, it is
in Part 2 of the Report. now up to the WCO to ensure their widespread imple-
In Chapter 1.2,“Finance for Trade: Efforts to Restart mentation while advancing the single window for trade
the Engine,” Marc Auboin from the WTO provides an and encouraging coordination and cooperation among
update on the trade finance situation in times following customs, other border agencies, and the business sector.
the financial crisis.Trade finance plays a key role in This is what smart border management is all about; this
bridging the time between production, shipment, and is how customs and its stakeholders can meet the
payment. Some 80–90 percent of world trade relies on demands of the dynamic 21st century global trading
some form of trade finance. However, as a by-product system.The author concludes that the future endeavors
of the financial crisis, there has been evidence of tight- of the WCO will be aimed at ensuring a more respon-
ening market conditions for trade finance since the first sive and strengthened customs community, as well as a
half of 2008.The situation worsened in the second half creative and flexible border management.
of the year, and even further in the first quarter of 2009. In Chapter 1.4, “IATA e-Freight:Taking the Paper
According to expectations revealed in market-based sur- Out of Air Cargo,” Steve Smith and Michael Moosberger
veys, there is little doubt that the trade finance market discuss in detail the IATA e-freight project, an initiative
will continue to experience difficulties throughout 2009. that aims at improving the effectiveness and efficiency
This situation is likely to contribute to deepening the of international airfreight. International air cargo trans-
global economic malaise. portation historically relies on outdated paper-based
Although public-backed institutions have responded processes that make it inherently inefficient. In an eco-
rapidly to the situation over the course of 2008, this has nomic environment that necessitates the air cargo supply
apparently not been enough to bridge the gap between chain to deliver faster speed, reduced costs, and increased
supply and demand of trade finance worldwide.This is reliability, IATA e-freight is a supply chain project to
why the G-20 Summit in London adopted a wider remove the paper associated with the transportation of
package for injecting some US$250 billion in support of air cargo.
trade finance. Since then, the market has not returned to IATA e-freight offers economies a common set of
normal, as indicated by the high spreads charged for processes and standards for the exchange of electronic
opening new letters of credit in many countries in the messages.The authors suggest that if the air cargo supply
world.The author concludes that the market situation chain is to continue to efficiently meet the needs of the
needs to be monitored closely in order to avoid any consumer through reduced costs, reliability, and
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xxxi
Executive Summary
improved transit time, economies must adopt a frame- countries from those covered in the survey: namely,
work based on common processes and standards rather Chile, the Philippines,Thailand,Tunisia, and Uganda.
than proprietary ones that would only add cost and The analysis of the survey data suggests that trade
complexity to the air cargo supply chain. In a globalized barriers vary considerably across countries, sectors, and
market, as manufacturers look to set themselves up in trading partners. Many obstacles to trade are concentrated
competitive market places, the project has a formal on specific sectors and are more prevalent in intrare-
delivery approach from how to assess a countries legal gional trade. Interestingly, the goods affected often enjoy
and technical capability and willingness through to the preferential tariff treatment by the destination country.
initial implementation, delivering significant benefits for At the same time, obstacles to trade can be associated
the air cargo supply chain and increasing the opportuni- with a lack of infrastructure and efficient procedures in
ties for increases in international trade. the country of origin.
In Chapter 1.5, entitled “A Tour of the Ongoing Sam Sidiqi and Fouad Alame from Agility, the
Work of the World Trade Organization on Trade authors of Chapter 1.7, “Enabling Trade: Relationship
Facilitation:The Traders’ Perspective,” John Simpson to Clusters and Setting an Openness Agenda,” consider
from the Global Express Association focuses on frequently ways that government and business sectors can use the
encountered trade barriers resulting from inefficient ETI to facilitate the implementation of trade enable-
customs procedures from the traders’ perspective.The ment more effectively. Governments have limitations
customs problems—including lack of transparency, of both monetary and political capital, which requires
procedural inefficiency, the absence of due process, that they choose which reforms and advances they can
and corruption—are well understood. Frameworks for feasibly make, given their constraints. An important area
correcting them have been constructed in both the to be explored is how government can make the most
WTO, in the form of the Doha Round’s trade facilita- strategic decisions to enable trade most effectively.The
tion negotiations; and the WCO, in the form of the authors discuss two frameworks linked to the ETI that
International Convention on the Simplification and can allow a policymaker to make more informed decisions
Harmonization of Customs Procedures, commonly about where and how to focus implementation efforts.
known as the revised Kyoto Convention. Funds for They first look at theories of clusters and explore the
nations needing assistance with customs modern- relationship between ETI and cluster development.With xxxi
ization are available from several sources, chiefly the this link and a closer look at the pillars of the Index, they
World Bank. describe how one can derive recommendations about
The author discusses in detail the lack of cooperation where to prioritize focus based on the performance
among customs administrations on trade law compliance across different elements of an economy’s ETI results.
and supply chain security. As a consequence, they cannot Next, the authors put forward a simple heuristic frame-
fully and confidently assess risk. Simply demanding work that could help an official to decide what would
more information, as some customs administrations are be the best strategy when driving the enabling trade
doing, will place additional burdens on trade without agenda in his or her country.
improving risk assessment.The author suggests that In Chapter 1.8, “Implementing Trade Facilitation,”
political will is the primary determinant of progress on Jean-François Arvis, Gerard McLinden, and Monica
trade facilitation, and that a WTO agreement on this Alina Mustra from The World Bank and Lauri Ojala
topic is critical and could contribute to reviving global from Turku School of Economics discuss emerging
trade, thereby contributing to a faster recovery from issues and developments as well as implementation in
the present global recession. trade facilitation.They argue that reducing the cost of
In Chapter 1.6, “Obstacles to Trade from the trading across borders is essential to the development of
Perspective of the Business Sector: A Cross-Country trade and the competitiveness of developing economies.
Comparison,” Mondher Mimouni, Carolin Averbeck, The importance of trade facilitation and logistics for
and Olga Skorobogatova from the International Trade development has taken center stage in the last two years
Centre introduce some findings of a survey that assesses through an increased demand for initiatives, projects,
the business sector’s experiences with obstacles to trade. and assistance in low- and middle-income economies.
Trained local partners conducted more than 1,600 This implementation agenda is boosted by a number
face-to-face interviews with companies to identify the of tools and initiatives promoted by a number of inter-
diverse obstacles to trade they experience during the national organizations.The focus areas and the needs for
entire exportation process, in both the destination coun- investment and reform have also been changing sub-
try and the country of origin.The survey methodology stantially.While the need for trade-related infrastructure
allows for the analysis of barriers, including their possi- and core reforms in fiscal administration remain high,
ble patterns across products, destination countries and the authors describe how especially in low-income
regions, as well as potential bottlenecks at the national countries new cross-cutting and potentially complex
level.This chapter assess data obtained from five selected policy issues are emerging and have become the binding
constraints.These issues include the need to upgrade
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page xxxii
Executive Summary
regional facilitation and transit systems, the improvement

and regulation of services, and the integration of border
clearance and management.
Part 2 of the Report is a comprehensive data section
that contains detailed profiles for each of the 121
economies covered. It features the main trade indicators
as well as the ETI results at the subindex, pillar, and
individual indicator level, presented as strengths and
weaknesses.Technical notes and sources, included at the
end of Part 2, provide details on the characteristics and
sources of the variables included in the Report.
Further enabling trade across borders will not only
enhance trade and boost economic growth in the longer
term. In the short term, initiatives aimed at facilitating
trade can also contribute to mitigating the effect of the
current global crisis, as such measures reduce the trans-
action cost of trade and therefore partially offset the
effects of the demand slump. In fact, because the payoff
of most trade facilitation initiatives tends to be high,
countries are well advised to use the resources available
through stimulus packages to invest in facilitating the
movement of goods across borders. In this context, the
ETI can provide policymakers with insight on a coun-
try’s strengths and challenges to be addressed.
xxxii
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 1
Part 1
Selected Issues on Enabling Trade
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 2
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 3
1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

CHAPTER 1.1 This Report is being written at a time when global trade
is shrinking, by some estimates even more rapidly than
it did at the start of the Great Depression (see Figure 1).
Enabling Trade in the Global For the most part, the decline does not reflect the
impact of the institutional factors we emphasize in the
Crisis Enabling Trade Index (ETI). Fortunately, thus far trade
policy is not the driving factor. Global leaders have
by ROBERT Z. LAWRENCE, Harvard University acknowledged the dangers of protectionism and, with
MARGARETA DRZENIEK HANOUZ, THIERRY GEIGER, and QIN HE, some exceptions that we discuss later, have not responded
World Economic Forum to the crisis by imposing new barriers. Similarly, customs
and other regulatory agencies are, by and large, operating
in the same way as they were before the turmoil.Trans-
portation costs are actually moderating the declines
because they have dropped in response to lower fuel
prices and the emergence of excess cargo capacity.
Instead, the current contraction in trade primarily
reflects the precipitous declines in overall economic activ-
ity brought about by the current financial predicament.
When sales drop and unwanted inventories build up,
trade flows plummet as orders are reduced.The global
nature of the slowdown and its concentration in trade
is compelling evidence of the degree to which the
world economy has become integrated. Global supply
chains mean that spending shortfalls in one country
reverberate in many others. In addition, the crisis has
had a particularly adverse impact on trade financing.
Trade finance is often required to bridge the time 3
between production, shipment, and payment. But,
unfortunately, a by-product of the financial crisis has
been a reduction in the availability of such finance and
an increase in the premiums charged. Chapter 1.2 in this
Report discusses these challenges in more detail.
The current slump may not be a reflection of trade
policies, but there remain reasons for concern about
the direction policies may take in the future.The world
economy has become highly interdependent and the
current challenge is to ensure not only that countries
refrain from pulling each other down further by
restraining trade, but that they help recovery by buying
from each other. Countries are not equally able to stim-
ulate their own economies. Developing countries are
especially vulner-able. Some have weak fiscal positions
and cannot stabilize their economies through tax cuts
or increased government spending. Others have high
propensities to import, so that domestic demand stimu-
lus leaks out into the rest of the world.These countries
are especially dependent on a strong world economy in
order to prosper.
Historians debate whether the US Smoot-Hawley
Tariff Act passed in 1930 and the retaliation these tariffs
triggered actually caused the Great Depression, but there
is no doubt that they reduced world trade, made the
recession deeper, and left a legacy of high barriers that
took decades to remove. For example, US imports from
Europe declined from a 1929 high of US$1,334 million
to just US$390 million in 1932, while US exports to
Europe fell from US$2,341 million in 1929 to US$784
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 4
Figure 1: The volume of world trade: Now vs. then
110
Period beginning June 1929
Period beginning April 2008

100
90
Percent
80
70
60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Months
Source: Eichengreen and O’Rourke, 2009.
4
million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some measures abroad, they may be ineffective or even coun-
66 percent between 1929 and 1934, and it took until terproductive in boosting overall economic activity.
the 1970s for the ratio of world trade to GDP to regain It is unlikely that in the current environment the
the levels it had in 1929. If it persists for a long time, response would take the overt form it did in the 1930s
the current crisis could similarly engender protectionist when, for example, US tariffs were raised by 47 percent.
responses that make recovery more difficult and leave Fortunately, because of the WTO, we now have a multi-
the trading system with lasting damage. lateral trading system, based on the rule of law, that
On the one hand, as the real economy falters, disciplines countries not to raise tariffs beyond agreed
profits plunge, and unemployment rises, the demand limits. Similarly, some regional arrangements, such as
for government assistance grows. On the other hand, the European Union, limit the ability of members to
the opportunities to supply that protection increase as subsidize domestic firms at the expense of others. In
the government becomes increasingly involved in the addition, the legacy of the 1930s has provided a better
economy. Many countries have passed large stimulus appreciation of the dangers of such behavior.The G-20
programs. Rescue packages for banks and other financial leaders have pledged that they would “not repeat the
institutions have been common.Troubled manufacturing historic mistakes of protectionism of previous eras.”1
firms have also received large subsidies. According to the Nonetheless, the current situation poses dangers for
World Trade Organization (WTO), for example, 12 an open trading system.These come from the potential
countries have acted to help their automobile industries. for the adoption of protectionist measures none of
They note that Brazil, France, and the United States which individually seem major, but whose cumulative
have handed out generous loans. India has required impact could prove permanently damaging.
import licenses for some products, and Argentina has set There is considerable scope to increase protection
prices for importation of foreign car parts. without technically breaking WTO rules or violating
With increased public involvement it becomes more international commitments. Some economies—Russia
difficult to act in a fashion that does not discriminate being the largest—are not WTO members and thus
against foreign products and firms. It seems natural, for not bound by its rules. Other economies that are WTO
example, if taxpayers’ money is being spent, to try to members do not participate in all WTO agreements. In
ensure that the benefits are felt mainly locally. However, particular, the Agreement on Government Procurement
such actions hurt foreigners who depend on open mar- of the WTO is a plurilateral code, in which only 12
kets for their livelihood.They not only steer demand to members plus the European Union participate. In addi-
less efficient suppliers but, if they lead to retaliatory tion, the WTO rules themselves have incomplete
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 5

coverage. Agricultural products, for example, are currently Several countries have also suddenly discovered new
exempt from WTO prohibitions on export subsidies. reasons for regulatory measures that happen to prevent
Some measures that limit foreign investment are cur- or limit imports. For a month, the World Bank reports,
rently excluded although they have an impact on trade, India invoked safety concerns and banned imports of
and many aspects of border procedures are not subject Chinese toys. China claimed that food safety concerns
to WTO agreements. necessitated bans on Irish pork. Indonesia required that
Moreover, many developing countries have either imports of certain products (garments, footwear, toys,
not bound tariffs under the WTO agreement or have electronics, food and beverages) be channeled only
bound rates that are much higher than the rates they through five ports and airports. Argentina imposed non-
currently apply. Indeed, there are estimates that cur- automatic licensing requirements on auto parts, textiles,
rent applied tariffs could be doubled without violating TVs, toys, shoes, and leather goods. In 2008, globally
obligations. Similarly, many developed countries have there has also been a 25 percent increase in anti-dumping
scope for raising their subsidies without violating the cases because it becomes easier to prove that foreign
agreements.The United States, for example, is constrained firms are selling below costs in depressed markets.3
not to exceed US$19 billion in trade-distorting agricul- To be sure, the picture is not all bleak.There are
tural subsidies, yet in 2007, it reported spending only also cases where stimulus programs explicitly prohibit
US$12 billion. Finally,WTO rules allow administered discrimination (as in Germany) or have been applied
protection through anti-dumping measures that are tilted in a way that stimulates demand for both domestic and
in favor of domestic industries. foreign products.There are also cases where protectionist
In November 2008 and again in April 2009, the proposals have been rejected. Officials in Brazil, for exam-
G-20 countries did make pledges not to take additional ple, dropped plans to implement an old-style import
protectionist measures.Yet reports issued by the World licensing program in response to resistance from the
Bank and the WTO have uncovered troubling develop- private sector.The WTO has also praised some nations
ments.2 The World Bank found that despite the pledge, for explicitly promoting trade. Argentina has eliminated
as of Spring 2009, 17 of the 20 G-20 countries had export taxes on 35 dairy products. Brazil has expanded a
actually taken actions that inhibit trade. Most of these program to give loans to exporters. China has scrapped
may not have violated the letter of international trade law, import tariffs on steel plates.The Philippines has cut 5
but they do all constrain trade. In developed countries, tariffs on wheat and cement.The G-20 has acknowl-
protection has taken the form of increased subsidies edged the trade finance problem and agreed to provide
or discriminatory spending. Indeed, in some cases this US$250 billion in financing through export credit and
occurs automatically as a result of agricultural policies investment agencies and the multilateral development
that target farm incomes. In developing countries, by banks.4
contrast, higher tariff and non-tariff barriers have been The concern of this report is not only about trade
imposed. policy, however.The Enabling Trade Index reflects the
For example: view that trade depends on far more than trade policy,
as the term is usually defined.To be sure, the policies
• Ten countries and the European Union have raised setting tariffs, other border barriers, and the rules of
tariffs on imported steel. trade all play an important role, but many other factors
affect whether goods and services will be traded. As
• Russia has sought to protect its domestic auto described in last year’s report, there is compelling evi-
industry by banning imports of used cars. dence that a multiplicity of factors raises the transaction
costs and time associated with trading across borders. In
• In its stimulus package, the US Congress passed
an effort to capture these factors, the ETI measures not
a “buy America” provision that called for the use
only trade policy but also the efficacy of customs, the
of US domestic goods and services unless such
quality of infrastructure and telecommunications, and
spending violated US international legal obligations.
the impact of the regulatory and security environment.
Since these are mainly obligations under the
Given the key role infrastructure plays in trade, it
WTO Agreement on Government Procurement,
is troubling that in the current environment there is
this means the United States can still discriminate
mounting evidence that many transportation, telecom-
against products from non-signatories such as China
munications, and other infrastructure projects are being
and India.
cancelled or postponed. In developing countries, many
of these projects are financed through public-private
• The European Union announced new export
partnerships led by banks and/or investment banks, but
subsidies on butter, cheese, and milk powder. As
the weakened state of these institutions is taking its toll
the rules now stand, these subsidies are again legally
on these arrangements.
permitted, even though such actions would eventu-
ally be prohibited if the Doha Round were to be
concluded.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 6
Policy priorities Trade provides potential gains for countries to

There is a need for both defensive measures to avoid obtain higher prices for their exports and to buy their
protectionism and offensive actions to promote trade. imports for lower costs than they would incur if pro-
The G-20 have not only pledged to try to avoid protec- duced domestically. It provides increased variety and
tionism but, aware they may not always succeed, also choice, offers opportunities to reap economies of scale,
agreed to report any actions they do take. In addition, diffuses technological know-how, and spurs competition.
they have encouraged the issuance of reports such as To reap these gains, however, countries have to open
those by the World Bank and the WTO that “name their markets to foreign goods and firms.They also have
and shame.” Domestic advocates for protection need to to invest in private (e.g., plant, equipment) and public
be aware that such actions will be met with retaliation. facilities (e.g., infrastructure) that can service foreign
Members of the WTO and other agreements can help producers.Thus trade also requires countries to give up
by bringing actions against violations by their trading some autonomy, to depend on others, and thus to
partners. A recent effective example was Mexico’s expose themselves to potential instability in foreign
retaliation when the United States failed to honor markets.
its NAFTA commitments on trucking. There is a danger that if the current global down-
WTO rules do allow countries to raise barriers turn persists, countries could decide that the potential
when trade is a substantial source of injury.The safe- rewards are not worth the risks.They could seek to
guard provisions of the WTO should be the mechanism become more self-reliant.This would be extremely
countries use for granting protection when it is unfortunate. History shows us that although inward-
unavoidable.This would help to impose disciplines on looking policies may lead to temporary growth, they
the use of protection and to ensure that it is temporary. are not compatible with sustained long-run prosperity.
The current crisis also offers opportunities.Thus far, Moreover, when some countries take this course, they
action to complete the Doha Round has been waiting. reduce the opportunities for others. It is imperative that
Yet the reasons for completing it have become more we avoid such a cumulative downward spiral and instead
compelling.There are now real dangers that countries build an interdependent global system that allows all
will use the leeway they have to raise tariffs and increase nations to fulfill their potential.The financial crisis
6 subsidies.This discretion would be limited in a new points to the need for strong regulatory and policing
agreement. No other action would be as effective in institutions to ensure that markets work, but it should
signaling a global commitment to maintaining an inter- not be interpreted to mean that markets should be
dependent open system. Implementation of tariff cuts abandoned.
would also be stimulatory. As we described in last year’s
report, the negotiations have made considerable progress
with respect to agreements on trade facilitation. Passage The Enabling Trade Index
would therefore contribute to the measures we would The ETI was developed within the context of the
like to encourage through our Index. World Economic Forum’s Industry Partnership
A second set of opportunities is presented by Programme for the logistics and transport sector and
adopting countercyclical policies that are directed to was first published in The Global Enabling Trade Report
improving infrastructure—bridges, roads, and tele- 2008. A number of Data Partners have collaborated in
communications—in a manner that can facilitate trade this endeavor: the Global Express Association (GEA),
over the long run. In developed countries where finance the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the
is not a constraint, the challenge is ensuring that the International Trade Centre (ITC), the United Nations
money is efficiently targeted to this objective. In devel- Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD),
oping countries, the challenge is not only meeting this The World Bank, the World Customs Organization
requirement, but also obtaining the requisite finance. (WCO), and the World Trade Organization (WTO).We
In this regard, multilateral and bilateral assistance has a have also received important feedback from companies
crucial role to play. that are industry partners in the effort, namely Agility,
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, there is an Deutsche Post DHL, DP World, FedEx Corporation,
intellectual battle to be fought.We should not fail to GeoPost Intercontinental, Stena,TNT N.V.,Transnet,
learn the lessons both of the Great Depression, which and UPS.
pointed to the dangers of protectionism, and also of the The ETI measures the countries’ institutions, policies,
widespread prosperity, particularly in developing coun- and services facilitating the free flow of goods over borders and
tries, that was associated with the expansion of interna- to destination.5 The structure of the Index mirrors the
tional trade that took place between 2000 and 2008.The main enablers of trade, breaking them into four overall
global financial crisis certainly exposed weaknesses in issue areas, or subindexes: (1) market access, (2) border
the monetary system, but they should not be used a pre- administration, (3) transport and communications infra-
text for challenging the trading system. structure, and (4) the business environment.The first
subindex measures the extent to which the policy
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 7

framework of the country welcomes foreign goods Given the significant hindrance that corruption can
into the country and enables access to foreign markets provide in trade, the transparency of border administration
for the country’s exporters.The second subindex assesses pillar assesses the pervasiveness of undocumented extra
the extent to which the administration at the border payments or bribes connected with imports and exports,
facilitates the entry and exit of goods.The third subindex as well as the overall perceived degree of corruption in
takes into account whether the country has in place the each country.
transport and communications infrastructure necessary The availability and quality of transport infrastructure
to facilitate the movement of goods within the country pillar measures the state of transport infrastructure across
and across the border. Finally, the fourth subindex looks all modes of transport in each country, as demonstrated
at the quality of governance, as well as at the overarching by the density of airports, the percentage of paved roads,
regulatory and security environment impacting the busi- and the extent to which they are congested, as well as
ness of importers and exporters active in the country. the transshipment connections available to shippers from
Each of these four subindexes is composed in turn each country. Also captured is the quality of all types of
of a number of pillars of enabling trade, of which there transport infrastructure, including air, rail, roads and
are nine in all.These are: ports.7
The availability and quality of transport services
1. Domestic and foreign market access pillar complements the assessment of infrastructure by
2. Efficiency of customs administration taking into account the amount and the quality of
3. Efficiency of import-export procedures services available for shipment, including the quantity
4. Transparency of border administration of services provided by liner companies, the ability to
5. Availability and quality of transport track and trace international shipments, the timeliness
of shipments in reaching destinations, general postal effi-
infrastructure
ciency, and the overall competence of the local logistics
6. Availability and quality of transport services
industry (e.g., transport operators, customs brokers).The
7. Availability and use of ICTs
pillar also takes into account the degree of openness of
8. Regulatory environment the transport-related sectors as measured by countries’
9. Physical security commitments under the General Agreement on Trade 7
in Services (GATS).
The domestic and foreign market access pillar Given the increasing importance of information
measures the level of protection of a country’s markets, and communication technologies (ICTs) for the man-
the quality of its trade regime, and the level of protection agement of shipments, as well as the central role these
that a country’s exporters face in their target markets. technologies play in facilitating customs clearance, the
The measures taken into account include tariffs and availability and use of ICTs pillar includes the penetra-
non-tariff measures imposed by a country on imported tion rates of these tools, such as mobile phones, Internet,
goods, but also the share of goods imported duty-free, and broadband, in each country.We add a measure of
variance of tariffs, frequency of tariff peaks, number of the perceived readiness to adopt new technologies by
distinct tariffs, and the like. Protection in foreign markets business.
is captured by tariffs faced, but also by the negotiated The regulatory environment pillar captures the
margin of preference in target markets.6 extent to which the country’s regulatory environment is
The efficiency of customs administration pillar conducive to trade. Included are indicators that capture
measures the efficiency of customs procedures as per- the general quality of governance, but also the openness
ceived by the private sector, as well as the extent of to foreign participation, which includes the ease of hiring
services provided by customs authorities and related foreign labor in the country (important for companies
agencies. Chapters 1.3 and 1.5 in this Report discuss moving goods across borders), the extent to which the
topics related to customs administration in detail. policy environment encourages foreign direct invest-
The efficiency of import-export procedures pillar ment (FDI), and the restrictiveness of capital controls.
extends the analysis beyond customs administration The security environment is of great importance
and assesses the effectiveness and efficiency of clearance for ensuring the delivery of goods to destination without
process by customs as well as related border control major frictions. In this context, the physical security pillar
agencies, the number of days and documents required specifically gauges the level of violence (both in terms
to import and export goods, and the total official cost of general crime and violence as well as the threat of
associated with importing as well as exporting, exclud- terrorism), as well as the reliability of the police services
ing tariffs and trade taxes. Chapter 1.4 provides an in protecting businesses from criminals.
example of how an automated process can improve Each of these pillars is made up of a number of
the coordination and data flow among the different individual variables.The dataset includes both hard data
agencies involved in border clearance. and survey data from the World Economic Forum’s
Executive Opinion Survey (Survey).The hard data were
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 8
Figure 2: Composition of the four subindexes of the ETI
Transport and
Market Border
communications
access administration
infrastructure
Domestic and foreign Efficiency of customs Availability and quality of

market access administration transport infrastructure
Destination
Border
Efficiency of import- Availability and quality of

export procedures transport services
Transparency of Availability and

border administration use of ICTs
Business environment
Subindex
Regulatory Physical
Pillar environment security
obtained from publicly available sources and international score as an additional variable.The details of the analysis
organizations active in the area of trade (for example, and technical considerations of this empirical study are
the World Bank, the ITC, UNCTAD, the ITU, and summarized in Appendix B.
IATA).The Survey is carried out annually by the World The results of the regression analysis show, first, that
Economic Forum among CEOs and top business leaders the ETI has notable explanatory power with respect to a
in all economies covered by our research. It captures country’s trade performance. Moreover, it allows us to
their views on the business environment and provides quantify the effects of improvements in the ETI score
unique data on many qualitative aspects of the broader on a country’s trade performance. In fact, a 1 percent
business environment, including a number of specific increase in the ETI score in the exporting country is
issues related to trade. For detailed descriptions of all the associated with an increase of 1.7 percent in its exports,
indicators included, please see “Technical Notes and holding everything else constant (in technical terms, the
Sources” at the end of this Report. elasticity of export flows with respect to the exporting
The nine pillars are regrouped into the four country’s ETI score equals 1.7).The elasticity with
subindexes described above,8 as shown in Figure 2, respect to the importing country’s score is even higher:
and the overall score for each country is derived as an the model predicts that a 1 percent improvement in the
unweighted average of the subindexes.The details of ETI score would lead to a 2.3 percent rise in imports.
the composition of the ETI are shown in Appendix A. Taken together, these two effects predict that a 1 percent
One way to validate the ETI is to test whether increase in the average ETI score of any given country
the rating of a country in the ETI is correlated with pair would be associated with a 4 percent increase in
its trade performance. Such a test can be carried out bilateral trade, all else being equal.The significance of
using regression analysis.The model of choice is the this result is underscored by the gap that separates the
gravity equation of trade, which models bilateral trade best and worst performers in the ETI rankings. At 6.0,
flows (the dependent variable) between two countries top-ranked Singapore’s score is more than double—116
as a function of their economic size, the geographical percent more, to be precise—that of Chad (2.8).
distance between them, and other attributes, which
typically include the existence of a common currency,
a common language, or colonial ties. In order to test
the explanatory power of the ETI, we added the ETI
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 9

Changes to the Index methodology Agreements have not been updated recently, an indicator
Since the 2008 edition of The Global Enabling Trade assessing the level of commitments under GATS as far as it
Report, the ETI has undergone some changes that pertains to the transportation of goods has been included
reflect the experience of using and interpreting the to proxy a country’s openness to foreign participation in
Index results, as well as feedback received from experts, this sector.
project partners, and users.The single most important
change concerns the explicit introduction of the export
dimension into the Index.This is reflected in the new The Enabling Trade Index 2009 rankings and country
structure of the market access subindex, which now coverage
contains one revised pillar that captures access to The coverage of this year’s Global Enabling Trade Report
domestic markets, but also to foreign ones. Indicators was increased to 121 economies. Four new countries
capturing the efficiency of export procedures were have been added to the study: Côte d’Ivoire,The Gambia,
also added into the efficiency of import and export Ghana, and Malawi. On the other hand, one country
procedures pillar. covered last year, Uzbekistan, could not be assessed in
Furthermore, measures of the complexity of the this edition because of absence of Survey data.The rank-
tariff structure were also included in the domestic and ings of the 121 economies included are shown in Tables
foreign market access pillar to provide for a more 1 through 5, including the overall ETI as well as the
nuanced analysis.The regulatory environment pillar was results on the four subindexes and the individual pillars.
enriched by indicators measuring aspects of general Box 1 analyzes the ETI findings by countries’ stages of
governance and regulation as far as they are relevant to development.
trade, such as protection of property rights, extent of
undue influence and corruption, efficiency of govern- Asia and Pacific
ment operations, and intensity of domestic competition. Two Asian economies, Singapore and Hong Kong, take
As data on the openness of bilateral Air Service up the top two positions in the ETI ranking.The results
mirror the openness of these countries to international
Box 1: ETI findings by stages of development
High-income countries tend to do better with respect to enabling Interestingly, many of the underperformers are resource-
trade in the Enabling Trade Index (ETI) than low-income coun- exporting countries, which possess resources for investment,
tries. As Figure 1 in this box shows, the ETI results are strongly for example in trade-related infrastructure, and could draw
correlated with levels of per capita income. A further analysis significant benefits from more intense trade. These benefits
allows us to draw conclusions about the performance of specific include welfare gains through reduced prices of import prod-
countries in relation to their income and about priorities for ucts and more intense competition in domestic markets, but
action at different income levels. they also include diversification of the economy, which could
For this purpose we group the ETI results by the country’s help decouple their economic performance from fluctuations
level of development as described in The Global Competitiveness in commodity prices.
Report.1 As the figure illustrates, countries at higher levels of Taking the analysis one level further allows us to identify
development tend to perform better on the ETI, although some areas where low-income countries consistently show weak-
cases stand out. For example, Moldova performs very well nesses and where development assistance could make a
given its level of development. As a small country, Moldova difference. Figure 2 shows the performance of countries at the
imposes low barriers on access to its domestic markets, but the initial stage of development across the nine pillars of the ETI.
country has also successfully negotiated access to key markets Most of the poorest countries’ scores cluster on the lower end
abroad through preferential agreements with the European in pillar 7, which assesses the penetration and usage of latest
Union and the Commonwealth of Independent States, which technologies, in particular ICTs; the most-developed countries
account for over 80 percent of exports. Equally, Jordan and (stage 3) perform significantly better in this category. This large
Tunisia, along with the well-known trade liberalizers Chile, Hong divide between low- and high-income countries indicates that
Kong, and Singapore, perform better than expected, given their the lack of access to the latest technologies constitutes an
level of income. For most of these countries, openness to inter- important bottleneck to enabling trade in developing countries
national trade has brought many advantages and ensured high and emerging markets.2 Other areas that stand out because of
growth rates. On the other hand, a few countries clearly lag a large difference in performance between countries in the low-
behind. Algeria, the Russian Federation, and Venezuela, as well est stage of development and the other two groups are the
as Kuwait and Qatar, perform below expectations. quality of transport infrastructure (pillar 5) and the lack of trans-
parency when dealing with imports and exports (pillar 4).
Box 1: ETI findings by stages of development (cont’d.)
The best performers in these two categories show that it recent decades in the activities of a number of international
is possible for low-income countries to reach higher levels. organizations. This is particularly important in light of the
Transparency levels in Moldova are not too far off from those current Doha Development Agenda negotiations, which aim at
found in much more prosperous Croatia, for example, and the helping developing countries benefit from global trade. While
quality of infrastructure in Sri Lanka suits the needs of the the negotiations focus on enabling access to foreign markets,
business sector better than it does in Poland or Israel. recent research has shown that other barriers to trade are
In some countries, low efficiency of import and export at least as important for developing countries. These can be
procedures (pillar 3) constitutes an important bottleneck. Two related to inappropriate transport and ICT infrastructure; time-
Central Asian countries, the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan, consuming, costly, or non-transparent border procedures;
are the weakest performers in this category; a number of or shortcomings in the country’s institutional framework.
African countries, including Burundi, Chad, and Zimbabwe Addressing some of these issues is currently in the focus of
also underperform. Reform of border administration aiming bilateral and multilateral donors under large-scale programs
at a reduction of administrative costs and delays during the such as the Trade Facilitation Facility of the World Bank, or Aid
clearance process would contribute to realizing the potential for Trade. The ETI not only confirms that significant differences
of international trade in these regions. As Egypt, the best per- in performance exist depending on income, but it also highlights
former in this pillar, demonstrates, progress can be achieved some areas where investment, technical assistance, and
if commitment to reducing the administrative burden is strong. capacity building could help improve trade performance.
On a positive note, the ETI results show that some aspects
in developing countries already contribute to enabling trade.
In most of the countries the lack of physical security is not Notes
considered a significant barrier; many economies, such as 1 The Global Competitiveness Index takes into account three stages
of development: the factor-driven stage, the efficiency-driven
Bolivia and Madagascar, have made great strides at liberal- stage, and the innovation-driven stage. Countries in transition have
been attributed to the next higher stage. See Sala-i-Martin et al.
izing their trade regimes and providing exporters with access 2008.
to markets abroad. 2 The ETI does not, however, make it possible to pronounce on
In this sense, the results of the ETI provide support the relative importance of the different pillars for countries’ trade
performance.
10 for the growing focus on trade facilitation observed over
Figure 1: Enabling Trade Index results vs. GDP per capita
Singapore
6
Hong Kong SAR
China New Zealand Norway
5 Chile
Mauritius Luxembourg
Jordan Tunisia Qatar
ETI score
Moldova
Kuwait
4 The Gambia
India
Russian Federation
Zimbabwe Burundi
Algeria
3
Venezuela
2
Brazil
1
0 1,000 10,000 100,000
GDP per capita, US$ (log)
Source: World Economic Forum, IMF, World Economic Outlook (April 2009).
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 11

Box 1: ETI findings by stages of development (cont’d.)
Figure 2: Performance of factor-driven economies (stage 1) by ETI pillar
6
ETI score (1 to 7 scale)
1
Pillar 1 Pillar 2 Pillar 3 Pillar 4 Pillar 5 Pillar 6 Pillar 7 Pillar 8 Pillar 9
Source: World Economic Forum.
11
Figure 3: Performance of efficiency-driven economies (stage 2) by ETI pillar
6
ETI score (1 to 7 scale)
1
Pillar 1 Pillar 2 Pillar 3 Pillar 4 Pillar 5 Pillar 6 Pillar 7 Pillar 8 Pillar 9
Source: World Economic Forum.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 12
Table 1: The Enabling Trade Index 2009
SUBINDEXES
Singapore 1 5.97 2 5.63 1 6.49 3 5.64 3 6.13

Hong Kong SAR 2 5.57 20 4.75 7 5.89 5 5.57 4 6.08
Switzerland 3 5.44 38 4.48 10 5.80 9 5.49 6 6.01
Denmark 4 5.44 86 3.81 3 6.31 8 5.50 2 6.15
Sweden 5 5.44 88 3.81 2 6.41 4 5.63 7 5.90
Canada 6 5.35 13 4.96 12 5.64 17 5.27 17 5.52
Norway 7 5.33 21 4.72 18 5.47 20 5.11 5 6.02
Finland 8 5.33 78 3.84 9 5.80 16 5.37 1 6.29
Austria 9 5.29 84 3.81 6 5.92 6 5.55 8 5.89
Netherlands 10 5.27 87 3.81 4 6.04 2 5.64 15 5.59
New Zealand 11 5.27 39 4.39 5 5.95 22 4.97 11 5.75
Germany 12 5.24 90 3.79 11 5.65 1 5.77 10 5.75
Luxembourg 13 5.12 58 4.00 24 5.19 13 5.41 9 5.89
Australia 14 5.07 97 3.72 17 5.54 14 5.39 14 5.62
Ireland 15 5.02 96 3.73 8 5.82 23 4.94 16 5.59
United States 16 5.02 49 4.16 15 5.58 10 5.48 36 4.85
France 17 5.02 89 3.81 19 5.46 7 5.54 23 5.26
United Arab Emirates 18 4.97 65 3.95 20 5.34 24 4.91 13 5.68
Chile 19 4.96 3 5.58 21 5.31 43 3.87 29 5.09
United Kingdom 20 4.93 79 3.84 14 5.62 11 5.47 39 4.81
Belgium 21 4.92 80 3.82 29 5.02 12 5.45 20 5.40
Estonia 22 4.84 71 3.91 16 5.58 27 4.64 24 5.25
Japan 23 4.78 115 3.10 13 5.63 15 5.38 31 5.02
Bahrain 24 4.76 26 4.65 25 5.17 41 4.07 27 5.14
Taiwan, China 25 4.75 99 3.70 27 5.15 19 5.12 30 5.03
Korea, Rep. 26 4.73 106 3.47 22 5.28 21 4.99 26 5.16
Spain 27 4.72 75 3.86 28 5.07 18 5.13 38 4.82
12 Malaysia 28 4.70 32 4.60 33 4.66 29 4.59 33 4.96
Israel 29 4.66 35 4.54 23 5.25 32 4.37 56 4.46
Portugal 30 4.63 63 3.96 35 4.63 26 4.74 25 5.21
Slovenia 31 4.61 82 3.82 26 5.16 31 4.55 35 4.89
Cyprus 32 4.56 74 3.88 47 4.31 28 4.60 18 5.45
Mauritius 33 4.54 10 4.99 37 4.62 55 3.55 32 5.00
Oman 34 4.52 23 4.69 49 4.23 45 3.74 19 5.43
Qatar 35 4.50 102 3.62 34 4.63 42 4.04 12 5.70
Czech Republic 36 4.39 94 3.76 30 4.92 35 4.32 50 4.58
Jordan 37 4.39 61 3.97 36 4.62 52 3.61 22 5.36
Hungary 38 4.39 81 3.82 31 4.69 34 4.34 45 4.70
Croatia 39 4.36 28 4.63 52 4.16 37 4.18 55 4.49
Lithuania 40 4.36 60 3.97 42 4.46 36 4.28 41 4.75
Tunisia 41 4.36 70 3.91 32 4.67 59 3.46 21 5.40
Saudi Arabia 42 4.36 40 4.39 38 4.61 47 3.70 42 4.73
Costa Rica 43 4.36 5 5.44 46 4.31 70 3.24 58 4.44
Latvia 44 4.33 73 3.90 39 4.60 39 4.09 43 4.72
Italy 45 4.30 66 3.94 48 4.25 25 4.75 66 4.27
Slovak Republic 46 4.30 93 3.77 40 4.52 33 4.36 51 4.56
Greece 47 4.30 59 3.98 57 3.99 30 4.58 47 4.65
Turkey 48 4.19 14 4.93 56 4.05 49 3.65 75 4.15
China 49 4.19 103 3.60 43 4.43 38 4.16 49 4.58
Thailand 50 4.18 98 3.72 41 4.48 40 4.07 59 4.44
Uruguay 51 4.18 22 4.71 53 4.15 78 3.09 40 4.76
Moldova 52 4.15 6 5.38 72 3.59 58 3.46 73 4.16
Panama 53 4.06 54 4.06 50 4.22 44 3.75 71 4.21
Romania 54 4.05 72 3.90 44 4.39 51 3.62 65 4.28
Morocco 55 4.01 51 4.09 51 4.21 65 3.36 63 4.38
El Salvador 56 4.00 1 5.64 61 3.90 91 2.90 104 3.58
Poland 57 3.98 77 3.85 45 4.37 46 3.71 80 3.99
Guatemala 58 3.97 8 5.08 55 4.07 72 3.22 109 3.50
Kuwait 59 3.96 76 3.86 78 3.52 54 3.55 34 4.90
Namibia 60 3.93 33 4.60 79 3.47 75 3.16 54 4.51
South Africa 61 3.92 92 3.78 54 4.12 50 3.62 76 4.14
Indonesia 62 3.82 53 4.07 66 3.75 79 3.04 60 4.43
Albania 63 3.82 30 4.63 60 3.91 94 2.82 83 3.91
Armenia 64 3.81 42 4.25 87 3.25 61 3.42 64 4.33
Peru 65 3.81 25 4.65 59 3.93 89 2.94 95 3.70
(Cont’d.)
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 13

Table 1: The Enabling Trade Index 2009 (cont’d.)
SUBINDEXES
Honduras 66 3.80 16 4.87 82 3.42 82 3.01 84 3.91

Gambia, The 67 3.78 108 3.37 70 3.63 84 3.00 28 5.13
Macedonia, FYR 68 3.78 62 3.97 71 3.60 57 3.46 78 4.09
Malawi 69 3.77 12 4.97 97 3.06 112 2.44 48 4.60
Azerbaijan 70 3.77 52 4.07 103 2.91 62 3.40 46 4.68
Ukraine 71 3.76 24 4.68 95 3.07 60 3.43 85 3.87
Bulgaria 72 3.76 55 4.02 69 3.64 48 3.68 97 3.68
Madagascar 73 3.75 4 5.45 86 3.26 115 2.37 82 3.93
Mexico 74 3.74 43 4.25 62 3.87 74 3.20 98 3.67
Egypt 75 3.72 117 3.05 65 3.78 66 3.35 44 4.71
India 76 3.72 116 3.06 58 3.94 64 3.36 53 4.51
Nicaragua 77 3.71 15 4.91 83 3.38 105 2.54 79 4.01
Sri Lanka 78 3.70 64 3.95 67 3.75 69 3.29 90 3.82
Jamaica 79 3.70 85 3.81 73 3.59 53 3.56 89 3.83
Zambia 80 3.64 19 4.76 102 2.96 111 2.45 62 4.39
Dominican Republic 81 3.64 69 3.91 64 3.80 73 3.20 99 3.64
Philippines 82 3.62 56 4.02 68 3.72 77 3.09 100 3.63
Senegal 83 3.62 109 3.36 76 3.54 81 3.01 52 4.55
Colombia 84 3.61 48 4.16 74 3.55 76 3.13 103 3.58
Uganda 85 3.60 9 5.06 99 2.99 98 2.61 94 3.76
Ghana 86 3.60 67 3.94 80 3.45 102 2.56 57 4.44
Brazil 87 3.58 100 3.67 77 3.53 68 3.33 93 3.79
Bolivia 88 3.55 11 4.98 75 3.55 106 2.53 118 3.16
Vietnam 89 3.54 112 3.24 85 3.28 71 3.24 61 4.40
Lesotho 90 3.51 7 5.25 105 2.84 118 2.33 101 3.63
Cambodia 91 3.50 27 4.65 98 3.00 109 2.50 87 3.85
Tanzania 92 3.50 41 4.33 92 3.17 119 2.25 67 4.24
Kazakhstan 93 3.49 45 4.20 119 2.27 63 3.39 77 4.10 13
Mozambique 94 3.49 17 4.84 90 3.21 117 2.36 107 3.56
Ethiopia 95 3.48 91 3.79 89 3.22 96 2.71 72 4.20
Benin 96 3.47 47 4.17 101 2.97 99 2.60 74 4.16
Argentina 97 3.46 95 3.75 84 3.35 67 3.33 111 3.42
Kenya 98 3.45 34 4.59 108 2.77 93 2.88 105 3.58
Mali 99 3.44 37 4.51 111 2.64 113 2.40 68 4.23
Pakistan 100 3.43 111 3.26 63 3.85 80 3.04 102 3.58
Kyrgyz Republic 101 3.43 18 4.77 116 2.46 86 2.98 108 3.53
Bosnia and Herzegovina 102 3.42 107 3.41 81 3.44 85 2.98 86 3.87
Ecuador 103 3.41 36 4.53 107 2.80 87 2.97 112 3.36
Burkina Faso 104 3.41 46 4.20 112 2.64 101 2.58 69 4.22
Paraguay 105 3.39 31 4.62 93 3.16 103 2.56 115 3.22
Cameroon 106 3.35 83 3.82 96 3.07 104 2.55 81 3.97
Mauritania 107 3.31 44 4.24 110 2.67 110 2.47 88 3.84
Syria 108 3.30 121 2.25 91 3.17 88 2.96 37 4.83
Russian Federation 109 3.29 113 3.16 106 2.82 56 3.49 96 3.70
Nepal 110 3.22 29 4.63 113 2.58 107 2.51 117 3.17
Bangladesh 111 3.20 57 4.01 104 2.88 108 2.50 110 3.42
Algeria 112 3.18 118 2.76 88 3.24 90 2.90 92 3.81
Mongolia 113 3.17 110 3.36 109 2.71 95 2.82 91 3.81
Tajikistan 114 3.14 104 3.57 118 2.40 116 2.37 70 4.22
Guyana 115 3.13 114 3.13 94 3.14 92 2.90 113 3.34
Burundi 116 2.99 68 3.92 114 2.57 120 2.16 114 3.30
Nigeria 117 2.97 120 2.72 100 2.98 100 2.60 106 3.57
Zimbabwe 118 2.91 101 3.67 117 2.42 114 2.38 116 3.17
Venezuela 119 2.84 105 3.48 120 2.25 83 3.01 121 2.61
Côte d’Ivoire 120 2.78 119 2.74 115 2.55 97 2.70 119 3.15
Chad 121 2.77 50 4.16 121 2.00 121 1.96 120 2.96
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 14
Table 2: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Market access
PILLARS
El Salvador 1 5.64 1 5.64

Singapore 2 5.63 2 5.63
Chile 3 5.58 3 5.58
Madagascar 4 5.45 4 5.45
Costa Rica 5 5.44 5 5.44
Moldova 6 5.38 6 5.38
Lesotho 7 5.25 7 5.25
Guatemala 8 5.08 8 5.08
Uganda 9 5.06 9 5.06
Mauritius 10 4.99 10 4.99
Bolivia 11 4.98 11 4.98
Malawi 12 4.97 12 4.97
Canada 13 4.96 13 4.96
Turkey 14 4.93 14 4.93
Nicaragua 15 4.91 15 4.91
Honduras 16 4.87 16 4.87
Mozambique 17 4.84 17 4.84
Kyrgyz Republic 18 4.77 18 4.77
Zambia 19 4.76 19 4.76
Hong Kong SAR 20 4.75 20 4.75
Norway 21 4.72 21 4.72
Uruguay 22 4.71 22 4.71
Oman 23 4.69 23 4.69
Ukraine 24 4.68 24 4.68
Peru 25 4.65 25 4.65
Bahrain 26 4.65 26 4.65
Cambodia 27 4.65 27 4.65
Croatia 28 4.63 28 4.63
14 Nepal 29 4.63 29 4.63
Albania 30 4.63 30 4.63
Paraguay 31 4.62 31 4.62
Malaysia 32 4.60 32 4.60
Namibia 33 4.60 33 4.60
Kenya 34 4.59 34 4.59
Israel 35 4.54 35 4.54
Ecuador 36 4.53 36 4.53
Mali 37 4.51 37 4.51
Switzerland 38 4.48 38 4.48
New Zealand 39 4.39 39 4.39
Saudi Arabia 40 4.39 40 4.39
Tanzania 41 4.33 41 4.33
Armenia 42 4.25 42 4.25
Mexico 43 4.25 43 4.25
Mauritania 44 4.24 44 4.24
Kazakhstan 45 4.20 45 4.20
Burkina Faso 46 4.20 46 4.20
Benin 47 4.17 47 4.17
Colombia 48 4.16 48 4.16
United States 49 4.16 49 4.16
Chad 50 4.16 50 4.16
Morocco 51 4.09 51 4.09
Azerbaijan 52 4.07 52 4.07
Indonesia 53 4.07 53 4.07
Panama 54 4.06 54 4.06
Bulgaria 55 4.02 55 4.02
Philippines 56 4.02 56 4.02
Bangladesh 57 4.01 57 4.01
Luxembourg 58 4.00 58 4.00
Greece 59 3.98 59 3.98
Lithuania 60 3.97 60 3.97
Jordan 61 3.97 61 3.97
Macedonia, FYR 62 3.97 62 3.97
Portugal 63 3.96 63 3.96
Sri Lanka 64 3.95 64 3.95
United Arab Emirates 65 3.95 65 3.95
Italy 66 3.94 66 3.94
Ghana 67 3.94 67 3.94
(Cont’d.)
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 15

Table 2: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Market access (cont’d.)
PILLARS
Burundi 68 3.92 68 3.92

Dominican Republic 69 3.91 69 3.91
Tunisia 70 3.91 70 3.91
Estonia 71 3.91 71 3.91
Romania 72 3.90 72 3.90
Latvia 73 3.90 73 3.90
Cyprus 74 3.88 74 3.88
Spain 75 3.86 75 3.86
Kuwait 76 3.86 76 3.86
Poland 77 3.85 77 3.85
Finland 78 3.84 78 3.84
United Kingdom 79 3.84 79 3.84
Belgium 80 3.82 80 3.82
Hungary 81 3.82 81 3.82
Slovenia 82 3.82 82 3.82
Cameroon 83 3.82 83 3.82
Austria 84 3.81 84 3.81
Jamaica 85 3.81 85 3.81
Denmark 86 3.81 86 3.81
Netherlands 87 3.81 87 3.81
Sweden 88 3.81 88 3.81
France 89 3.81 89 3.81
Germany 90 3.79 90 3.79
Ethiopia 91 3.79 91 3.79
South Africa 92 3.78 92 3.78
Slovak Republic 93 3.77 93 3.77
Czech Republic 94 3.76 94 3.76
Argentina 95 3.75 95 3.75
Ireland 96 3.73 96 3.73 15
Australia 97 3.72 97 3.72
Thailand 98 3.72 98 3.72
Taiwan, China 99 3.70 99 3.70
Brazil 100 3.67 100 3.67
Zimbabwe 101 3.67 101 3.67
Qatar 102 3.62 102 3.62
China 103 3.60 103 3.60
Tajikistan 104 3.57 104 3.57
Venezuela 105 3.48 105 3.48
Korea, Rep. 106 3.47 106 3.47
Bosnia and Herzegovina 107 3.41 107 3.41
Gambia, The 108 3.37 108 3.37
Senegal 109 3.36 109 3.36
Mongolia 110 3.36 110 3.36
Pakistan 111 3.26 111 3.26
Vietnam 112 3.24 112 3.24
Russian Federation 113 3.16 113 3.16
Guyana 114 3.13 114 3.13
Japan 115 3.10 115 3.10
India 116 3.06 116 3.06
Egypt 117 3.05 117 3.05
Algeria 118 2.76 118 2.76
Côte d’Ivoire 119 2.74 119 2.74
Nigeria 120 2.72 120 2.72
Syria 121 2.25 121 2.25
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 16
Table 3: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Border administration
PILLARS
Singapore 1 6.49 1 6.43 1 6.46 4 6.57

Sweden 2 6.41 2 6.41 4 6.21 1 6.61
Denmark 3 6.31 4 6.00 2 6.33 2 6.59
Netherlands 4 6.04 5 5.94 9 5.94 7 6.22
New Zealand 5 5.95 8 5.71 20 5.58 3 6.57
Austria 6 5.92 3 6.04 18 5.72 11 6.00
Hong Kong SAR 7 5.89 14 5.42 3 6.26 12 5.98
Ireland 8 5.82 6 5.86 15 5.74 14 5.84
Finland 9 5.80 29 4.75 5 6.16 5 6.50
Switzerland 10 5.80 9 5.70 26 5.36 6 6.33
Germany 11 5.65 21 5.17 8 5.97 15 5.81
Canada 12 5.64 15 5.39 28 5.34 9 6.17
Japan 13 5.63 11 5.52 19 5.71 16 5.66
United Kingdom 14 5.62 7 5.75 21 5.56 18 5.53
United States 15 5.58 10 5.66 16 5.73 21 5.36
Estonia 16 5.58 13 5.44 7 6.03 24 5.27
Australia 17 5.54 24 5.14 32 5.27 8 6.20
Norway 18 5.47 35 4.35 6 6.09 13 5.97
France 19 5.46 25 5.11 10 5.92 22 5.35
Chile 21 5.31 20 5.19 40 5.17 17 5.58
Korea, Rep. 22 5.28 18 5.27 13 5.80 33 4.79
Israel 23 5.25 27 5.04 17 5.73 28 4.99
Luxembourg 24 5.19 49 3.98 24 5.48 10 6.11
Bahrain 25 5.17 16 5.31 23 5.50 35 4.69
Slovenia 26 5.16 12 5.46 59 4.73 23 5.28
Taiwan, China 27 5.15 23 5.15 27 5.35 30 4.93
16 Spain 28 5.07 26 5.06 41 5.14 27 5.00
Belgium 29 5.02 33 4.38 34 5.24 19 5.43
Czech Republic 30 4.92 17 5.28 44 5.12 36 4.35
Hungary 31 4.69 28 4.90 53 4.85 38 4.32
Tunisia 32 4.67 30 4.49 39 5.18 37 4.35
Malaysia 33 4.66 44 4.17 22 5.51 40 4.31
Qatar 34 4.63 69 3.42 43 5.13 20 5.36
Portugal 35 4.63 59 3.66 31 5.28 29 4.95
Jordan 36 4.62 34 4.35 54 4.81 34 4.69
Mauritius 37 4.62 37 4.30 35 5.23 39 4.32
Saudi Arabia 38 4.61 31 4.46 25 5.45 51 3.94
Latvia 39 4.60 39 4.27 33 5.25 41 4.28
Slovak Republic 40 4.52 22 5.17 80 4.26 44 4.12
Thailand 41 4.48 43 4.19 11 5.85 67 3.41
Lithuania 42 4.46 48 4.03 29 5.29 48 4.06
China 43 4.43 45 4.15 30 5.28 55 3.85
Romania 44 4.39 42 4.22 45 5.05 54 3.88
Poland 45 4.37 55 3.73 36 5.20 43 4.17
Costa Rica 46 4.31 41 4.23 65 4.62 46 4.10
Cyprus 47 4.31 46 4.15 98 3.66 25 5.12
Italy 48 4.25 53 3.79 47 4.98 50 3.99
Oman 49 4.23 62 3.56 74 4.31 32 4.83
Panama 50 4.22 73 3.27 12 5.85 63 3.53
Morocco 51 4.21 40 4.24 56 4.77 62 3.62
Croatia 52 4.16 47 4.14 68 4.52 56 3.82
Uruguay 53 4.15 68 3.42 87 4.10 31 4.92
South Africa 54 4.12 38 4.29 94 3.85 42 4.23
Guatemala 55 4.07 32 4.40 85 4.11 57 3.71
Turkey 56 4.05 72 3.29 46 4.98 53 3.89
Greece 57 3.99 81 3.02 51 4.88 47 4.07
India 58 3.94 51 3.83 62 4.67 70 3.32
Peru 59 3.93 79 3.12 61 4.68 49 4.00
Albania 60 3.91 60 3.63 64 4.65 66 3.44
El Salvador 61 3.90 78 3.12 52 4.87 58 3.70
Mexico 62 3.87 52 3.80 78 4.27 64 3.53
Pakistan 63 3.85 56 3.73 57 4.76 80 3.06
Egypt 65 3.78 77 3.17 38 5.18 91 2.97
Indonesia 66 3.75 75 3.18 37 5.18 94 2.89
(Cont’d.)
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 17

Table 3: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Border administration (cont’d.)
PILLARS
Sri Lanka 67 3.75 71 3.31 55 4.78 75 3.15

Philippines 68 3.72 54 3.77 48 4.92 115 2.48
Bulgaria 69 3.64 61 3.61 79 4.27 82 3.05
Gambia, The 70 3.63 80 3.10 60 4.70 78 3.10
Macedonia, FYR 71 3.60 101 2.51 63 4.66 61 3.64
Moldova 72 3.59 67 3.45 97 3.66 59 3.67
Jamaica 73 3.59 65 3.47 72 4.32 87 2.99
Colombia 74 3.55 89 2.69 75 4.30 60 3.66
Bolivia 75 3.55 63 3.55 89 4.09 85 3.00
Senegal 76 3.54 82 2.97 58 4.75 93 2.91
Brazil 77 3.53 98 2.57 67 4.57 65 3.45
Kuwait 78 3.52 112 2.23 69 4.42 52 3.91
Namibia 79 3.47 84 2.91 101 3.39 45 4.11
Ghana 80 3.45 102 2.49 66 4.59 72 3.28
Honduras 82 3.42 95 2.63 71 4.36 71 3.28
Nicaragua 83 3.38 92 2.67 70 4.40 81 3.06
Argentina 84 3.35 83 2.93 77 4.29 96 2.83
Vietnam 85 3.28 117 2.17 49 4.90 99 2.78
Madagascar 86 3.26 111 2.23 76 4.29 73 3.25
Armenia 87 3.25 64 3.49 99 3.59 106 2.67
Algeria 88 3.24 105 2.40 88 4.10 74 3.23
Ethiopia 89 3.22 50 3.93 109 2.59 76 3.14
Mozambique 90 3.21 87 2.78 92 3.88 92 2.96
Syria 91 3.17 94 2.63 81 4.25 107 2.63
Tanzania 92 3.17 113 2.21 73 4.32 90 2.98
Paraguay 93 3.16 86 2.88 95 3.85 102 2.76
Guyana 94 3.14 100 2.51 84 4.14 103 2.76 17
Ukraine 95 3.07 110 2.24 91 3.95 84 3.02
Cameroon 96 3.07 93 2.66 90 4.02 113 2.52
Malawi 97 3.06 66 3.46 111 2.34 68 3.39
Cambodia 98 3.00 91 2.67 86 4.10 118 2.23
Uganda 99 2.99 70 3.41 106 2.94 108 2.61
Nigeria 100 2.98 107 2.36 96 3.76 98 2.81
Benin 101 2.97 118 2.03 93 3.88 86 3.00
Zambia 102 2.96 57 3.68 112 2.21 89 2.99
Azerbaijan 103 2.91 36 4.35 118 1.79 112 2.58
Bangladesh 104 2.88 115 2.20 82 4.24 119 2.20
Lesotho 105 2.84 99 2.53 100 3.41 110 2.58
Ecuador 107 2.80 121 1.74 83 4.15 114 2.50
Kenya 108 2.77 109 2.30 102 3.33 105 2.67
Mongolia 109 2.71 88 2.75 108 2.60 101 2.76
Mauritania 110 2.67 116 2.19 103 3.14 104 2.68
Mali 111 2.64 108 2.35 110 2.49 79 3.09
Burkina Faso 112 2.64 97 2.60 116 1.95 69 3.37
Nepal 113 2.58 119 2.00 105 2.98 100 2.78
Burundi 114 2.57 85 2.90 117 1.94 95 2.86
Côte d’Ivoire 115 2.55 114 2.21 104 3.05 116 2.40
Kyrgyz Republic 116 2.46 58 3.67 121 1.33 117 2.38
Zimbabwe 117 2.42 90 2.67 115 2.02 111 2.58
Tajikistan 118 2.40 104 2.45 119 1.71 83 3.03
Kazakhstan 119 2.27 106 2.39 120 1.42 88 2.99
Venezuela 120 2.25 103 2.46 114 2.10 120 2.18
Chad 121 2.00 120 1.94 113 2.12 121 1.95
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 18
Table 4: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Transport and communications infrastructure
PILLARS
Germany 1 5.77 8 5.28 3 5.85 3 6.20

Netherlands 2 5.64 14 5.12 2 5.91 10 5.89
Singapore 3 5.64 12 5.14 1 5.96 11 5.83
Sweden 4 5.63 6 5.35 11 5.30 2 6.25
Hong Kong SAR 5 5.57 11 5.15 6 5.55 6 6.00
Austria 6 5.55 9 5.20 5 5.76 15 5.69
France 7 5.54 1 5.83 10 5.33 24 5.47
Denmark 8 5.50 5 5.44 17 4.97 4 6.10
Switzerland 9 5.49 18 5.04 12 5.17 1 6.27
United States 10 5.48 3 5.54 14 5.08 12 5.81
United Kingdom 11 5.47 21 4.96 7 5.50 8 5.95
Belgium 12 5.45 7 5.33 8 5.47 19 5.56
Luxembourg 13 5.41 19 5.02 13 5.16 5 6.04
Australia 14 5.39 17 5.07 9 5.43 17 5.67
Japan 15 5.38 23 4.77 4 5.84 21 5.52
Finland 16 5.37 4 5.50 18 4.89 13 5.72
Canada 17 5.27 2 5.58 25 4.64 18 5.58
Spain 18 5.13 15 5.12 15 5.06 26 5.21
Taiwan, China 19 5.12 26 4.65 22 4.73 7 5.97
Norway 20 5.11 10 5.17 35 4.22 9 5.93
Korea, Rep. 21 4.99 29 4.55 23 4.72 14 5.70
New Zealand 22 4.97 20 4.97 31 4.40 20 5.54
Ireland 23 4.94 31 4.47 20 4.84 22 5.50
Italy 25 4.75 50 3.98 21 4.80 23 5.48
Portugal 26 4.74 28 4.64 24 4.70 29 4.87
Estonia 27 4.64 40 4.20 42 4.03 16 5.68
18 Cyprus 28 4.60 16 5.08 40 4.07 32 4.66
Malaysia 29 4.59 22 4.95 16 5.00 43 3.82
Greece 30 4.58 24 4.74 29 4.58 35 4.41
Slovenia 31 4.55 34 4.37 33 4.30 28 4.99
Israel 32 4.37 54 3.88 43 3.96 25 5.28
Slovak Republic 33 4.36 41 4.15 28 4.60 37 4.34
Hungary 34 4.34 60 3.73 26 4.64 31 4.66
Czech Republic 35 4.32 46 4.09 34 4.26 33 4.61
Lithuania 36 4.28 35 4.34 55 3.68 30 4.81
Croatia 37 4.18 42 4.12 37 4.16 38 4.26
China 38 4.16 30 4.48 19 4.87 60 3.12
Latvia 39 4.09 37 4.31 45 3.93 40 4.04
Thailand 40 4.07 33 4.39 27 4.62 59 3.19
Bahrain 41 4.07 36 4.31 63 3.50 36 4.38
Qatar 42 4.04 47 4.08 60 3.54 34 4.49
Chile 43 3.87 48 4.05 51 3.82 44 3.73
Panama 44 3.75 27 4.65 70 3.34 57 3.26
Oman 45 3.74 43 4.12 32 4.33 74 2.77
Poland 46 3.71 83 3.16 49 3.85 39 4.12
Saudi Arabia 47 3.70 55 3.86 52 3.81 53 3.42
Bulgaria 48 3.68 77 3.31 53 3.79 41 3.95
Turkey 49 3.65 62 3.66 48 3.86 52 3.42
South Africa 50 3.62 44 4.11 44 3.95 72 2.81
Romania 51 3.62 84 3.15 41 4.06 46 3.63
Jordan 52 3.61 59 3.78 39 4.10 65 2.96
Jamaica 53 3.56 58 3.79 76 3.22 45 3.68
Kuwait 54 3.55 70 3.57 79 3.17 42 3.92
Mauritius 55 3.55 32 4.44 106 2.77 49 3.44
Macedonia, FYR 57 3.46 65 3.62 59 3.56 58 3.21
Moldova 58 3.46 75 3.39 38 4.15 71 2.83
Tunisia 59 3.46 39 4.21 74 3.24 67 2.92
Ukraine 60 3.43 63 3.65 77 3.22 51 3.43
Armenia 61 3.42 69 3.58 50 3.83 70 2.85
Azerbaijan 62 3.40 45 4.11 62 3.51 80 2.59
Kazakhstan 63 3.39 49 4.05 75 3.23 68 2.88
India 64 3.36 51 3.98 46 3.89 93 2.20
Morocco 65 3.36 52 3.95 67 3.43 76 2.69
Egypt 66 3.35 53 3.90 58 3.62 81 2.52
(Cont’d.)
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 19

Table 4: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Transport and communications infrastructure (cont’d.)
PILLARS
Argentina 67 3.33 91 2.99 66 3.44 47 3.57

Brazil 68 3.33 93 2.99 56 3.66 54 3.35
Sri Lanka 69 3.29 38 4.28 81 3.15 84 2.43
Costa Rica 70 3.24 66 3.61 103 2.86 56 3.26
Vietnam 71 3.24 108 2.59 36 4.17 66 2.96
Guatemala 72 3.22 81 3.24 69 3.35 61 3.07
Mexico 74 3.20 85 3.12 65 3.48 63 2.99
Namibia 75 3.16 25 4.71 115 2.59 95 2.16
Colombia 76 3.13 76 3.31 84 3.10 64 2.98
Philippines 77 3.09 92 2.99 47 3.88 86 2.41
Uruguay 78 3.09 99 2.83 101 2.95 48 3.48
Indonesia 79 3.04 82 3.24 54 3.69 91 2.21
Pakistan 80 3.04 56 3.84 80 3.15 98 2.14
Senegal 81 3.01 72 3.45 72 3.33 89 2.26
Honduras 82 3.01 71 3.48 104 2.86 77 2.68
Venezuela 83 3.01 96 2.88 86 3.09 62 3.05
Gambia, The 84 3.00 57 3.80 97 3.00 90 2.21
Kyrgyz Republic 86 2.98 61 3.68 87 3.09 94 2.17
Ecuador 87 2.97 86 3.10 78 3.21 79 2.61
Syria 88 2.96 74 3.44 96 3.00 83 2.44
Peru 89 2.94 90 3.02 90 3.08 75 2.72
Algeria 90 2.90 68 3.58 111 2.70 85 2.42
El Salvador 91 2.90 98 2.87 93 3.03 73 2.79
Guyana 92 2.90 107 2.59 108 2.75 55 3.34
Kenya 93 2.88 78 3.30 73 3.26 99 2.07
Albania 94 2.82 97 2.87 85 3.10 82 2.48 19
Mongolia 95 2.82 67 3.60 112 2.70 96 2.16
Ethiopia 96 2.71 80 3.25 71 3.33 121 1.54
Côte d’Ivoire 97 2.70 95 2.93 95 3.01 97 2.15
Uganda 98 2.61 87 3.08 89 3.09 118 1.65
Benin 99 2.60 114 2.44 61 3.51 111 1.85
Nigeria 100 2.60 112 2.49 92 3.05 88 2.26
Burkina Faso 101 2.58 89 3.02 98 3.00 116 1.73
Ghana 102 2.56 79 3.26 119 2.49 107 1.92
Paraguay 103 2.56 104 2.72 113 2.62 87 2.33
Cameroon 104 2.55 94 2.95 107 2.77 108 1.92
Nicaragua 105 2.54 100 2.81 102 2.87 103 1.94
Bolivia 106 2.53 88 3.06 116 2.59 106 1.93
Nepal 107 2.51 101 2.81 88 3.09 120 1.63
Bangladesh 108 2.50 102 2.78 105 2.79 102 1.95
Cambodia 109 2.50 105 2.71 91 3.05 115 1.75
Mauritania 110 2.47 117 2.24 82 3.15 100 2.03
Zambia 111 2.45 111 2.53 100 2.98 110 1.86
Malawi 112 2.44 109 2.58 83 3.12 119 1.63
Mali 113 2.40 116 2.29 94 3.02 109 1.87
Zimbabwe 114 2.38 106 2.60 109 2.74 113 1.78
Madagascar 115 2.37 103 2.72 118 2.56 112 1.82
Tajikistan 116 2.37 118 2.18 110 2.71 92 2.21
Mozambique 117 2.36 110 2.54 114 2.60 105 1.93
Lesotho 118 2.33 120 2.02 99 2.98 101 1.99
Tanzania 119 2.25 115 2.36 121 2.44 104 1.94
Burundi 120 2.16 119 2.13 117 2.57 114 1.77
Chad 121 1.96 121 1.70 120 2.47 117 1.70
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 20
Table 5: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Business environment
PILLARS
Finland 1 6.29 3 5.88 1 6.70

Denmark 2 6.15 2 5.92 4 6.38
Singapore 3 6.13 1 6.13 9 6.12
Hong Kong SAR 4 6.08 6 5.67 3 6.48
Norway 5 6.02 10 5.50 2 6.54
Switzerland 6 6.01 5 5.77 6 6.24
Sweden 7 5.90 4 5.79 13 6.01
Austria 8 5.89 13 5.40 5 6.37
Luxembourg 9 5.89 8 5.53 7 6.24
Germany 10 5.75 12 5.42 11 6.07
New Zealand 11 5.75 9 5.52 15 5.97
Qatar 12 5.70 17 5.23 8 6.18
United Arab Emirates 13 5.68 15 5.25 10 6.10
Australia 14 5.62 11 5.49 23 5.75
Netherlands 15 5.59 7 5.66 31 5.52
Ireland 16 5.59 14 5.34 18 5.83
Canada 17 5.52 16 5.25 21 5.79
Cyprus 18 5.45 24 4.89 12 6.02
Oman 19 5.43 21 4.98 16 5.88
Belgium 20 5.40 20 4.98 20 5.82
Tunisia 21 5.40 18 5.00 22 5.79
Jordan 22 5.36 30 4.73 14 5.99
France 23 5.26 22 4.93 29 5.59
Estonia 24 5.25 29 4.77 24 5.72
Portugal 25 5.21 36 4.57 17 5.85
Korea, Rep. 26 5.16 27 4.80 32 5.52
Bahrain 27 5.14 28 4.78 34 5.50
Gambia, The 28 5.13 32 4.65 27 5.60
20 Chile 29 5.09 37 4.56 26 5.61
Taiwan, China 30 5.03 34 4.59 37 5.47
Japan 31 5.02 26 4.83 44 5.21
Mauritius 32 5.00 33 4.64 40 5.36
Malaysia 33 4.96 25 4.86 49 5.06
Kuwait 34 4.90 43 4.21 28 5.60
Slovenia 35 4.89 44 4.16 25 5.62
United States 36 4.85 23 4.90 63 4.80
Syria 37 4.83 66 3.83 19 5.83
Spain 38 4.82 40 4.44 45 5.19
United Kingdom 39 4.81 19 5.00 73 4.62
Uruguay 40 4.76 38 4.48 50 5.04
Lithuania 41 4.75 54 3.97 33 5.52
Saudi Arabia 42 4.73 31 4.73 68 4.73
Latvia 43 4.72 56 3.96 36 5.48
Egypt 44 4.71 49 4.05 39 5.37
Hungary 45 4.70 58 3.90 35 5.49
Azerbaijan 46 4.68 59 3.90 38 5.45
Greece 47 4.65 53 3.98 41 5.33
Malawi 48 4.60 47 4.10 48 5.11
China 49 4.58 45 4.15 52 5.02
Czech Republic 50 4.58 61 3.90 43 5.27
Slovak Republic 51 4.56 52 3.99 47 5.13
Senegal 52 4.55 87 3.56 30 5.53
India 53 4.51 46 4.13 57 4.88
Namibia 54 4.51 42 4.29 70 4.72
Croatia 55 4.49 77 3.64 42 5.33
Israel 56 4.46 39 4.47 83 4.46
Ghana 57 4.44 63 3.86 51 5.03
Costa Rica 58 4.44 41 4.38 80 4.51
Thailand 59 4.44 48 4.09 64 4.79
Indonesia 60 4.43 55 3.97 56 4.89
Vietnam 61 4.40 64 3.86 54 4.94
Zambia 62 4.39 57 3.92 59 4.87
Morocco 63 4.38 51 4.01 66 4.76
Armenia 64 4.33 91 3.50 46 5.16
Romania 65 4.28 85 3.60 53 4.95
Italy 66 4.27 84 3.60 55 4.93
Tanzania 67 4.24 73 3.67 61 4.80
(Cont’d.)
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 21

Table 5: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Business environment (cont’d.)
PILLARS
Mali 68 4.23 72 3.72 69 4.73

Burkina Faso 69 4.22 67 3.83 75 4.61
Tajikistan 70 4.22 80 3.63 62 4.80
Panama 71 4.21 60 3.90 79 4.52
Ethiopia 72 4.20 81 3.62 65 4.78
Moldova 73 4.16 94 3.45 58 4.87
Benin 74 4.16 82 3.62 71 4.70
Turkey 75 4.15 65 3.85 84 4.46
South Africa 76 4.14 35 4.59 105 3.70
Kazakhstan 77 4.10 75 3.66 78 4.55
Macedonia, FYR 78 4.09 86 3.58 77 4.60
Nicaragua 79 4.01 106 3.19 60 4.83
Poland 80 3.99 88 3.52 82 4.46
Cameroon 81 3.97 103 3.25 72 4.69
Madagascar 82 3.93 90 3.51 86 4.34
Albania 83 3.91 105 3.20 74 4.62
Honduras 84 3.91 68 3.81 95 4.01
Ukraine 85 3.87 107 3.14 76 4.61
Bosnia and Herzegovina 86 3.87 113 3.00 67 4.74
Cambodia 87 3.85 89 3.52 89 4.18
Mauritania 88 3.84 102 3.27 85 4.41
Jamaica 89 3.83 62 3.86 102 3.80
Sri Lanka 90 3.82 50 4.02 109 3.63
Mongolia 91 3.81 108 3.14 81 4.48
Algeria 92 3.81 101 3.29 87 4.33
Brazil 93 3.79 95 3.43 90 4.14
Uganda 94 3.76 92 3.50 93 4.02
Peru 95 3.70 79 3.64 103 3.76
Russian Federation 96 3.70 109 3.13 88 4.27 21
Bulgaria 97 3.68 99 3.31 91 4.04
Mexico 98 3.67 78 3.64 106 3.69
Dominican Republic 99 3.64 97 3.39 99 3.88
Philippines 100 3.63 98 3.32 97 3.94
Lesotho 101 3.63 96 3.40 100 3.85
Pakistan 102 3.58 76 3.65 112 3.52
Colombia 103 3.58 71 3.73 114 3.43
El Salvador 104 3.58 70 3.78 115 3.37
Kenya 105 3.58 83 3.61 111 3.55
Nigeria 106 3.57 74 3.67 113 3.47
Mozambique 107 3.56 100 3.29 101 3.82
Kyrgyz Republic 108 3.53 111 3.09 96 3.96
Guatemala 109 3.50 69 3.81 119 3.20
Bangladesh 110 3.42 110 3.11 104 3.73
Argentina 111 3.42 117 2.80 92 4.04
Ecuador 112 3.36 116 2.80 98 3.91
Guyana 113 3.34 93 3.46 118 3.22
Burundi 114 3.30 114 2.95 108 3.65
Paraguay 115 3.22 115 2.86 110 3.57
Zimbabwe 116 3.17 120 2.33 94 4.02
Nepal 117 3.17 104 3.21 121 3.12
Bolivia 118 3.16 118 2.64 107 3.68
Côte d’Ivoire 119 3.15 112 3.03 117 3.27
Chad 120 2.96 119 2.58 116 3.34
Venezuela 121 2.61 121 2.09 120 3.13
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 22
trade and investment as part of their successful economic which promotes intense domestic competition.The
development strategy. results are, however, somewhat offset by high domestic
Singapore’s positive results reflect the country’s and foreign market barriers. Australia applies very high
openness to trade and demonstrate high rankings in all tariffs for non-agricultural products in comparison with
four subindexes.The country’s very open market, as economies at a similar level of development, placing at
well as a highly efficient and transparent border adminis- 96th position on this indicator. Lowering these tariffs
tration, a well-developed transport and communications would further boost the country’s openness to trade.
infrastructure, and an open business environment all Japan takes up the 23rd position in the ETI ranking.
contribute to this result. Customs procedures are assessed The country’s highly efficient and transparent border
as the least burdensome, and time and cost for both administration and well-developed infrastructure, together
import and export are among the lowest for all countries with its excellent transport services, all contribute to
covered. Singapore’s exporters also face relatively low this rating.The ranking is, however, severely offset by
tariffs in target markets (13th). However, less congested Japan’s high barriers to market access in domestic and
roads and improvements to the ICT infrastructure could foreign markets (115th), as reflected in its high tariffs
further increase the ease of getting goods across borders on agricultural products and complexity of tariffs, as
in Singapore.The country’s excellent regulatory environ- well as barriers faced when exporting. In addition, the
ment facilitates operations of traders through openness country’s costly import and export procedures and limit-
to foreign participation, fair domestic competition, and ed openness to foreign participation are not conducive
a highly transparent and efficient government. to facilitating trade flows.With respect to the latter,
Hong Kong SAR’s open domestic market mirrors obstacles to hiring foreign labor and low prevalence
the economy’s high dependence on exports and imports. of foreign ownership are the two aspects in need of
Hong Kong does not apply tariffs on imported products, improvement. Japan could also benefit from improving
yet its exported products face more barriers than its somewhat burdensome customs procedures (43rd).
Singapore’s, as reflected in tariffs faced (119th) combined Taiwan, China and Korea, Rep. follow at 25th
with a low margin of preference in target markets and 26th place, respectively, among the economies
(112th). Hong Kong’s strong ranking also rests on covered. Both economies boast very good infrastructure.
22 efficient customs procedures, well-developed transport In addition, infrastructure-related services are efficient
and communications infrastructure, and a regulatory and widely available, and the use of ICTs is widespread.
environment that promotes and facilitates an open and Traders benefit particularly from efficient customs
secure business environment.The region’s openness to administration in Korea;Taiwan is doing especially well
foreign participation is attested to by the prevalence of on the use of ICTs, which improves the connectivity
foreign ownership and relative absence of capital con- of companies and the ability to track consignments.
trols (1st).Traders could, however, further benefit from Both economies are, however, hampered by restricted
improvements to the very congested roads (89th) and access to domestic and foreign markets and a regulatory
more commitments to open up the transport sector environment that does not facilitate the entry of foreign
under the GATS framework (55th). investment and labor.
New Zealand comes in at the 11th position. Its Malaysia occupies the 28th position in the ETI.
highly efficient and transparent border administration Efficient import procedures and a low cost of importing
contributes to this ranking, as do the country’s very and exporting goods, as well as the quality of transport
low tariffs for agricultural products. Exports, however, infrastructure and related transport services, all contribute
face high barriers.The country’s regulatory environment to this good ranking, particularly given the country’s
is characterized by fairly good ratings on ethics and a level of development. Improvements to the transparency
low level of corruption, as well as an effective domestic of border administration as well as less congested roads
competition policy, though obstacles still persist in hiring would further enhance the country’s strengths.The regula-
foreign labor and regulation of FDI. Upgrading the tory framework also provides a good trading environment
quality of infrastructure, especially roads and railroads, by means of efficient government operations and fair
would be beneficial to further facilitate a smooth flow domestic competition policies. Improving the usage of
of goods across borders and to destinations inside the the latest technologies and lowering business costs of
country. terrorism would allow the country to even further reap
Australia occupies the 14th position for countries the harvest of international trade.
from all regions.The rating reflects the many aspects in China ranks 49th among the countries covered.
which the country does particularly well in facilitating This ranking underscores a number of characteristics in
the flow of goods across borders and to destination, China’s economy and its trading regime. China relies
including its strong performances with respect to heavily on its successful export performance, although
transparent border administration and the quality of imports are still significantly inhibited by tariff barriers.
transport services; its high level of commitment in the The country performs particularly well in its low cost to
sector under GATS; and its regulatory environment, import and export (3rd). Furthermore, because of large
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 23

trade volumes, the country is extremely well connected Most other countries from Asia and the Pacific rank
to international markets through its vast port facilities, in the lower part of the ETI, and the regional ranking
with the services provided by liner companies being closes with Bangladesh at 111th and Mongolia at
second to none.The quality and availability of transport 113th.
services are also among its comparative advantages
(19th). However, improvement in the overall transport Europe and North America
infrastructure—in particular, airport density and the Behind Singapore and Hong Kong, Switzerland (3rd)
quality of air transport infrastructure—would further completes the top three of the ETI 2009.The Nordics
facilitate the flow of goods across borders and to desti- follow closely, led by Denmark, Sweden, and, two
nations within China, in particular to the inland notches behind, Norway (7th) and Finland (8th). Only
provinces. In addition, more transparency in border Canada comes in between, at 6th.With Austria ranked
administration and improvements to the regulatory 9th and the Netherlands 10th, Europe boasts seven
environment that would allow more foreign participa- countries in the top 10—five of which are members of
tion would help enable trade. the European Union. Despite the necessary similarities
Thailand follows China to occupy the 50th among all EU members in terms of market access, the
position.Thailand boasts a highly efficient border adminis- other dimensions of the Index are source of enormous
tration with few documents required for importing goods variation across them. As a result, 43 ranks separate
into the country.Well-developed transport infrastructure Denmark (4th) from Greece (47th), the lowest-ranked
and related transport services also contribute to an easy representative of the EU15.9 When considering the entire
flow of goods to destinations. However, domestic and European Union, the gap becomes more vertiginous:
foreign market access is restricted, particularly through Bulgaria ranks 72nd, 68 places lower than Denmark.
high tariff barriers for agricultural products and a very Switzerland places 3rd, scoring very high in three
complex tariff structure. In addition, the country’s trad- of the four main components of the Index. It ranks
ing environment would significantly benefit from more 10th for the quality of border administration, despite
transparency at the border, more openness to foreign the very high costs to import (84th) and export (92nd).
participation, and reduced costs to business resulting The ETI also reveals the good quality of its transport
from terrorism. infrastructure (9th) and of the associated services (12th). 23
Indonesia comes in at 62nd place, reflecting a Yet Switzerland gets low marks on the two measures
pretty balanced performance on all four pillars of the of maritime connectivity featured in the Index, namely
Index.The flow of goods in and out of the country the transshipment index (88th) and the liner shipping
benefits from the low cost of import and export index (94th).10 But when it comes to the availability and
procedures as well as a regulatory environment that use of ICTs, Switzerland is second to none. Finally, the
is fairly open toward foreign participation, although business environment is particularly friendly (6th) thanks
businesses are concerned about the level of corruption to its excellent institutions, fierce competition, openness
at borders and high costs incurred to fight terrorism. to foreign participation, and low prevalence of crime.
Improvements in transport infrastructure and wide Switzerland’s major weakness resides in the market
adoption of technologies would tremendously help access component, in which it ranks 38th.This is
the country to better connect with its trading partners. explained by the high level of complexity of Switzerland’s
India occupies the 76th position in the ETI, import tariff structure, for which it ranks a rock-bottom
reflecting a mixed performance on the four pillars. 120th.This measure takes into account the variance
While having fairly good border administration and of tariffs (117th), the share of tariff lines subjected to
business environment, domestic and foreign market access tariff peaks (8.1 percent, 79th) and to specific tariffs
continues to be significantly restricted. India ranks 116th (81.6 percent, 120th), and finally the number of distinct
on the relevant component, with tariff barriers represent- tariffs. On this latter indicator, Switzerland ranks last
ing a more serious impediment than non-tariff barriers. with over 6,500 different duties, almost four times that
India’s border administration meets many needs of of penultimate Russia.The high complexity is some-
importers and exporters. Ranked 58th on this indicator, what balanced by the very low tariffs. Despite a 26
a vast number of customs-related services are available percent average tariff on agricultural imports (105th),
in India, although it continues to be affected by corrupt import-weighted tariffs remain low thanks to the near
practices.Trade-related transport infrastructure and the zero tariffs (0.3 percent, the third lowest in the world)
relevant services are equally well developed in India, on non-agricultural products. Over 90 percent (5th
ranking 51st and 46th, respectively.The country is well highest share) of all imports to Switzerland are subject
connected through maritime routes, although it needs to no duty.
more airports and high-quality roads. India could also Denmark (4th) ranks among the top five countries
benefit from improvements in the ease of hiring foreign in seven out of the nine pillars of the Index. In particular,
labor as well as reduced business costs of terrorism. it ranks 2nd both for the efficiency and the transparency
of border administration, notably thanks to the low level
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 24
of overall corruption as reflected in Denmark’s excellent Canada ranks 13th in the market access pillar. It is
1st place in the Corruption Perceptions Index.This, along the only advanced economy along with Singapore (2nd)
with several other factors—such as the government’s and Hong Kong (20th) to feature in the top 20 within
efficiency (4th), the intensity of local competition (4th), this category.The import-weighted tariffs average just
and the high level of security (4th)—contributes to 2.4 percent, despite a 16 percent tariff levied on agricul-
creating an extremely conducive business environment tural imports—which is not so surprising for one of the
in Denmark (second only to Finland), where the only world’s biggest agricultural producers and exporters. In
drawback remains the relative difficulty of hiring foreign addition, nearly 90 percent of imports enter the country
labor (36th).The data also reveal high levels of quality free of duty. Finally, Canada makes little use of non-tariff
and availability of transport (5th) and ICT (4th) infra- barriers (21st), although the tariff structure in place is
structure. For instance, Denmark boasts the world’s highly complex (79th).
highest penetration of broadband Internet (36 percent In 7th place overall, and third among the Nordic
of the population). On a less positive note, the two countries, Norway owes its rank to a consistent
connectivity indexes for transshipment and liner performance across all the pillars.The business environ-
shipping put the country in 62nd and 35th positions, ment is particularly supportive to trade (5th), thanks to
respectively. favorable regulation, the efficiency of government oper-
Such strong results make the contrast with Denmark’s ations, its low prevalence of crime and violence (3rd),
86th rank in the market access component particularly and—despite a certain reluctance—foreign participation
stark. Notwithstanding the very low import-weighted (44th). Another strength is Norway’s efficient import and
average tariff of 1.1 percent—the world’s third lowest— export procedures (6th).The number of documents
and the high share of duty-free imports (68 percent, required, the time, and the costs are very low by inter-
22nd), all the other measures of access place Denmark national standards both on the export and import sides.
below the 50th rank.This results from the common In the market access pillar, Norway, at 21st, displays
policies of the European Union, which significantly much
distort trade, particularly that of agricultural products. better results than the Nordic members of the European
Denmark’s tariff structure is highly complex, as reflected Union.The average tariff of 60 percent on agricultural
24 in the variance of tariffs, the share of tariff peaks, and products—the second highest in the world after
specific duties. In addition, non-tariff barriers are pervasive Armenia—is largely compensated for by the tariff on
in Denmark (71st) and throughout the European Union other imports set close to zero (the third lowest, right
(median rank of 65). behind Hong Kong and Singapore). More than the aver-
Ranked just behind Denmark, Sweden, like its age level, the complexity of applied tariffs is a cause for
neighbor, possesses a world-class infrastructure, a very concern: Norway ranks second to last in this indicator.
transparent and efficient border administration, and a The Netherlands (at 10th overall) completes
highly favorable business environment.Yet crime and the top 10 of the ETI. One of the world’s main hubs
violence seem to be more of a problem (22nd), and for trade, the country receives outstanding marks for
so are the difficulties of hiring foreign workers (50th). the quality of its transport infrastructure (ranking 2nd,
With respect to market access, Sweden (88th) posts a behind only Germany), and the associated services
performance comparable to that of Denmark, the only (ranking 2nd, behind Singapore). In particular, the
difference coming from the slightly lower score on the quality of the country’s seaports and its connectivity
index of non-tariff measures. to the rest of the world come as no surprise, given that
Coming in at 6th place overall, Canada is one of Rotterdam has one of the world’s largest and busiest
the three non-European countries within the top 10. It maritime ports.This, combined with its efficient and
posts a strong and remarkably consistent performance speedy border administration (4th), makes the move-
across the board. In particular, it is second only to France ment of goods to and from the Netherlands almost
for the availability and quality of transport infrastructure, seamless.
which is excellent across all modes of transportation. Coming in at 12th overall, Germany presents char-
Only the low percentage of paved roads (40 percent, acteristics very similar to those of its western neighbor.
65th)—not surprising given the land area—prevents The world’s biggest exporter, Germany is the leader on
Canada from being number one. Border administration the quality of transport infrastructure. In particular, the
(12th) is characterized by efficient customs services two connectivity indexes reveal Germany’s prominence
(15th), speedy and hassle-free clearance procedures, and as a trade platform, which benefits from local companies
low levels of corruption, with the only dent being the that provide world-class transport-related and logistics
cost to import (95th) and export (96th).The Doing services.There exists some room for improvement in
Business study reveals that the fees levied upon the terms of customs administration, with Germany ranking
importation and exportation of a 20-foot container a relatively low 23rd on the customs services index. As
amount to US$1,785 and US$1,660, respectively, four for the regulatory environment (12th overall), Germany
times those collected by Singapore. ranks reasonably well on all the indicators, with the
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 25

exception of the index of openness to foreign participa- foreign participation (50th). Finally, in line with its fel-
tion.There it places 25th because of the difficulty of low EU members, market access is restricted (89th).
hiring foreign labor (76th). Market access is Germany’s With the exception of the market access pillar
Achilles’ heel. At 90th, it ranks even lower than the where it ranks a low 79th, the United Kingdom’s
European Union’s median rank of 79 because of the performance (20th) mirrors that of the United States.
pervasiveness of non-tariff measures—the only source The efficiency of border administration (14th) and the
of variation among EU members in this pillar. In quality of infrastructure (11th) are also the country’s two
Germany, 56 percent of trade is affected by such major strengths, while the business environment is affected
measures, the most among all advanced economies. by security concerns.The business community shares the
The United States comes in at 16th position. same concern as its American counterpart about the
Its performance is uneven across the nine pillars of the costs associated with the threat of terrorism (112th) as
Index.The United States obtains high rankings for the well as crime and violence (81st).
quality of transport infrastructure (3rd) and the associated At 22nd, Estonia is the highest ranked of the 12
services (14th), as well as for the availability and use of EU accession countries by a comfortable margin.
ICTs (12th).The efficiency of customs administration Second-placed Slovenia ranks 31st and two Baltic
(10th) owes much to the extent and availability of customs countries, Lithuania and Latvia, position somewhat
services (2nd). Also praised is the efficiency of import lower at 40th and 44th, respectively. Reflecting the
and export procedures (16th), thanks to the little time government’s commitment to free trade following inde-
and limited paperwork associated with them. pendence, Estonia precedes 15 European Union coun-
On a less positive note, the business environment tries, including four EU15 members.The country
is not as supportive of trade as could be expected (36th). obtains first-rate marks for the efficiency of its border
Among other issues, businesses voice their concern administration (16th).Time required for import and
about the level of security in the country (74th) and export procedures has been brought down to five days—
indicate that the threat of terrorism and crime and 2nd and 1st rank, respectively.The number of required
violence impose significant costs upon them (114th). documents for such procedures was also reduced to a
Finally, the United States ranks 49th in the market minimum. Furthermore, Estonia outshines many other
access component. More than 75 percent of all imports countries in the ICTs pillar (16th), boasting, respectively, 25
enter the country free of duty (20th).The import- the 5th and 20th highest penetration rates of mobile
weighted average tariff on agricultural products is a low telephony and Internet.This is not a surprise given the
6.7 percent (8th), below levels attained by Organisation government’s exceptional push toward ICT readiness.
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) More generally, Estonia provides exporters with a mostly
and EU countries on average,11 and tariffs on other favorable business environment, with the best rating
imported goods amount to only 1.3 percent (33rd). among all Eastern European countries (24th). Finally,
Contrasting with such low levels is the complexity thanks to fewer non-tariff barriers, Estonia does better
of the US tariff structure (89th).There are over 1,100 than a majority of EU members in the market access
distinct tariffs and nearly 10 percent of tariff lines are pillar (71st).
subject to specific tariffs, tariff peaks, or both. Finally, US The Russian Federation ranks an unflattering
exporters face some of the highest tariffs in the world— 109th, making the world’s eighth biggest economy one
6 percent on average. of the least open and least attractive to both importers
France ranks 17th overall, helped by its strong and exporters. Quite tellingly, there is only one pillar,
performance in terms of infrastructure. In particular, it availability and use of ICTs, where the country appears
tops the transport infrastructure pillar thanks to the in the first half of the ranking (50th). But even here, as
quality of all modes of transport and despite a relatively in all the other categories, the need for improvement is
low airport density (39th). France is very well connected huge.The main area of concern is the extremely restricted
to major trade routes, as reflected in its 2nd place access to markets (113th). Not yet a WTO member,
(behind the United Kingdom) in the transshipment Russia has import tariffs that average 15 percent (114th)
connectivity index. Border administration constitutes overall, and 26 percent (106th) on agricultural imports.
another of France’s relative strengths (19th). France ranks The complexity of the tariff structure is also extremely
1st for the number of documents required for import high (90th), and the country does poorly with respect to
and export—only two signatures need to be obtained. border administration (106th), as reflected in the results
But there is room for improvement, notably in reducing associated with import and export procedures, which
the cost to import and export, and, to a lesser extent, in are bleak by every measure: efficiency of clearance
making customs procedures more transparent. France’s (115th), time to export (103rd) and import (99th), and
regulatory environment is quite propitious, although the cost to export (111th) and import (102nd), as well as
business community voices some concern about the transparency (109th). Russia’s business environment
efficiency of government operations (35th), security (96th) is not
(29th), and, most importantly, limited openness toward particularly welcoming to international participation
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 26
either, especially with respect to investments (119th trade, as they raise the related transaction costs.Trade
for the measure of openness to foreign ownership). policy continues to be heavily biased toward protection-
Furthermore, executives have little trust in the govern- ism, in particular of the agricultural sector, and although
ment and doubt its ability to enforce law and order. import and export procedures have been streamlined,
they remain costly compared with the regional average.
Latin America and the Caribbean This is reflected in the low ranking obtained by Mexico
Chile, ranked 19th, leads the rankings in Latin America on the indicators capturing the cost to import (107th)
and the Caribbean by a considerable margin.This excel- and export (89th).The most serious weakness, however,
lent showing is not surprising, given Chile’s role as Latin concerns the government’s inability to provide the
America’s leading example on how to benefit from required level of physical security, a problem that has
global trade and investment linkages.The country has been affecting the country for a number of years and is
shown commitment to free trade by reducing the com- increasingly exacerbated by drug-related conflicts. On a
plexity of tariffs (2nd) and successfully negotiating access positive note, Mexico’s exporters enjoy rather low tariffs
to foreign markets for domestic exporters, who face less for their products in target markets and benefit from
tariff burdens than in any other country in the sample. high margins of preference. Some aspects of transport
Yet, despite these pronounced strengths, some areas in infrastructure and the related services are also assessed
need of improvement can be identified through an positively, in particular those related to maritime shipping
analysis of the ETI results. Border procedures, for example, services and services offered by the logistics industry.
although transparent (17th), could be less costly and Mexico also benefits from its openness to foreign
time consuming (40th), which imposes an undue burden participation.
on traders. Equally, transport infrastructure and the relat- Latin America’s largest economy, Brazil, ranks
ed services are below international standards in terms 87th for enabling trade across borders.This low ranking
of quality and availability, and the availability and use of is a reflection of Brazil’s varied performance across the
ICTs is not on a par with countries at the same level of nine pillars of the ETI.The country displays strengths
trade intensity. On a more positive note, the country is in the quality of its transport services and the use and
very open to foreign participation, which ensures a high prevalence of latest technologies.To a somewhat lesser
26 level of competition overall. extent, this also holds true for the transparency and
With Costa Rica, ranked 43rd, another Latin efficiency of overall border procedures, although the
American best-practice example in economic develop- business sector considers that dealing with customs in
ment occupies the second position in the region. Costa particular is burdensome.These positive aspects are
Rica’s successful economic strategy, aimed at diversifying partially offset by a number of factors in which Brazil’s
exports and increasing their value-added, contributes to performance is weak.This particularly pertains to
this good result.12 The country ranks a very high 5th in domestic and foreign market access. Despite efforts to
terms of domestic and foreign market access because of liberalize trade domestically and within MERCOSUR,
its relatively low tariff and non-tariff barriers, its simple the level of protection in Brazil remains relatively high.
and transparent tariff structure, and the fairly low tariff Although the tariff structure is simple and transparent,
barriers faced by exporters in target markets.The coun- tariffs for non-agricultural products are high by interna-
try’s trade performance also benefits from a favorable tional comparison (87th). Other areas to be addressed
regulatory environment (41st) characterized by high for Brazil to benefit more from international trade
governance standards and a significant degree of open- include the quality of transport infrastructure (93rd),
ness to foreign participation (21st). Although Costa which is below international standards across all modes
Rica’s trade policy is firmly geared toward openness, of transport. Furthermore, the business environment in
a number of barriers remain and add to the cost of Brazil could be more conducive to trade (93rd).
importing and exporting. Streamlining import and export Achieving this goal would require raising the efficiency
procedures, upgrading the quality of infrastructure and of government institutions, increasing the intensity of
that of related services, and reducing the cost to business domestic competition, and, in particular, lowering the
resulting from crime and violence could contribute to cost incurred by businesses that are related to the violent
further boosting the country’s trade performance by and insecure environment.
lowering the transaction costs associated with trade. Argentina ranks 97th in the ETI. Its position
Mexico, a country that has significantly benefited mirrors a mixed performance across the four pillars.To
from trade over the past decades, ranks 74th in this year’s further enable trade, Argentina will have to address a
ETI.The results show that, despite the country’s past number of challenges, most importantly those related to
export success, there remains untapped potential for the regulatory environment and physical security. More
further enabling trade. Presently, trade continues to be openness to foreign participation and a better general
hampered by a number of barriers related to trade policy, governance framework could considerably improve the
border administration, and most of all, the lack of physical operating environment for business and increase the
security. All these factors have a significant bearing on level of competition. More efforts to combat crime
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 27

and violence and to render police services more reliable (25th) facilitates communication and customs clearance.
could contribute to reducing the considerable cost Although the regulatory environment is fairly open
resulting from poor physical security. Upgrading infra- to foreign ownership, the lack of physical security, in
structure, in particular for transport by air, would further particular the threat of terrorism, imposes a significant
contribute to lowering the transport cost of goods. At cost on importers and exporters. Furthermore, Israel’s
the same time, the country can build on a number of trade could be additionally enabled though investment
important strengths. Here, the positive assessments of in infrastructure, as the quality and availability of facilities
ICT infrastructure, the quality of transport services, and, remains behind standards found in other countries at a
to a lesser degree, the efficiency of import-export pro- similar level of development.
cedures are worth noting. Furthermore, the competi- Tunisia ranks 41st for enabling trade across borders.
tiveness of Argentina’s exporters is supported by reason- Weaknesses in trade policy (70th) are partly compensated
ably low tariffs faced abroad and a considerable margin for by an effective customs administration (30th), fairly
of preference in key target markets. efficient import-export procedures (39th), and a propi-
tious regulatory environment (18th). Equally important,
Middle East and North Africa perceptions regarding physical security in the country
Countries from the Middle East and North Africa are rather favorable (22nd). Nevertheless, a number of
region enable trade to varying degrees. Indeed, the per- weaknesses remain and need to be addressed for the
formance on the ETI spreads across almost the entire country to further enable trade.Tunisia imposes high
sample, ranging from best-performer United Arab tariffs on imports. It ranks 119th on both tariffs for
Emirates at 18th to Algeria at 112th. On average, Gulf agricultural and non-agricultural products—in absolute
countries enable trade across borders to a greater degree terms, the tariffs on agricultural products amount to 56
than their Arab and North African counterparts.This percent ad valorem—and subjects a large majority of its
reflects, among other factors, the small size of most of imports to tariffs (over 75 percent, ranking 93rd). In
the Gulf economies as well as their specialization in addition to the high level of tariffs, businesses face a
energy exports. complex tariff structure.While further reduction in
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) leads the tariffs would be desirable,Tunisia has very successfully
rankings at 18th position, ahead of Chile and the improved access to the main target markets for its 27
United Kingdom.The country boasts a very efficient exporters, mainly through preferential trading agreements
and with the European Union, currently the destination for
transparent border administration (ranked 14th on about 80 percent of the country’s exports. In addition,
efficiency of import and export procedures and 26th the country has preferential access to its main markets
on transparency) and has one of the lowest costs to with a fairly high preference margin (rank 21).
import and the least burdensome customs procedures Importers and exporters alike would benefit from
in the entire sample, ranking 5th and 6th, respectively, enhanced transport services. Presently, shipments rarely
on the relevant indicators. Further strengths include an reach their destination on time, maritime shipping
excellent transport infrastructure (13th) and a regulatory connections and services lag behind international
environment that is particularly conducive to trade standards, and the competence of the logistics industry
because of the country’s strong institutional framework is assessed as only 81st out of 121 countries.
and also by virtue of openness to foreign participation Saudi Arabia ranks 42nd on the ETI, showing
(19th). Last but not least, the country is relatively secure solid performance across many indicators in the analysis.
in international comparison (10th). Import and export procedures, including customs, are
Strengthening the country’s position on the Index relatively efficient in international comparison, ranking
would require further lowering tariff barriers, in partic- 31st and 25th, respectively. Among other strengths is the
ular for agricultural tariff products, although it has the country’s regulatory environment, which is supportive of
advantage of having a very simple tariff structure. Also, trade (31st) because of a transparent and efficient institu-
further preferential agreements with main markets tional framework, which compensates for the relative
would help lower the relatively high tariffs faced by lack of openness to foreign participation. More foreign
the country in its target markets. ownership would bring Saudi Arabia a number of
Israel enters at 29th place overall in the ETI. advantages, such as access to international know-how as
Following gradual liberalization over the past years, well as increased competition and hence efficiency, all
Israel presently has a reasonably open trade policy of which would strengthen the position of the country’s
with the exception of agricultural policies, which exporters in global markets and support diversification.13
remain protective of local producers, ranking 102nd Index results also indicate that physical security in
in the ETI sample.The country’s border procedures general and the threat of terrorism in particular impose
are not perceived as burdensome, the cost of importing significant cost on businesses. Enhancing the use of
and exporting is among the lowest among the countries ICTs and the availability and the quality of transport
assessed, and the widespread use of new technologies services would be beneficial.Yet most of all, further
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 28
enabling trade in Saudi Arabia will require opening are reasonable. And although Mauritian exporters face
domestic markets to trade, in particular in agricultural fairly high barriers abroad, they benefit from a high
products, where the country ranks a low 83rd.Tariff margin of preference in their main target markets.
reductions are under way as commitments of WTO Against this overall very positive assessment stand weak-
membership are being implemented over a 10-year nesses in the quality of transport services.Tracking and
period (since 2005). tracing services are barely available (99th), the logistics
Egypt ranks 75th for the ease of getting goods industry is assessed as lacking competence (120th), and
across the border and to destination.The country’s most shipments are difficult to arrange (107th) and rarely
notable strengths include a business environment that reach their destination on time (115th). Equally, more
is fairly conducive to trade—in particular, it is easy to could be done to better leverage ICTs for development,
hire foreign labor and the business cost of threats to where the country ranks 49th.
security is assessed as low. Despite efforts to liberalize Namibia is placed at 60th position, the second-
trade over the past years, trade policy in Egypt remains best nation in sub-Saharan Africa in terms of enabling
rather protectionist. Egypt applies very high tariff rates trade across borders.This good showing mirrors the
(particularly on some agricultural products), the tariff favorable results obtained by Namibia in terms of
structure is complex, and the available data on non-tariff market access. Although tariffs are quite high on average,
measures indicate that these constitute an important only a very small share of imported goods is subjected
impediment to enabling trade. In terms of border to them. Namibia has also negotiated a fairly high pref-
administration, although importing goods into Egypt erence margin with its main exporters. Despite the
is neither costly nor time consuming, importers raise somewhat open access to markets, Namibia’s trade is
concerns about the efficiency of customs and, to an burdened by heavy administration at the borders.The
even greater extent, of other border agencies. On a country ranks a low 84th and 101st for the efficiency
positive note, Egypt boasts a fairly well developed trans- of customs procedures and the overall import-export
port infrastructure (53rd) including the related services procedures, respectively, although business leaders attest
(58th). that corruption is not a major problem. Additional
Algeria ranks 112th in the overall ETI.The country strengths include a well-developed transport infrastruc-
28 remains fairly sheltered from international competition, ture and a regulatory environment that is more efficient
despite its ongoing efforts to join the WTO. Market and transparent than in most neighboring countries.To
access remains restricted (118th on the market access further enable trade, Namibia will have to address the
component), yet tariffs are likely to be lowered signifi- poor quality of its transport services and
cantly as Algeria advances toward WTO membership. further open the economy to foreign participation.
WTO accession is also bound to lower the tariffs faced South Africa enters the ranking at 61st position.
by Algerian exporters, which are currently among the The country’s relatively good marks on transport and
highest in the sample (116th). In addition to the restric- communications infrastructure and border administra-
tive trade policy, importers and exporters in Algeria are tion are offset by weaknesses in market access and in the
burdened by a fairly inefficient and opaque border security environment. South Africa has pursued a trade
administration and a cumbersome, time-consuming, and liberalization program since 1994, which contributed
costly clearance process that affects customs as well as significantly to opening the economy.Yet, although tariffs
other border agencies.Trade would also benefit from apply to relatively few import products, they remain
a more transparent institutional framework, more rather high in international comparison and their struc-
domestic competition, and greater openness to foreign ture is complex. It is appropriate that a review of the
participation. tariff structure to reduce complexity and lower tariffs
for strategically important upstream sectors is under way.
Sub-Saharan Africa Other than that, South Africa boasts relatively efficient
With the exception of best-performer Mauritius, the infrastructure facilities and the respective services are
countries in sub-Saharan Africa occupy positions in the also assessed as good.The country’s solid institutional
lower half of the sample as they struggle with under- framework, with an efficient government and well-
developed infrastructure, inefficient border administration, defined property rights, is beneficial for importers and
and, in some countries, severely restricted market access. exporters.The main areas of concern in South Africa
At 33rd position, Mauritius is, by a large margin, relate to the lack of physical security (105th), which
the highest-ranked country in sub-Saharan Africa.The reflects what are the highest business costs of crime and
open access to the country’s markets, the efficiency of violence of all countries covered in the Index. Businesses
the border administration, and a regulatory environment also express concerns about insufficient openness to
that is conducive to trade all contribute to this high foreign participation, in particular regulations related to
showing. Access to domestic and foreign markets is hiring foreign labor.
among the most open worldwide; a large share of goods Senegal ranks 83rd for getting goods across borders
is imported duty-free, and tariff and non-tariff barriers and to destination.The country’s strengths include a
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 29

secure and open business environment and relatively measures are mounting in many countries.The current
efficient import and export procedures, with only few challenge, therefore, is to ensure not only that countries
administrative procedures and little time required when not pull each other down further by restraining trade
importing or exporting goods. Imports benefit from the but that they help recovery by trading with each other.
country’s very simple tariff structure (9th) with no tariff Further enabling trade across borders can contribute to
peaks and only four different types of tariffs overall, mitigating the effect of the global crisis, as measures facil-
which makes it transparent and easy to navigate. How- itating trade will reduce its transaction cost and therefore
ever, the overall level of protection remains high with partially offset the effects of the demand slump. In this
respect to both tariff and non-tariff barriers, ranking 90th context, the ETI can provide guidance on measures that
and 94th, respectively. In addition to lowering tariffs, to need to be taken to enable trade.
further benefit from international trade, Senegal should By benchmarking countries on their ability to enable
upgrade its institutional framework, which is prone to trade, the World Economic Forum aims to focus atten-
undue influence (105th) and lack of transparency (101st). tion on an issue of global importance and to provide a
As a result, border administration is also heavily affected platform for dialogue among government, business, and
by corrupt practices (93rd). Border administration that is civil society. Such a dialogue can serve as a catalyst for
more transparent would improve revenue collection and trade-enhancing reforms with the aim of mitigating the
allow the country to further lower tariffs while main- effect of the present crisis and ultimately raising the
taining the revenue levels. prosperity of the world’s citizens.
Tanzania occupies the 92nd position in the ETI.
This result is based on a number of pronounced
strengths and weaknesses throughout the nine pillars Notes
of the Index.While Tanzania has a relatively transparent 1 G-20 2009.
and simple tariff structure (40th) and its exporters face 2 Gamberoni and Newfarmer 2009.
very low tariffs in target markets (5th), burdensome 3 See WTO 2009a.
customs and border administration represents a signifi- 4 For more information about the program, see
cant hindrance for both importers and exporters. An http://www.londonsummit.gov.uk.
upgraded transport infrastructure as well as improved 5 We have focused on the flow of trade in goods in the Index for 29
quality and availability of transport services, along with expository purposes, although we recognize that enabling trade in
services is also important. By circumscribing the issue clearly, the
a more intense use of ICTs would enable the country to Index provides a useful vehicle for carrying out policy analysis on
harvest the benefits of international trade. a clearly defined part of the issue. Trade in goods accounts for
upward of 80 percent of all trade, and is therefore highly relevant.
It is also important to note that many of the factors and policies
included in the model would be equally relevant for an analysis of
Conclusions the factors facilitating the services trade.
This chapter has presented and analyzed the results of 6 We include the preferential margin, because bilateral and regional
agreements enable trade for the country that gains the preferen-
the World Economic Forum’s ETI. In its second year, tial access, although it must be pointed out that they have a num-
the Index provides a comprehensive picture of the insti- ber of downsides. They make trade regimes complex to navigate
for exporters, and may be harmful from a global perspective.
tutions, policies, and services that enable the movement
of goods across borders and to destination in the 121 7 For landlocked countries, the access to ports is measured.
countries covered. Based on a thorough review and 8 The score of each subindex is derived as an unweighted average
of the pillars that constitute it.
feedback obtained from users and partner organizations,
the Index has been enhanced to include exports and to 9 The EU15 designates the 15 member countries that joined the
European Union prior to 2004: Austria, Belgium, Denmark,
better capture aspects of the domestic environment in Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,
the countries assessed as well as the level of complexity Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
of the tariff regime. 10 Although Switzerland has no direct access to deep sea, it is
The present recession has highlighted the interde- connected to the North Sea via the Rhine and does receive
regular liner shipping services. However, river transport imposes
pendency of countries and the importance of trade limitations on the size of vessels and traffic, and this affects cargo
for the world economy. In the wake of the financial capacity and the number of services, hence the low marks in
these two indexes. Nevertheless, considering that the country is
crisis that originated in the United States, global trade landlocked, access to the Rhine provides significant advantages
volumes have fallen considerably.This reduction is not compared with other landlocked countries.
directly related to trade policies or other factors assessed 11 The OECD average amounts to 14.9 percent, while the European
by the ETI, but mainly results from a demand slump Union attains 9.3 percent.
across many countries. Although many stimulus packages 12 See Sala-i-Martin et al. 2008 for a brief analysis of Costa Rica’s
economic policy over recent decades.
may contribute to enabling trade if they invest in trade-
related infrastructure, there remain reasons for concern 13 Under the provisions of WTO membership, Saudi Arabia has
opened a number of sectors, such as financial services and energy
about the direction trade policies may take in the future. to foreign participation, since joining the organization in 2005.
Pressures to protect domestic industries and jobs
through policies and in the context of countercyclical
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 30
References
Eichengreen, B. and K. O’Rourke. 2009. “A Tale of Two Depressions.”
Vox. June 4. Available at
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3421.
G-20. 2009. Global plan for recovery and reform: The Communiqué
from the London Summit. Available at:
http://www.londonsummit.gov.uk/
en/summit-aims/summit-communique/.
Gamberoni, E. and R. Newfarmer. 2009. Trade Protection: Incipient but

Worrying Trends. March 17. Available at
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NEWS/Resources/
Trade_Note_37.pdf.
IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2009. World Economic Outlook

Database. April. Available at http://www.imf.org/external/
pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/weodata/index.aspx.
Sala-i-Martin, X. J. Blanke, M. Drzeniek Hanouz, T. Geiger, I. Mia, and

F. Paua. 2008. “The Global Competitiveness Index: Prioritizing
Economic Policy Agenda.” The Global Competitiveness Report
2008–2009. Geneva: World Economic Forum. 3–41.
WTO (World Trade Organization). 2009a. “WTO Secretariat Reports

Increase in New Anti-Dumping Investigations.” May 7. Available
at http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres09_e/pr556_e.htm.
———. 2009b. Statistics Database. Available at http://stat.wto.org.
30
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 31

Appendix A:
&&&:: (cont’d.) of the Enabling Trade Index
Composition
This appendix provides details about the construction of Subindex A: Market access
the Enabling Trade Index (ETI).
Pillar 1: Domestic and foreign market access
The ETI is composed of four subindexes: the market
1.01 Tariff barriers (hard data)2
access subindex; the border administration subindex; the Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products
transport and communications infrastructure subindex; (hard data)
and the business environment subindex.These subindexes Tariff barriers for agricultural products (hard data)
are, in turn, composed of the nine pillars of the ETI: 1.02 Non-tariff barriers (hard data)
1.03 Complexity of tariffs (hard data)3
domestic and foreign market access, efficiency of customs
Variance of tariffs (hard data)
administration, efficiency of import-export procedures, Domestic tariff peaks (hard data)
transparency of border administration, availability and Specific tariffs (hard data)
quality of transport infrastructure, availability and quality Number of distinct tariffs (hard data)
of transport services, availability and use of ICTs, regula- 1.04 Share of duty-free imports (hard data)
tory environment, and physical security.These pillars are 1.05 Tariffs faced (hard data)
1.06 Margin of preference in major export markets
calculated on the basis of both hard data and survey
(hard data)
data.
The survey data are mainly derived from the
responses to the World Economic Forum’s Executive Subindex B: Border administration
Opinion Survey and range from 1 to 7. In addition,
survey data from the World Bank’s Logistics Performance Pillar 2: Efficiency of customs administration
2.01 Burden of customs procedures
Index (LPI) survey have also been included.The hard
2.02 Customs services index (hard data)
data were collected from various recognized sources,
such as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization Pillar 3: Efficiency of import-export procedures
(WTO), the International Trade Centre (ITC), or the 3.01 Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance4
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development 3.02 Time for import (hard data)
3.03 Documents for import (hard data) 31
(UNCTAD).The LPI data and the hard data are
3.04 Cost to import (hard data)
described in detail in the Technical Notes and Sources 3.05 Time for export (hard data)
section at the end of this Report. All of the data used 3.06 Documents for export (hard data)
in the calculation of the ETI can be found in the 3.07 Cost to export (hard data)
Data Tables on the website of the Report
Pillar 4: Transparency of border administration
(www.weforum.org/GETR). 4.01 Irregular payments in exports and imports
The hard data indicators used in the ETI, as well 4.02 Corruption Perceptions Index (hard data)
as the results from the LPI survey, are normalized to a
1-to-7 scale in order to align them with the Executive
Opinion Survey results.1 Each of the pillars has been Subindex C: Transport and communications
calculated as an unweighted average of the individual infrastructure
component variables.The subindexes are then com-
Pillar 5: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
pounded as unweighted averages of the included pillars.
A. Availability of transport infrastructure
In the case of the availability and quality of transport
5.01 Airport density (hard data)
infrastructure pillar, which is itself composed of two 5.02 Transshipment connectivity index (hard data)
subpillars (availability of transport infrastructure and 5.03 Paved roads (hard data)
quality of transport infrastructure), the overall pillar is B. Quality of transport infrastructure
the unweighted average of the two subpillars.The over- 5.04 Road congestion (hard data)
all ETI is then calculated as the unweighted average of 5.05 Quality of air transport infrastructure
the four subindexes.The variables and the composition 5.06 Quality of railroad infrastructure
5.07 Quality of roads
of pillars are described below. If a variable is one of hard
5.08 Quality of port infrastructure
data, this is indicated in parentheses after the description.
Pillar 6: Availability and quality of transport services
6.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index (hard data)
6.02 Ease and affordability of shipment4
6.03 Competence of the logistics industry4
6.04 Ability and ease of tracking4
6.05 Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination4
6.06 Postal service efficiency
6.07 GATS commitments in the transport sector
(hard data)
(Cont’d.)
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 32
Appendix A:
&&&:: (cont’d.) of the Enabling Trade Index (cont’d.)
Composition
Pillar 7: Availability and use of ITCs

7.01 Firm-level technology absorption
7.02 Mobile telephone subscribers (hard data)
7.03 Broadband Internet subscribers (hard data)
7.04 Internet users (hard data)
7.05 Telephone lines (hard data)
Subindex D: Business environment
Pillar 8: Regulatory environment

8.01 Property rights5
8.02 Ethics and corruption5
8.03 Undue influence5
8.04 Government inefficiency5
8.05 Domestic competition5
8.06 Openness to foreign participation6
Ease of hiring foreign labor
Prevalence of foreign ownership
Business impact of rules on FDI
Capital controls
Pillar 9: Physical security

9.01 Reliability of police services
9.02 Business costs of crime and violence
Business costs of terrorism
32 Notes
1 The standard formula for converting each hard data variable to the
1-to-7 scale is
country score – sample minimum

6 x
( sample maximum – sample minimum ) + 1
The sample minimum and sample maximum are the lowest and
highest scores of the overall sample, respectively. For those hard
data variables for which a higher value indicates a worse outcome
(e.g., tariff barriers, road congestion), we rely on a normalization
formula that, in addition to converting the series to a 1-to-7 scale,
reverses it, so that 1 and 7 still correspond to the worst and best
possible outcomes, respectively:
country score – sample minimum

–6 x
( sample maximum – sample minimum ) + 7
In some instances, adjustments were made to account for

extreme outliers in the data.
2 In the calculation we use import-weighted tariff barriers for all

products but we disclose the breakdown between agriculture and
non-agriculture for information.
3 Complexity of tariffs is the average of the other four variables.
4 The LPI data are derived from the World Bank Logistics
Perception Index (LPI) Survey, which is based on a 1-to-5 scale.
LPI data were normalized to a 1-to-7 scale using the above formula
in order to align it with the Executive Opinion Survey results.
5 These variables are composite indicators comprising multiple vari-

ables used in the Global Competitiveness Index. For details see
The Global Competitiveness Report 2008–2009.
6 This variable is the average score of the listed four Survey data
variables.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 33

Appendix B: Testing the 2009 Enabling Trade Index using an augmented gravity model
This appendix details the main findings of an empirical • REMi is a measure of economic remoteness. It cor-
analysis aimed at testing the contribution of the Enabling responds to the sum of distances between i and all
Trade Index (ETI) to explaining bilateral trade patterns.1 the other countries weighted by the share of each
The method of choice is the gravity model of trade, country in world’s GDP. Formally, we have:
which has proven remarkably successful at predicting
GDPj GDPj
REMi = ∑
bilateral trade flows based on the economic size of the DIST
∑ GDP , where ∑ GDP is
ij
j ≠i k k
trading partners, the distance between them, and other k ≠i k ≠i
attributes.2 Examples of such attributes include the

quality of institutions, the existence of free trade agree- approximated by the share of country j’s GDP in
ments, colonial ties, and a common border.We believe world GDP less country i’s share;
that the factors included in the ETI (e.g., market access,
border administration, transport and communications • ETIi is country i’s overall score in the ETI 2009 as
infrastructure, and the business environment) are such presented in this chapter.
attributes.
• Finally, Dk represents a set of dummy variables that
take the value 1 when a certain condition is met and
Model and Data 0 otherwise.The source is CEPII unless mentioned
We therefore specify the following gravity model to otherwise. CONTIGij is 1 if i and j share a common
which we append—hence the term augmented—the border. COMLANGij is 1 if i and j have at least one
ETI scores of the two trading partners: common official language and/or if one language is
spoken by at least 9 percent of the population in
ln(EXPij) = ␤0 +␤1 ln(DISTij) + ␤2 ln(GDPi) both countries. SMCTRYij is 1 if i and j were, or
+ ␤3 ln(GDPj) + ␤4 ln(GDPPCi) are, the same country. COLTIEij is 1 if i and j had,
or still have, colonial ties (i.e., a common colonizer
+ ␤5 ln(GDPPCj) + ␤6 ln(REMi) (1) 33
or a colonizer and colony). LLOCKEDij is 1 if i, j,
+ ␤7 ln(REMj) + ␤8 ln(ETIi)
6
or both, are landlocked. Data were collected by the
+ ␤9 ln(ETIj) + ∑ ␣k Dkij + ⑀ij authors from various sources. Finally, COMCURRij
k=1
is 1 if i and j have the same currency.This variable

where was constructed using data provided by the
International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) and reflects the situation at the end of 2007.
• EXPij represents the exports of country i to country
j.We use mirror data, that is, imports data of j from Using Model (1), we test the hypothesis that the
i (IMPji), the reason being that monitoring and factors included in the ETI together play some role in
measurement of imports flows are more accurate explaining the variance of bilateral trade flows. Drawing
because they represent a tax base.3 Where IMPji data on the latest research, we rely on a Poisson pseudo-
were missing, export data, if available, were used maximum likelihood estimation method.4 In their
instead.Trade data are for 2007 and were retrieved influential article, Santos Silva and Tenreyro show why
from the United Nations’ Comtrade Database on Poisson is superior to other estimation techniques when
16th April, 2009; it comes to constant elasticity models.5 Poisson has the
major advantage of dealing with the heteroskedasticity
• DISTij is the distance between i and j, expressed in issue as well as with the presence of zeros in the
kilometers.The distance is weighted to account for dependent variable.These are two features of the gravity
the geographic distribution of population within a model that traditional log-linear methods do not handle
country. Distance data come from the Centre properly, thus leading to biased estimates.6 With Poisson,
d’Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations the gravity model needs not to be log-linearized and
Internationales (CEPII); can be estimated in its original multiplicative form.7
Our sample consists of 14,520 observations representing
• GDPi represents the gross domestic products (GDP) the total number of bilateral trading relationships among
valued at power purchasing parity (PPP) of country the 121 economies covered by the ETI.
i. GDPPCi is for GDP (valued at PPP) per capita of
i. All figures are for 2007 and come from the April
2009 edition of the International Monetary Fund Results
(IMF)’s World Economic Outlook; We estimate the model specified under Equation (1)
and report the results in Table A.8 The two variables of
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 34
Appendix B: Testing the 2009 Enabling Trade Index using an augmented gravity model (cont’d.)
Table A: Results for the Poisson estimation of the political will (e.g., cutting on red tape) more than financial
augmented gravity model capacity.
The joint effect predicts that a 1 percent increase in
Robust
Variable Model (1) standard error the average ETI score of any given country pair would
DISTij –0.888*** (0.04) be associated with a 4 percent increase in bilateral trade,
GDPi 0.831*** (0.02) all else being equal.The significance of this result is
GDPj 0.802*** (0.02) reflected in the gap that separates the best and worst
GDPPCi –0.036 (0.08) performers in the ETI rankings. At 6.0, top-ranked
GDPPCj 0.101* (0.05)
Singapore’s score is more than twice—116 percent to
REMi 0.747*** (0.14)
be precise—that of Chad (2.77).
REMj 1.055*** (0.15)
ETIi 1.742*** (0.35)
Looking at the other covariates, the elasticities on
ETIj 2.283*** (0.26) the variables of the standard gravity model bear the
CONTIGij 0.350*** (0.09) expected signs: negative for distance, positive for GDP.
COMLANGij 0.102 (0.07) The bigger and the closer the partners, the more they
SMCTRYij 0.282 (0.22) trade with each other. In addition, and consistent with
COLTIEij –0.082 (0.09) most of other empirical studies, they are close to unity,
LLOCKEDij –0.206** (0.07)
although smaller than ordinary least squares estimates.
COMCURRij 0.041 (0.08)
More interesting is the case of GDP per capita.The
Intercept –38.415*** (2.07)
Adjusted pseudo R2 0.906
traditional view generally holds that, ceteris paribus, the
Number of observations 14,520 richer a country, the more it trades.Yet, based on our
estimation, we cannot reject the hypothesis that the
Dependent variable is exports EXPij in levels (see text for details).
Significance levels: * = 5 percent, ** = 1 percent, *** = 0.1 percent. level of economic development of the exporting coun-
try plays no role in determining its proneness to export.
As to the coefficient on the importer’s GDP per capita,
34
it is small and only significantly different from zero at a
interest are ETIi and ETIj.The elasticities of 1.7 for the 95 percent confidence level: a twofold increase in GDP
exporting country i and 2.3 for importing country j per capita would boost exports by a mere 10 percent.
predicts that a 1 percent increase in the ETI score by This may be attributed to the boom in trade from, and
the exporting country i would increase exports by 1.7. among, emerging nations, which weakens the link
The same increase by importing country j would between economic wealth and propensity to trade.
increase imports from country i by 2.3 percent. Both Remoteness has a significant and positive impact on
coefficients are significantly different from zero with bilateral trade for the exporter and even more so for the
z-statistics of 5.0 and 8.7, respectively.This confirms the importer.This suggests that two countries far away from
hypothesis formulated above, that the factors captured the major economic centers but close to each other —
by the ETI contribute to explaining the patterns of think of Australia and New Zealand, for instance—will
bilateral trade flow in a non-negligible way. 9 trade relatively more with each other, all else being
The bigger elasticity on ETIj means that improve- equal. Finally, the coefficients on the dummies bear the
ments on the importer’s end have a bigger trade-enabling expected signs, with the exception of colonial ties, whose
effect.Yet the elasticity is almost as high on the exporter’s elasticity is negative.Yet for the latter coefficient, as well
side, thus suggesting that the conditions in the exporting as for those on common currency, common language,
country matter nearly as much.This is not surprising, and uniqueness of country, we cannot reject with any
given that the vast majority of the indicators included reasonable level of confidence the hypothesis that these
in the ETI clearly affect both ends of the export/import characteristics play no role in explaining trade patterns.
process—think of roads used to carry goods from the Being landlocked, however, does have a sizeable shrink-
factory to the seaport and from the seaport to final ing effect on bilateral trade.When at least one of the
destination. two countries is enclosed, bilateral trade is reduced by
This result also constitutes a serious blow to the some 20 percent, all else being equal. Finally, contiguity
often-held idea that export performance depends mainly has just the opposite effect: sharing a border increases
on the quality of access to the destination market: if a trade by one third.
country improves on the factors that facilitate exports,
it is likely to see a surge in exports, regardless of the condi-
tions prevailing in the export markets. Conclusion
This is all the more encouraging given that the Using an augmented gravity model and Poisson quasi-
majority of the ETI factors fall under the purview of maximum likelihood estimation technique, we find that
the government. And improving on these often requires the Enabling Trade Index (ETI) contributes to explaining
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 35

Appendix B: Testing the 2009 Enabling Trade Index using an augmented gravity model (cont’d.)
trade flow patterns.The elasticity of bilateral trade, meas- Santos Silva, J. M. C. and S. Tenreyro. 2006. “The Log of Gravity.”
Review of Economics and Statistics 88 (4): 641–58.
ured by export volumes, with respect to the ETI score
Tinbergen, J. 1962. Shaping the World Economy: Suggestions for an
is a high 1.7 for the exporting country and 2.3 for the
International Economic Policy. New York: The Twentieth Century
importing country.This study provides further evidence Fund.
that, beyond market access, the other dimensions captured Wooldridge, J. M. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and
by the ETI—border administration, infrastructure, and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
business environment—matter a great deal in determining ———. 2003. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Second
a country’s trade performance. edition. Mason, OH: South-Western.
Notes
1 A first attempt to test the ETI using a gravity model was present-
ed in The Global Enabling Trade Report 2008. See Lawrence et al.
2008.
2 For some milestones in the history of the gravity model of trade,

see Tinbergen 1962; Andersen 1979; and Andersen and Van
Wincoop 2003.
3 Indeed, in our sample of 14,520 trading relationships, there are

3,898 cases where exports from i to j are reported as missing or
zero, while there are “only” 3,322 zeros or missing values reported
for imports of i from j. Furthermore, among the 8,921 observa-
tions for which both exports and imports are greater than zero,
63 percent have imports flows greater than exports flows.
4 For an introduction to pseudo-maximum likelihood models and

Poisson regression models, see Wooldridge 2003. For a more
advanced discussion, see Wooldridge 2002.
5 Santos Silva and Tenreyro 2006.

35
6 Heteroskedasticity is present whenever the variance of the term
term ⑀ij is conditional on the values of the explanatory variables,
and therefore not constant (see Wooldridge 2003, Chapter 8). If
not properly dealt with, heteroskedasticity can lead to misinterpre-
tations of the results. It is widely admitted that trade data do
exhibit heteroskedasticity, even though many studies fail to
address this issue. Indeed a White test confirms the presence of
heteroskedasticity in our sample.
7 This is why, with the Poisson method, exports are expressed

in level, not in log. The multiplicative form can easily be derived
from Equation (1) by exponentiation: EXPij = exp(X␤)␩ij, where X␤
refers to the right hand-side of Equation (1) without the error term
⑀ij, of which ␩ij is a transformation.
8 The model was also estimated using alternative techniques, includ-
ing Heckman, ordinary least squares, and tobit. These methods
yield results that all confirm the strong trade-enabling effect of
the factors included in the ETI. The effect tends to be even bigger
than with the more conservative Poisson estimates, in line with
Santos Silva and Tenreyro (2006)’s estimates. In the case of
Heckman, for instance, the elasticities of the ETI scores are twice
as big as the Poisson estimates. Results are available from the
authors upon request.
9 One must add a note of caution. In this empirical exercise, we

have not taken into account the possible endogeneity of the ETI
components with respect to trade. For instance, it is fair to
assume that more trade is likely to improve customs procedures,
in which case the causation is reversed.
References
Anderson, J. E. 1979. “A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity
Equation.” American Economic Review 69 (1): 106–16.
Anderson, J. E. and E. Van Wincoop. 2003. “Gravity with Gravitas: A

Solution to the Border Puzzle.” American Economic Review 93
(1): 170–92.
Lawrence, R. Z., J. Blanke, J., M. Drzeniek Hanouz, T. Geiger, and Q.

He. 2008. “The Enabling Trade Index: Assessing the Factors
Impeding International Trade.” The Global Enabling Trade Report
2008. Geneva: World Economic Forum. 3–33.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 36
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 37
1.2: Finance for Trade: Efforts to Restart the Engine

CHAPTER 1.2 Some 80 to 90 percent of world trade relies on some
form of trade finance. Since the first half of 2008, there
has been evidence of tightening market conditions for
Finance for Trade: Efforts to trade finance. As expected by market participants, the
situation worsened in the second half of the year, and even
Restart the Engine further in the first quarter of 2009.According to expecta-
tions revealed in market-based surveys, there is little doubt
MARC AUBOIN, World Trade Organization (WTO) that the trade finance market will continue to experience
difficulties throughout 2009.This situation is likely to
contribute to deepening the global economic malaise.
Although public-backed institutions have responded
rapidly to the situation over the course of 2008, this has
apparently not been enough to bridge the gap between
supply and demand of trade finance worldwide.This is
why the G-20 adopted a wider package for injecting
some US$250 billion in support of trade finance.1
Why does trade finance matter?

Part of the reason for the collapse of world trade concerns
problems with trade credit financing.The global market
for trade finance (credit and insurance) is estimated at
between US$10 and US$12 trillion—that is, roughly 67
to 80 percent of 2008 trade flows that are valued at
US$15 trillion.The World Bank estimates that 85 to 90
percent of the fall in world trade since the second half
of 2008 is due to falling international demand, and the 37
rest—10 to 15 percent—is attributable to a fall in the
supply of trade finance.This chapter lays out some
recent developments and explains decisions made at the
G-20 London Summit regarding what is potentially one
of the main sources of contagion of the financial crisis
from a trade perspective—the supply of trade finance.
The potential damage to the real economy from
shrinking trade finance is enormous. International supply
chain arrangements have globalized not only production,
but also trade finance. Sophisticated supply chain financing
operations—including those for small- and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs)—place a high level of trust
and confidence in global suppliers, relying on their
delivery of their share of value-added and on their
financial ability to produce and export supplies in a
timely manner. Any disruption in the ability of the
financial sector to provide working capital or pre-
shipment export finance, to issue or endorse letters of
credit, or to deliver export credit insurance is likely to
create a gap in complex outward-processing assembly
operations.This can lead to a contraction in trade and out-
put, and is particularly worrisome for the sustainability
of global supply chain operations.
This chapter does not necessarily reflect the views of the WTO. The
opinions and possible errors contained in it remain that of the author.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 38
The World Trade Organization’s involvement in trade and bank failures, all of which may undermine the profit-
finance issues ability of trade. Such rapid change in risk perception
The institutional case for the World Trade Organization has happened abruptly—for example, through the Fall
(WTO) to be concerned about the scarcity of trade of 2008—with respect to certain Eastern European
finance during periods of crisis is relatively clear. In countries. At the present moment, many lenders have
situations of extreme financial crises, such as those adopted a wait-and-see attitude triggered by doubts
experienced by emerging economies in the 1990s, the about the creditworthiness of banks in a number of
credit crunch reduced access to trade finance—which regions in the world, including developing countries, as
was already the short-term segment of the market— well as by the increase in the balance of payments risk.
and hence reduced trade, which would usually be the What aggravates the situation is that the secondary
prime vector of balance of payments’ recovery.The market has also dried up. Just as lending seems to be
credit crunch also affected some countries during the directly affected by the tight liquidity situation world-
Asian financial crisis in 1997 to the point of bringing wide, the re-insurance market has suffered from the dif-
the affected economies to a halt. In the immediate after- ficulties faced by American International Group, Inc.
math of the Asian crisis, a large amount of outstanding (AIG) and Lloyds.
credit lines for trade had to be rescheduled by creditors Of course, it can be argued that such exogenous
and debtors to re-ignite trade flows—and hence the factors as liquidity squeeze, exchange rate fluctuations,
economy—as the two are inextricably linked. Under the and other components impacting risk are not specific to
umbrella of the Marrakech Mandate on Coherence, in trade finance. Any un-hedged cross-border flow would
2003 the heads of the WTO, the International Monetary most likely be affected by these elements. Likewise, the
Fund (IMF), and the World Bank convened an expert supply of credit would be affected by the greater scarcity
group of trade finance practitioners to examine what of liquidity available to some banks in the inter-bank
went wrong in the trade finance market and to prepare market.Yet, since trade finance has to compete for an
contingencies.The conclusions of the experts were equal or reduced amount of liquidity like any other
summarized in two reports.2 segment of the credit market, the price of transactions
The economic case for the involvement of interna- has increased sharply under the combined effects of
38 tional organizations, in particular the WTO, has been scarce liquidity to back up loans and a re-assessment
discussed.3 The main arguments are based on the idea of customer and country risks. Spreads on 90-day letters
that trade finance is, to a large extent, a very secure, of credit have gone through the roof over the course of
short-term, self-liquidating form of finance. Even in 2008 (rising from 10–16 basis points to 250–500 basis
some of the most acute periods of financial crises (1825, points on a normal basis for letters of credit issued by
1930), international credit lines have never been cut off. emerging and developing economies).
For centuries, the expansion of trade has depended on It is hard to believe that the safest and most self-
reliable and cost-effective sources of finance backed by liquidating form of finance, with strong receivables and
a deep, global secondary market of fluid and secured marketable collaterals, could see its price increase by a
financing instruments and a wide range of credit factor of 10 to 50 even when it is under severe stress.
insurance products, provided by private- and public- Indeed, this segment of the credit market has been by
sector institutions (including national export credit far the most resilient since the sub-prime crisis began
agencies, regional development banks, and the World in mid 2007, before signs of market gaps at a global
Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation, or scale appeared in the Fall of 2008, well after they
IFC).Trade finance normally offers a high degree of emerged in other segments of the credit market.This
security to the trade transaction and its payment. Such strong resilience can be partially attributed to facilitation
prime, secure corporate lending normally carries little devices developed by public-backed regional or multi-
risk, and hence carries only a small fee—typically this is lateral financial institutions after the Asian financial crisis.
a few basis points over the London Inter-Bank Offered Trade finance facilitation programs that provide for risk
Rate (LIBOR) for a prime borrower. mitigation between banks issuing and those receiving
However, since the Asian crisis, the trade finance trade finance instruments have been developed into a
market has not been totally immune from general worldwide network, in which the IFC, the European
reassessments of risk, sharp squeezes in overall market Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD),
liquidity, or herd behavior as demonstrated by runs the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and the Inter-
on currencies or repatriation of foreign assets. Such American Development Bank (IADB) participate.
reactions might happen again in this current turmoil. Institutions such as the Organization of the Petroleum
Commercial risk in trade finance normally stems from Exporting Countries (OPEC) Fund, the Islamic
the risk of non-payment by the counterparty to the Development Bank, and the African Development
trade operation (either the client company or its bank). Bank have also developed or are developing similar
The perception of this risk obviously has changed with instruments. In addition, national export credit agencies
exchange rate fluctuations, the rise in political risk, have expanded short-term trade finance operations and
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 39

added considerable liquidity to the markets in recent 3rd quarter 2008).This is more than the reduction in
years, according to Berne Union statistics. Both types trade flows from and to developing countries during
of institutions have hence recently developed a unique the same period, implying that the lack of trade finance
savoir-faire and are potentially ready to add further is indeed an issue for these countries. In late 2008, it
liquidity and expand their risk mitigation capacity was expected that trade finance flows for developing-
should the need arise. country banks would fall by a further 10 percent in
2009.5 If such numbers were to be confirmed (at least
developing-country banks seem to agree with this
The current situation estimate, according to the survey), this would mean that
Despite the relatively strong resilience of the trade the market gap could be well over the US$25 billion
finance markets, the global liquidity situation—along estimate mentioned above—higher even than US$100
with a general re-assessment of counterparty risk and billion, up to US$300 billion. Such scarcity of trade
an expected increase in payment defaults on trade finance is very likely to accelerate the slowdown of
operations—was a major constraint in 2008 for the world trade and output.
largest suppliers of trade finance.The market gap initially Ahead of the G-20 Summit in London, the IMF
appeared on Wall Street and in London, as US- and and BAFT provided an update of their survey, which
UK-based global banks—particularly those with deteri- indicated that the decrease in the value of trade finance
orated balance sheets—could not off-load or refinance accelerated between October 2008 and January 2009 in
their excess exposure in trade credits on the secondary almost all regions.While more than 70 percent of the
market.The situation spread to developing countries’ respondents attributed this further decline to the fall in
markets in the second part of 2008. As a result, some demand for trade activities, six in ten respondents attrib-
banks were unable to meet the demand from their uted it to restrained credit availability, thereby pointing to
customers for new trade operations, leaving a market the increased difficulties of banks in supplying trade
gap estimated at around US$25 billion in November credit—an escalation caused by the general liquidity
2008 out of the global market for trade finance estimated squeeze and the amplified risk aversion to finance cross-
at some US$10–12 trillion a year. Some very large banks border trade operations.6 Spreads (prices) on the open-
used to roll over up to US$20 billion per month into ing up of letters of credit were up, from 10 to 15 basis 39
the secondary market; this amount is down to US$200 points above LIBOR up to 300 basis points in some
million or less right now because there is no counter- emerging economies. Some banks even reported 600
party. Demand for trade credit is far from being satisfied, basis points for particular destinations.
and, according to market specialists, the rise in prices for Results from a survey undertaken by the
opening letters of credit by far outweighs the normal International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) broadly
reassessment of risk. More disturbing is the fact that confirmed the conclusions drawn by the IMF-BAFT
large banks have reported on several occasions that the analysis, albeit relying on a wider panel of banks and
lack of financing capacity has made them unable to countries (122 banks in 59 countries).7 The results of
finance trade operations. It has, however, been argued by the ICC survey were also released for the WTO Expert
relatively profitable banks that the situation—particularly Group of March 18, 2009, and further updated before
in the secondary market—has softened recently, the G-20 Summit in London. It is obvious that trade
although not for everyone. decreased as a result of both the recession and tight
In the course of 2008, the liquidity problem has credit conditions. About half of the banks surveyed
spread to other developing countries’ money markets, had confirmed a decrease both in volume and value of
with the poorer countries in Asia, Latin America, and letters of credit, and in volume and value of aggregate
Africa being particularly affected.This adds to the prob- transactions—a trend that was particularly clear when
lems faced by local banks in such developing countries comparing data from the 4th quarter of 2007 and data
in normal circumstances: the relative lack of depth of from the 4th quarter of 2008.This was especially true
money markets, the lack of capacity to handle large vol- for developed countries’ markets (and even more so for
umes of trade credit, and the lack of reliable information the least-developed countries), with large-scale financing
on the creditworthiness of customers, to name only a projects being deferred or having difficulty obtaining
few specific issues confronting these banks. In periods credit.8 Apart from a reduction in the demand for trade,
of crisis, such as the one we are in now, these issues lead the main reasons provided by banks for the decrease in
to difficulties in finding partners in developed countries credit lines and increase in spreads were the application
to accept the counterparty risk. of more stringent credit criteria, capital allocation
According to the joint IMF-Bankers’ Association restrictions, and reduced inter-bank lending.9 The ICC
for Finance and Trade (BAFT) survey,4 flows of trade also pointed out that intense scrutiny of underlying
finance from developing countries’ banks seem to have guarantees by some banks led to higher rates of rejection
fallen by some 6 percent or more year-on-year (from of letters of credit. Prospects for trade finance in 2009
the end of the 3rd quarter 2007 through the end of the
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 40
were negative, with the general view that “tight credit been developed in the WTO, and to some extent can be
conditions may further reduce access to trade finance.”10 applied to the current circumstances.12
The market failure argument rests on the inability
of private-sector operators to avoid herd behavior, in
Statistical difficulties particular when credit risk and country risk are being
Why is the international community relying on surveys confounded (for example, in cases of rumor of sovereign
and not on a comprehensive set of international statistics default). Also, non-cooperative games are played by
for trade finance? Until 2004, a series of trade finance global suppliers, with the best-run institutions refusing
statistics was derived from balance of payments statistics to refinance on the secondary market letters of credit
and Bank for International Settlements (BIS) banking from banks in a less favorable liquidity situation.
statistics, collected with the combined efforts of four On the regulatory side, commercial bankers have
international agencies: the IMF, the World Bank, BIS, and long complained about the implementation of Basel II
the OECD. Apparently, the cost-to-quality ratio of these rules, which are regarded as having a pro-cyclical effect
statistics led the agencies to discontinue this effort. At on the supply of credit.When market conditions tighten,
present, the only available and reliable source of statistics capital requirements for trade finance instruments tend
concerning trade finance comes from the Berne Union to increase more than proportionally to the risk when the
database, which provides data on the amount of business counterparty is in a developing country. Both Western
of export credit agencies (mainly trade credit insurance). banks and developing countries have recently been com-
Survey-based data on banks’ activities provide great plaining that ratings from international rating agencies
value at the moment, but they are only of limited use maintain a bias against developing countries’ risk.
for regular reporting.The reasons include the very large Several developing countries have made that point
number of transactions carried out by banks, the vari- in the WTO Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance,
ability of trade finance instruments used by banks over among other places.13 They argue that they neither have
time, and, more importantly, the difficulty in obtaining been involved in the elaboration of recommendations
commercially sensitive data from the largest banks. of Basel II rules by the Basel Committee on Banking
The only way to obtain comprehensive information Supervision, nor have they any control over ratings by
40 on an ongoing basis would be through the balance of international rating agencies. Before and during the
payments. Here, confidentiality is less of an issue because G-20 Summit in London, it was agreed that all G-20
data are collected on an aggregate basis and follow the countries would become members of the Financial
resident-nonresident criterion of the balance of pay- Stability Forum and its components, including the Basel
ments. Although short-term trade credit should be cap- Committee on Banking Supervision and various other
tured under the IMF’s fifth Balance of Payments Manual,11 coordinating bodies on financial regulation.They would
it has always proven difficult to collect the information thus be able to participate in the review of Basel II rules.
on a global basis because of the very high costs involved.
Even the richest countries find it difficult, with the highest
level of reporting, to guarantee a high level of accuracy Recommendations by business associations
in the reporting on very short term capital movements In the context of the current financial crisis, BAFT,
(in the form of short-term trade credit) that may cross the ICC, and the apex body of industry federations
the resident-nonresident border several times a year. BUSINESSEUROPE, as well as individual commercial
banks have been making recommendations to the G-20
Summit in London in the following areas:
Supply and demand during financial crises:
A mismatch 1. Reviewing Basel II rules. Results from a
As indicated above, as long as overall flows are not subject survey conducted by the ICC United Kingdom
to comprehensive statistical compilation but only to in parallel with the ICC Global Survey (March
measurement by surveys, we are not able to appropriately 2009) indicate that the implementation of the
gauge changes in trade finance flows. However, the Basel II framework has eroded the incentive of
overall increase in spreads requested for opening letters banks to lend short term for trade because capi-
of credit is pointing to a shortage in supply despite the tal weightings do not fully reflect the low risk
reduced demand that has resulted from the overall fall in level and the short-term character of the activity.
trade transactions. Disagreement persists as to the causes In a risk-weighted asset system, increases in
of the shortage of trade finance.While the public sector minimum capital requirements had particularly
in general maintains that trade finance gaps in extreme adverse consequences on trade lending to SMEs
circumstances are a result of market failure, the private and counterparties in developing countries.
sector traditionally argues that these gaps result from the
cost of (new) rules—in the current case, the implemen- 2. Creating a ring-fenced liquidity pool for
tation of the Basel II Accord.These arguments have trade finance. The general proposal was to
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 41

design a small and targeted liquidity fund run effect, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
by international financial institutions and useful (APEC) summit announced the establishment of an
for smaller segments of the market or for new Asia-Pacific Trade Insurance Network to facilitate
countries, in particular those most likely to be intra- and extra-regional flows and investment
hit by the contraction of trade credit supply. through reinsurance cooperation among export
credit agencies in the region. Japan’s Nippon Export
3. More co-sharing of risk with public and Investment Insurance (NEXI) is establishing
sector–backed institutions. The idea would itself as the leader and main underwriter of this
be to encourage co-financing among the various collective re-insurance system.
providers of trade finance. Public-sector actors,
such as export credit agencies (ECAs) and • One problem often underestimated in developing
regional development banks, should be mobi- countries is the difficulty that banks and importers
lized to shoulder some of the private-sector risk. have in finding foreign exchange.This can occur
in cases where the main currency of transactions
(say, the euro or the US dollar) has become scarce
Efforts by public and private players to boost the because of the depreciation of the local currency, or
supply of trade finance at the end of 2008 because of the fall in receipts from remittances and
One clear lesson from the Asian financial crisis is that in exports. Central banks with large foreign exchange
periods prone to lack of trust and transparency as well as reserves have been able to supply foreign currency
herd behavior, all actors—including private banks,14 to local banks and importers generally through
ECAs, and regional development banks—should pool repurchase agreements. Since October 2008, Brazil’s
their resources to the extent this is practicable.15 central bank has provided US$10 billion to the
Cooperation among the various players is also important local market.The Korean central bank has pledged
because of an absence of a comprehensive, continuous US$10 billion of its foreign exchange reserves to
dataset on trade finance flows.This means that the main do likewise.The central banks of Argentina, India,
channel for making a reasonable assessment of the Indonesia, and South Africa are also engaged in
market situation is via the collection of informed views similar operations. However, many developing 41
and surveys from various institutions.This has been a countries lack foreign exchange reserves and are
key aspect of the activities of the WTO Expert Group unfortunately unable to use similar strategies.
chaired by the Director General of the WTO, in partic-
ular after the November 12, 2008, meeting.
The response of public sector–backed institutions Why has the market not yet re-balanced itself?
since the fall of 2008 has been more than positive— The current effort aimed at mobilizing public-sector
actually of a magnitude unseen in recent history. institutions to shoulder some of the risk carried by
Capacities in three types of activities were enhanced private-sector banks is, to a certain extent, a race against
significantly: time. Although additional financing capacity is provided
by public institutions, it seems that the private sector’s
• All regional development banks and the IFC have, ability to respond to importers’ and exporters’ demand
on average, doubled their capacity under trade for finance has been deteriorating even faster, particularly
facilitation programs between November 2008 in developing countries in the last quarter of 2008 and
and the G-20 meeting. Further enhancements of the first of 2009. Also BAFT members (commercial
these programs were agreed at the G-20 meeting, in banks) have complained that measures announced by
particular the establishment by the IFC of a liquidity ECAs and regional development banks are hard to track,
pool allowing co-financing operations with banks which means that there is a lack of information on who
in developing countries, which would likely have a is providing what and under which conditions. Filling this
high leverage and multiplier effect on trade. information gap was of one of the highest priorities of
the WTO Expert Group Meeting on March 18, 2009.16
• Export credit agencies have also stepped in with In this context, it is important that implementation
programs for the short-term lending of working and design of ECA programs are carried out in a co-
capital and credit guarantees aimed at SMEs. For operative manner.The issue of financing both exports
certain countries (e.g., Germany and Japan), the and imports has also been raised by bankers and traders,
commitment is very large. In other cases, very large as the survival of supply chains partly depends on the
lines of credit have been granted to secure supplies financing of both sides. Perhaps the Asian example of
with key trading partners (e.g., the United States support by the ECA for both intra- and extra-regional
with Korea and China); while in some countries, trade by working as a network should be examined by
cooperation has developed to support regional other regions.
trade, in particular supply chain operations.To this
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 42
As a result of the above, policymakers may find that The trade finance package responds largely to the
there is no quick fix to the trade finance problem, but criteria developed by the WTO Expert Group on Trade
instead there is a need for quicker and more sequenced Finance: strengthened public-private sector partnerships
and cooperative implementation of a series of measures in the context of existing trade finance facilitation pro-
that are already underway. Hence, immediate recom- grams, which will be further enhanced, not only on
mendations are to: credit insurance, but also by opening and expanding liq-
uidity windows of regional development banks to allow
1. accelerate the implementation programs of the greater co-lending with banks.The IFC is showing the
IFC and regional development banks to enhance way by reinforcing its global trade finance facility through
trade finance facilitation, which should open a the introduction of a liquidity pool, co-financing, on a
liquidity window for co-financing; 40–60 percent co-lending agreement with commercial
banks, up to US$50 billion of trade transactions in the
2. fill the information gap as to what ECAs are next two years (Standard Chartered Bank and Standard
doing by circulating a list of new programs Bank have already signed off on credit lines with several
and open quick and user-friendly liquidity and hundreds of millions of dollars for financing Africa’s
re-insurance windows for both exporters and trade).While jump-starting the IFC’s Global Trade
importers; Finance Liquidity Fund with US$5 billion in IFC funds
(raised by both the IFC and several individual donors),
3. encourage coordinated actions by ECAs to be matched by US$7.5 billion in commercial banks
(possibly regionally); funding according to the co-lending formula, the IFC
Fund could further increase over time by attracting
4. encourage liquidity pools, thus allowing more donors and hence more funding by banks.The
rapid co-financing among banks, ECAs, and objective of doubling the IFC’s and donor funding over
international financial institutions (this is an time, from US$5 to US$10 billion is feasible, hence
IFC proposal); and doubling the Fund’s total capacity from US$12.5 billion
to US$25 billion, which means financing over than
42 5. review the Basel II regulations to acknowledge US$50 billion in trade transactions.
the self-liquidating character of trade finance. Another pillar in the package is the strengthening
of existing capacities of ECAs in OECD countries,
In the meantime, there should be no doubt that allowing them to offer more finance and a wider
the trade finance market will experience difficult times spectrum of instruments. In particular, ECAs would be
throughout the first half of 2009, and things might get encouraged to provide more direct funding in the short
worse before they get better. But efforts—such as the run (in the form of working capital lending and other
WTO’s advocacy and mobilization work—will continue types of short-term direct support), which would be
to find durable solutions to what is yet another source matched by a higher capacity on the insurance side, also
of economic contraction.17 in the short term.
Finally, several institutions—either international
financial institutions, ECAs, or other government agencies
The G-20 Summit in London: A trade finance package —will try to revive the secondary market by intervening
The above-mentioned recommendations were to a large directly.
extend reflected in the trade finance package of the All in all, the logic of acting by way of increasing
G-20 Summit’s statement, on April 2, 2009. Under the co-financing and co-risk mitigation has been followed
heading “Resisting protectionism and promoting global by many heads of state and governments.The logic
trade and investment,” the last two bullets points of implies more liquidity and re-insurance available from
paragraph 22 state: ECAs and international financial institutions. It is very
likely that this package will be implemented over two
• We will take, at the same time, whatever steps years.Therefore some of the early comments by the press
we can promote to facilitate trade and invest- and academics about the lack of new funding should be
ment, and we will ensure availability of at least
put into a longer time perspective, bearing in mind that
$250 billion over the next two years to support
most of such a package has been designed with the
trade finance through our export credit and invest-
objective of raising additional, not re-hashed, funds.
ment agencies and through the MDBs
(multilateral development banks).
• We ask our regulators to make use of available

flexibility in capital requirements for trade finance.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 43

Notes ———. 2003. Trade Finance in Financial Crises: An Assessment of Key
Issues. IMF Board Paper, Prepared by Policy Development and
1 The G-20 is made up of the finance ministers and central bank
Review Department in consultation with International Capital
governors of 19 countries plus the European Union. The countries
Markets and Monetary and Financial Systems Departments.
are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany,
Available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/pdr/cr/2003/
India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russian Federation, Saudi
eng/120903.pdf.
Arabia, South Africa, Korea, Rep., Turkey, the United Kingdom,
and the United States. See http://www.g20.org/ ———. 2009. Survey of Private Sector Trade Credit Developments.
about_what_is_g20.aspx for further information. Available at http://www.imf.org/external.
2 IMF 2003; Auboin and Meier-Ewert 2003. IMF and BAFT (International Monetary Fund and Bankers’ Association
for Finance and Trade). Survey Among Banks Assessing Current
3 Auboin and Meier-Ewert 2003; Auboin 2004.
Trade Finance Environment. Available at http://www.baft.org.
4 Undertaken in the context of the WTO Expert Group Meeting on
WTO. WTO Document WT/WGTDF/W/39. Available at
November 12, 2008, and presented at the Expert Group Meeting
http://www.wto.org.
on March 18, 2009. See in particular WTO Document
WT/WGTDF/W/44, available at http://www.wto.org. ———. WTO Document WT/WGTDF/W/44. Available at
http://www.wto.org.
5 IMF 2009.
6 IMF and BAFT 2009.
7 See in particular ICC Banking Commission 2009a, 2009b.
8 SWIFT data pointed to a deterioration particularly visible in the

Asian Pacific area.
9 Some 40 percent of the respondent banks indicated that spreads

had increased significantly over the past year, and were not
expected to fall anytime soon.
10 ICC 2009c.
11 IMF 1993.
12 Auboin and Meier-Ewert 2003, p. 6; for some alleged effects of

Basel II rules on trade finance, see ICC Surveys 2009a, 2009b.
13 See in particular WTO Document WT/WGTDF/W/39.
14 Private banks account for some 80 percent of the trade finance

market by way of lending.
43
15 See IMF 2003.
16 See WTO Document WT/WGTDF/W/44.
17 Such recommendations are drawn from Auboin 2009.
References
Auboin, M. 2004. “The Trade, Debt and Finance Nexus: At the Cross-
Roads of Micro- and Macroeconomics.” WTO Discussion Paper 6.
Geneva: WTO. Available at
http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/discussion_papers6_e
.pdf.
———. 2009. “Restoring Trade Finance.” Published in the ebook The

Collapse of Global Trade, Murky Protectionism, and the Crisis:
Recommendations for the G20. Available at http://www.voxeu.org.
Auboin, M. and M. Meier-Ewert. 2003. “Improving the Availability of

Trade Finance During Financial Crises.” WTO Discussion Paper 2.
Geneva: WTO. Available at http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/
booksp_e/discussion_papers2_e.pdf.
ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) Banking Commission. 2009a.

An ICC Global Survey for the WTO Group of Experts Meeting on
March 18. ICC Document 470-1118 WJ 1/ March 09. Available at
http://www.iccwbo.org.
———. 2009b. Rethinking Trade Finance 2009. ICC Global Survey spon-
sored by the Asian Development Bank, Coastline Solutions, the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-
American Development Bank, the International Financial
Corporation, the International Financial Services Association, and
SWIFT. ICC Document 470 -1120 WJ 31 March 09. Available at
http://www.iccwbo.org.
———. 2009c. “Trade Volume and Value Decline Sharply as a Result of

Crisis.” Policy and Business Practices: Banking Technique &
Practice. March 23. Paris. Available at http://www.iccwbo.org/poli-
cy/banking/icccidii/index.html.
IMF (International Monetary Fund). 1993. Balance of Payments Manual.

Washington, DC: IMF.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 44
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 45
1.3: Managing Borders in the 21st Century

CHAPTER 1.3 Border control authorities around the world all face the
same dilemma—increasing volumes of people and goods
notwithstanding—trade flows are slowing during the
Managing Borders in the 21st current global economic downturn, there is no corre-
sponding increase in resources, and traders and travelers
Century have greater expectations for speedier processing and
clearance times. Governments and society also expect
KUNIO MIKURIYA, World Customs Organization (WCO) border authorities to rigorously apply the law in order
to protect their interests and the health and safety of
their citizens, and to ensure national security.
For customs administrations, this means balancing
trade facilitation on the one hand with trade security on
the other—ensuring that legitimate goods pass through
customs without unnecessary hindrances while protect-
ing the international trade supply chain from threats
posed by organized crime, petty smugglers, commercial
fraudsters, terrorists, and even goods that could endanger
society.
Today, it is recognized that clearance processes by
customs and other agencies are among the most impor-
tant and problematic links in the global supply chain.
High costs and administrative difficulties associated with
outdated and excessively bureaucratic border clearance
processes are now cited as more serious barriers to trade
than tariffs. Inefficient border processing systems, proce-
dures, and infrastructure result in high transaction costs;
cause long delays in the clearance of imports, exports, and 45
transit goods; and present significant opportunities for
administrative corruption. All these aspects are reflected
in the border administration component of the Enabling
Trade Index, discussed in Chapter 1.1 of this Report.
With the current financial and economic turmoil
in the world, it is now more necessary than ever for
countries to do all they can to encourage trade flows and
inward investment while ensuring that effective enforce-
ment mechanisms are in place at borders to prevent any
disruptive, toxic, or illicit trade from entering national
territory. Developing countries are particularly vulnerable,
as they feel the credit crunch more severely because of
their weaker economic infrastructure. Indeed, they have
very real fears about revenue security and about how
to maintain revenue collections as the economic crisis
deepens.
Just as the global financial crisis and its economic
impact is coloring world thinking, it is also coloring the
way customs does its business now and will do it in the
future, especially the way borders are managed by customs
and other border agencies. Smart border management,
in cooperation with all trade stakeholders, is now an
imperative if the demands of a dynamic global trading
system are to be met.
Customs takes a proactive stance

The World Customs Organization (WCO) has, of
course, been monitoring global trade developments,
patterns, and trends since its inception. It has produced
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 46
instruments and tools, and launched initiatives and Facilitating cross-border trade
programs, for its members—which now number 174— Customs administrations play a vital role in the growth
that are designed to address problems being experienced of international trade and in the development of the
by customs administrations or to assist them to cope global marketplace.The efficiency and effectiveness of
more confidently with the challenges generated by the customs procedures can significantly influence and
evolving international trade environment. advance economic competitiveness and social develop-
Building on its mandate to ensure that customs ment.Trade and investment will flow toward efficient,
authorities implement best practices on a global basis, supportive, and facilitative locations. At the same time,
the Council of the WCO—the organization’s highest they will rapidly ebb away from locations perceived by
decision-making body—adopted its visionary “Customs business as being bureaucratic, lacking in good governance,
in the 21st Century” policy document in June 2008. short on transparency, and synonymous with high costs.
This strategic policy, which is aimed at enhancing Systems and processes used by customs must not
growth and development through trade facilitation and be allowed to serve as a barrier to the growth of inter-
border security, provides a platform and a framework for national trade, or even to be perceived as an obstacle.
future thinking both within the WCO and in customs Modern production and delivery systems, linked with the
administrations. In fact, it essentially describes the key dramatic potential of new forms of electronic commerce,
elements of customs best practice in the future. make swift and predictable customs clearance an impor-
The strategy is made up of a cutting-edge list of tant prerequisite for economic development.
10 important building blocks for enhancing customs
operations globally.These building blocks are: The revised Kyoto Convention
The WCO revised Kyoto Convention (RKC) on the
1. a globally networked customs; simplification and harmonization of customs procedures
2. better coordinated border management; was adopted in June 1999 and entered into force on
3. intelligence-driven risk management; February 3, 2006, after being revised to meet the new
4. a customs-trade partnership; dynamics of international trade and changing govern-
5. implementation of modern working methods, ment expectations. As of June 2009, the RKC counts
46 59 contracting parties, with a number of others in the
procedures, and techniques;
pipeline. It is now regarded as the blueprint for modern
6. enabling technology and tools;
and efficient customs procedures in the 21st century
7. enabling powers;
because it provides international commerce with the
8. a more professional, knowledge-based service predictability, efficiency, and security that the modern
culture; trading environment requires.
9. capacity building; and Several key governing principles drive the RKC:
10. integrity. transparency and predictability of customs actions,
standardization and simplification of the goods declaration
Clearly, enhancing border management and ensuring and supporting documents, simplified procedures for
that it is coordinated is seen as a critical step for the future. authorized persons, maximum use of information tech-
This entails cooperation among a variety of government nology, minimum necessary customs control to ensure
border regulatory agencies.The key challenge is to create compliance with regulations, use of risk management
an environment based upon trust that allows customs and audit-based controls, coordinated interventions with
and these agencies to work collaboratively at the border. other border agencies, and a partnership with trade. It
Within that overall concept, the international trade single promotes trade facilitation and effective controls
window using electronic data is an important enabler through its legal provisions that set out simple yet effi-
that provides a technical means for collaboration to be cient procedures, and contains obligatory rules for its
achieved. application. Here it may be mentioned that the WTO
To facilitate the work of customs at borders, over Trade Facilitation Negotiating Group has recognized the
time the WCO has developed several instruments and RKC as a valuable source of reference.
tools, and introduced a number of programs and initia-
tives, that significantly enhance customs operations.This Time Release Study
body of WCO work is constantly being reviewed for The WCO Time Release Study (TRS) is another critical
its efficacy; it plays a vital role in border management WCO tool for effective border management. One of
and can contribute enormously to efforts aimed at the methods used for the review of clearance procedures
ensuring even better border management in the future is to measure the average time taken between the arrival
based on coordination, collaboration, cooperation, and of goods and their ultimate release by customs. Using
communication. the TRS facilitates the identification both of problem
areas and of potential corrective actions to increase
transparency and efficiency.The use of automation and
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 47

other sophisticated selectivity methods can allow customs to harmonize advance electronic cargo information
to improve compliance and at the same time improve requirements on inbound, outbound, and transit ship-
facilitation for the majority of low-risk goods.1 ments; the application of a consistent risk management
TRS methodology allows for the time measurement approach to address security threats; the preferred use
of all processes in the clearance procedure, including the of non-intrusive detection equipment to effect customs
time taken by other government agencies and other examinations of high-risk containers and cargo; and the
players in the logistics chain.The time required to release provision of benefits to businesses that meet minimum
goods has also increasingly become the measure by which supply chain security standards and best practices.
the international trading community assesses the effective- The SAFE Framework’s principles rest on two twin
ness of a customs administration. pillars, namely, customs-to-customs network arrangements
Recommendations made as a result of a TRS often and customs-to-business partnerships.This two-pillar
provide the framework for targeted interventions aimed at strategy has many advantages, as each pillar contains a set
reducing trade costs by strengthening customs procedures, of standards that have been consolidated to guarantee
streamlining other related procedures, establishing risk ease of understanding and rapid global implementation.
assessment, and supporting the establishment of post- In addition, the WCO is currently considering the
clearance audit units. addition of a third pillar relating to cooperation between
This WCO tool could be used as a stimulus to start a customs and other government border agencies—the
dialogue on border management issues among all parties customs-to-government pillar—in recognition of the
involved in international supply chain management and importance of and need for inter-agency collaboration
lead to more coordinated border management. to encourage better and more secure coordinated border
management.
Immediate Release Guidelines To date, 156 WCO members have indicated their
The WCO Immediate Release Guidelines were approved intention to implement the SAFE Framework, clearly
in March 2003 after being updated following the revision reflecting the importance attached to trade security by
of the 1974 Kyoto Convention and the development of the global customs community. In fact, the SAFE
the WCO Data Model (see below), and were intended Framework, which was adopted in 2005, has shifted the
to take on board the concerns of both customs and the attention of customs from traditional controls at import 47
trade. Originally developed as a set of customs release/ to the entire trade supply chain. In this way, customs is
clearance procedures in early 1990, the Guidelines are expected to act as a global network that assesses security
aimed at expediting the clearance of large numbers of risks based on advance electronic information as early
small or negligible-value goods being carried by courier as possible in the supply chain.This scheme requires
and express mail services. standardized cargo data elements based on the WCO
Along with the instruments that have been highlight- Data Model and consistent risk management to facilitate
ed, the WCO has also developed other instruments that customs-to-customs and customs-to-business cooperation.
equally facilitate trade and enhance border management. It goes without saying that the customs-trade part-
These include the ATA and Istanbul Conventions regu- nership is indispensable to the successful implementation
lating temporary admission,2 as well as the Harmonized of the SAFE Framework and other WCO instruments
System Convention governing the classification of goods.3 and tools. Not only does the Framework recommend a
number of facilitation benefits for businesses whose cargo
security arrangements are up to scratch, it also offers
Securing global trade compliant traders the possibility of being recognized as
International trade is an essential driver for economic authorized economic operators (AEOs)—one of the most
prosperity, but the global trading system is vulnerable to important benefits of which is the mutual recognition of
exploitation by transnational organized crime and even this status by other customs administrations.
terrorist networks.With this in mind, there is a need for With respect to mutual recognition, only a few
a WCO-endorsed strategy to secure the movement of countries have concluded agreements to date,5 but others
global trade in a way that does not impede but, on the are actively negotiating such agreements. Although there
contrary, facilitates the movement of legitimate trade.4 are slight differences in focus to reflect each country’s
own priorities, nonetheless, it is important that AEO
SAFE Framework of Standards programs are compatible and consistent with the standards
The WCO SAFE Framework of Standards (SAFE contained in the SAFE Framework.The WCO will
Framework) aims to establish standards that provide continue to encourage faster global recognition while
supply chain security and facilitation to goods being accepting that this may happen slowly but progressively
traded internationally. It enables integrated supply chain as more and more customs administrations conclude
management for all modes of transport and champions agreements among one another.
the seamless movement of goods along secure trade supply Other WCO tools, such as the Global Information
chains. Its four essential principles are: the commitment and Intelligence Strategy (GIIS) and the Customs
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:39 PM Page 48
Enforcement Network (CEN), also play key roles in Framework.The Data Model therefore provides for the
securing global trade.These initiatives are supported by most efficient and effective supply chain management
WCO instruments such as the Nairobi and Johannesburg possible.Version 3.0 of the Data Model, which is
Conventions as well as the Model Bilateral Agreement, expected to be released at the end of 2009, extends the
which promote cooperation and mutual assistance single-window capacity of the Model as more and more
among customs authorities in all spheres. governments view the single window for business as a
way to reduce repetition and as a crucial building block
to the future expansion of international trade.6
Using technology for better border management
Information and documentation are key elements in The Unique Consignment Reference
controlling international cross-border trade. In today’s The WCO Unique Consignment Reference (UCR) or
interconnected electronic environment, these controls unique identifier should be applied as soon as possible in
increasingly include advance transmission of data to the trade transaction, preferably by the trader, and should
customs as well as customs-to-customs information then form part of every party’s documents and exchanges
exchange in order to provide the necessary level of along the supply chain to the final destination. Supply
security in addition to acceptable release times. In this chains are complex and involve many parties, locations,
modern era, single-window systems aimed at providing and exchanges of data. One means to better manage
a coordinated means for governments to interact with such exchanges is to provide a unique numeric refer-
the international trade and transport industries for all ence that is quoted in association with all documents
border regulatory data requirements are becoming the and processes for a given trade transaction.This is what
norm. Using international standards is the key to effec- the UCR does.
tive and efficient exchange and sharing of information Although the UCR was designed with customs
among a diverse range of parties. requirements in mind, its benefits can extend to other
government agencies as well as to trade and transport
The WCO Data Model logistics entities. In 2004, the WCO published its
The WCO Data Model has kept pace with these devel- recommendation and accompanying guidelines for the
48 opments in technology and now incorporates wider UCR guided by the view that if complex systems such
business and information needs. It provides standard and as international trade single windows are to work effec-
harmonized sets of data and electronic messages to be tively, a means to track or trace transactions such as that
submitted by business to government to accomplish for- provided by the UCR would be one essential ingredient.
malities for the arrival, departure, transit, and clearance This WCO tool, in combination with the WCO Data
of goods, people, conveyances, and transport equipment Model, perfectly complements the movement toward
used in international cross-border trade. Intrinsic to the coordinated border management across the globe.
Data Model, and the WCO revised Kyoto Convention as
well, is the principle that customs administrations should
request as few data as necessary to ensure compliance A single window for trade
with customs laws. The single-window concept and guidelines to its imple-
Use of the Data Model enables the various infor- mentation were developed by the UN Centre for Trade
mation systems of a customs service, its trading partners, Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT) and
and other regulatory and border agencies to work together have been published as UN/CEFACT Recommendation
in the most effective way possible. Its many benefits 33.The WCO and its partners accept that a single-window
include promoting safe and secure borders through the environment is a cross-border “intelligent facility” that
establishment of a common platform for regulatory data allows parties involved in trade and transport to lodge
exchange that enables the early sharing of information; standardized information, mainly in an electronic format,
facilitating customs-to-customs cooperation by enabling via a single entry point to fulfill all import, export, and
the customs administrations to offer authorized eco- transit-related regulatory requirements.
nomic operators end-to-end premium procedures, along The establishment of a single-window environment
with simplified and integrated treatment of the total for border control procedures for conveyances, transport
transaction; contributing to the rapid release of goods; equipment, goods, and crew is considered by customs
eliminating redundant and repetitive data submitted by administrations to be the solution for the complex prob-
the carrier and the importer; reducing the volume of lems of border automation and information management
data required to be presented at time of release; lowering involving multiple cross-border regulatory agencies. In this
compliance costs; and promoting greater customs coop- regard, the WCO recognizes that in order to establish a
eration and coordination. single-window environment, the policy, legal, and
In addition, the Data Model contributes to the administrative framework should be examined before
security and facilitation of the international trade supply attention turns to the complex technical issues.
chain and is a key strategic element of the SAFE
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 49

While there are several single-window initiatives to another agency for assistance or guidance.This cross-
taking shape around the world, there are no clear stan- training of officials leads to border enforcement by a
dards or guidelines in this area. Customs is increasingly smaller number of highly trained officials.The use of
being expected to participate in and take responsibility memoranda of understanding or special agreements
for the implementation of a single-window environ- among various agencies has proven very useful in
ment. It is for this reason that the WCO, using the reducing overlapping and redundant regulations that
UN/CEFACT Recommendation as a basis, produced were identified as a result of a review conducted within
a document for its members entitled Single Window: the border agencies of a country.The WCO’s Model
Implications for Customs Administrations. This document Bilateral Agreement that can be customized to suit the
describes the possible impact that developments around needs of contracting parties has come in handy in this
a single-window environment have on the future of regard.
customs’ business.To complement this document, the Given the current financial crisis, it is more im-
WCO has also developed its Single Window Data perative than ever for customs administrations to find
Harmonisation Guidelines to provide single-window ways to use their limited resources in the most effective
environment developers with tools that can be used to manner possible. One method that has been used to
achieve data harmonization and to develop internation- address the large cost of constructing border control
ally standardized datasets. points is for neighboring countries to consider building
Additionally, the WCO has established a joint legal common facilities where both customs and other border
task force with the UN Commission on International agencies work side by side. In this way, the legal and
Trade Law (UNCITRAL) to develop a comprehensive policy issues of officers working in another country are
legal guide to the legal implications of implementing avoided and the cost of constructing border facilities is
a single window and coordinated border management. reduced. Some administrations have found it practical to
This guide will benefit both governments and the provide a legal basis for customs officials in neighboring
private sector. countries to perform certain activities on their behalf.
This has led, for example, to one customs official per-
forming the export checks to satisfy his country’s
Coordinated border management requirements and then performing the import checks 49
A coordinated border management (CBM) system has of the importing country, resulting in the release of
two major features: a domestic border management system goods for export or import in one series of checks.
that involves domestic coordination among agencies in Border agencies could also consider sharing the use
one country or a customs union, and an international of extremely expensive non-intrusive examination or
border management system that involves coordination inspection equipment or even detector dogs to help
among many neighboring countries and trading partners. reduce costs or large capital outlays.
The multiplicity of agencies at the border all requir- National and international cooperation and com-
ing the same or similar information from a trader could munication also have an essential role to play in any
be a detriment to trade facilitation because compliance CBM system and should be viewed from multiple
costs soar as a result of the duplication involved in these perspectives: intra-service cooperation (within ministries
trade transactions. Domestic inter-agency coordination and agencies), inter-agency cooperation (between differ-
is a first step in implementing a CBM system. Each ent border agencies), and international cooperation
border agency needs to review its specific mission (between neighboring states).The success of a CBM
requirements, procedures, processes, and required data system rests heavily on effective communication. In
elements before comparing them with those of other order to ensure the operational effectiveness of border
agencies in order to determine whether there are any agencies, systems must be in place to ensure that infor-
redundancies and to identify those aspects that contain mation of mutual benefit is shared and that relevant
little value-added in terms of effective border control. information reaches the competent authorities rapidly.
In some countries, this review has resulted in the Similarly, the creation of joint committees—whether
creation of a single border agency that is mandated to national or international—comprising representatives
carry out all border-related functions. In others, it has from all border agencies or neighboring countries could
resulted in the cross-training of inspectors so that one provide a venue for the discussion and resolution of
inspector can carry out the primary functions of issues that affect CBM in addition to facilitating the
several agencies and has to refer to another agency only exchange of information and the coordination of joint
in cases of doubt or special circumstances. Countries actions.
that follow this model will decide which of its border The adoption of international standards leads to
agencies should take the lead—it could be customs, but simplification and harmonization. In this regard, the WCO
not necessarily. For example, if customs were the lead has developed many standards, ranging from very tech-
agency performing functions on behalf of other agen- nical ones relating to data contained in the WCO Data
cies, there would be times when it would have to defer Model to operational ones set out in the WCO revised
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 50
Kyoto Convention and the trade supply chain security • The development of a strategic plan, after having
standards laid down in the SAFE Framework.The use of undertaken a thorough review and comparison of
international standards in the border environment adds the operations of all border agencies that affect
to the effectiveness of customs operations and to any its outcome; the plan will outline the interlinked
CBM system because they provide a predictable trading programs required for effective border control.
environment and promote easier and better compliance
from traders. • The implementation of a sound legal framework
It is equally necessary for the trade and border that clearly defines control procedures and the
officials to be fully aware of the legislation on which the division of tasks and responsibilities of the agencies
CBM system is based. Such legislation, including any concerned, and that takes into account privacy
regulations, policies, and procedures of a non-confidential provisions; data protection laws associated with
nature, must be published and readily available to the border controls; the exchange of information
public. In this respect, it is recommended that countries among various government authorities; the legal
establish enquiry points where the public can obtain all relations at the border with adjoining countries;
necessary information to facilitate compliance with all cross-border identity management; and, if necessary,
border regulatory requirements. the protection of employees working in foreign
In cases where neighboring countries decide to countries.
establish juxtaposed offices under the terms of a bilateral
or other agreement, these offices should have the same • A review of all information and communication
hours of service and the same designated competencies. technology issues, in particular the integration of
For example, it is not practical for one country to desig- systems so that all agencies can access the same
nate its office at a certain border location as competent databases and use this common information for
to handle exports of diamonds when the juxtaposed risk analysis and management purposes; subject
office in the other country is not competent to process to data security, the CBM system should also be
imports of diamonds. Such juxtaposed offices can carry accessible by commercial operators in order to
out export and import checks in cooperation with one facilitate the speedy transfer of information.
50 another to ensure that controls and security issues are
fully addressed. • An infrastructure needs-assessment aimed at ration-
It is well understood that the provision of advance alizing the infrastructure for cost purposes by, for
electronic information is paramount to successful risk example, co-locating agencies in the same building or
management and, consequently, to effective CBM operating joint facilities with neighboring countries.
systems. In its instruments, the WCO has reflected this
concept in the two areas most affecting customs— • The adherence to international standards as a means
advance submission by the carrier of cargo information of creating a predictable trading environment and
and advance submission by the airlines of passenger infor- promoting enhanced compliance with border regu-
mation.The WCO Integrated Supply Chain Management latory procedures, policies, and requirements.
Guidelines (ISCM) provides global standards on how this
information is to be submitted, while the Guidelines on • The undertaking of a robust inter-agency training
Advance Passenger Information (API) performs the same program to expose the expertise that exists among
function where travelers are concerned.7 the different agencies and broaden the knowledge
In planning and implementing a CBM system, it is of officials about the role and responsibilities of
imperative that the following critical issues are adequately each agency.
considered:
• The promotion of a strong communication network
• The necessity for strong political support and at the inter-agency level and between border agencies
commitment to ensure the availability of adequate and the private sector to enhance cooperation and
resources, and to avoid, for example, inter-agency coordination, including the sharing of information
problems and “turf-wars” when designing a new and intelligence.
system.
Over time, through its own in-depth examination
• The establishment of a multi-agency project team into how to better manage trade at borders, the WCO
that includes representatives from the private sector, has determined that, for border agencies to collaborate
dedicated to implementing a CBM system, and effectively and in a coordinated way, it is essential that
that can draw on the expertise of all participating the following basic conditions be met: the computer-
institutions. ization and use of electronic data; the maximum use of
e-commerce technologies; the use of commercial data
and systems; the use of data standards; the employment
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 51

of ICT security, authentication, and privacy; and the use Guide, a Model Code of Ethics and Conduct, an Integrity
of a unique identifier. Action Plan, and the Integrity Best Practice Resource
These basic rules and procedures already appear in Centre.11 These tools are re-enforced by the WCO’s
the WCO SAFE Framework; although there they have determination to ensure that integrity remains a priority,
been tackled from a customs vantage point, they remain horizontal issue throughout the Organization and its
equally applicable to any CBM environment. working bodies in line with international best practice.
Building capacity and strengthening integrity Weathering global developments with a better future
The successful implementation of the wide range of in mind
instruments and tools developed by the WCO depends As the international community grapples with the global
largely on their acceptance and application by WCO financial crisis and the effects of the economic down-
members. Capacity to overcome disparities in imple- turn, the WCO has from the outset continued to stress
mentation that may hamper the management of borders the importance of trade facilitation and promotion as a
effectively is addressed by the WCO through its capacity- means to weather current global challenges while
building initiatives.The Columbus Programme is the emphasizing the futility of protectionism such as that
largest and most comprehensive of these.The WCO is which surfaced in the 1930s. Economic nationalism
determined to ensure that its activities in this area must aimed at protecting domestic industries through the
be sustainable and must increase efficiency and fully erection of barriers to free trade has proven itself histor-
meet the needs of WCO members. ically to be unworkable and does not achieve its aims.
With the future in mind, the WCO will use its Robustly encouraging free trade and its growth will
regional structures to provide development and technical help the world’s economies to move out of the recession
assistance to WCO members, since they are better in which they are currently mired. Indeed, countries can
placed to deliver a customized product that meets real take measures to support their national industries during
regional needs and policy directions.8 Furthermore, as these turbulent economic and financial times, but such
regional integration increases, the WCO will be placing measures should be balanced with campaigns promoting
more emphasis on ensuring synergy between its work international trade and ensuring that the movement 51
and that of regional institutions. Coupled with this is the of legitimate goods is facilitated to the greatest extent
WCO’s determination to develop an effective dialogue possible.
with the donor community, as this will lead to a more The WCO’s stance was confirmed by the G-20 in
efficient and effective partnership that will impact posi- their official communiqué issued in London on April 2,
tively on WCO members needing capacity-building 2009, in which the leaders reached agreement on a range
assistance to improve border management. of issues contained in their Global Plan for Recovery and
Integrity is another issue of critical importance Reform. Of particular note for the customs community
when managing borders because corruption, if allowed and border management was their rejection of protec-
to flourish, is insidious by nature and can harm customs tionism in favor of global trade promotion to underpin
enormously in carrying out its mandate.To address this economic prosperity and a sustainable recovery from
complex problem in public services and more specifically the crisis. G-20 leaders also made a commitment to
in customs, in 1993 the WCO Arusha Declaration on trade facilitation by calling for a balanced and urgent
Integrity in Customs was adopted.This Declaration conclusion to the Doha Development Round.
demonstrates the willingness of the customs community Because the G-20 commitments will have a direct
to comply with rules governing integrity. As the focal impact on border management, the WCO is keen to
point for WCO integrity development efforts, it was play a meaningful role in this regard by actively encour-
revised in 2003 to take on board additional elements aging its members to implement relevant trade facilita-
and to bring it in line with global anti-corruption tion measures consistent with international standards
initiatives. and to enhance coordination at borders. Better and
These global initiatives were largely driven by the smarter border management that is coordinated and
United Nations Convention against Corruption,9 the that promotes cooperation among all trade stakeholders
International Group for Anti-Corruption Coordination is the answer to managing borders in the 21st century.
(IGAC),10 the Second Global Forum on Fighting The WCO’s instruments, tools, and measures already
Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity (The Hague/ contribute positively to achieving this goal, and its
The Netherlands, May 2002), and the Third Global future endeavors will be aimed at enhancing what it has
Forum on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding done in the past while at the same time becoming even
Integrity (Seoul/Korea, May 2003). more innovative.This will ensure a more responsive and
To support its members and strengthen integrity, strengthened customs community, a creative and flexible
the WCO has developed a number of tools, such as the border management, and a better future for all.
Compendium of Best Practices, the Integrity Self-Assessment
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 52
Notes ———. 2003. The Revised Arusha Declaration: Declaration of the

Customs Co-operation Council Concerning Integrity in Customs.
1 Measuring the time taken for the release of goods also meets the
Available at http://www.wcoomd.org/files/1.%20Public%20files/
concerns of trade circles when it comes to long delays in cus-
PDFandDocuments/Declarations/Revised_Arusha_Declaration_EN.
toms clearance. The TRS helps customs services to respond to
pdf.
trade requirements, especially the need to plan ahead for the
movement of goods across borders in order to meet tight produc- ———. 2004a. Accompanying Guidelines to the Recommendation to
tion schedules and just-in-time inventory systems that require for- the Customs Co-operation Council Concerning a Unique
ward planning. Consignment Reference (UCR) for Customs Purposes. Available
at http://www.wcoomd.org/files/1.%20Public%20files/
2 Goods may enter a customs territory with relief from duties and
PDFandDocuments/Procedures%20and%20Facilitation/
taxes but must be covered by a single document known as the
UCR_new_e.pdf.
ATA carnet that is secured by an international guarantee system.
———. 2004b. Recommendation to the Customs Co-operation Council
3 A multipurpose goods nomenclature used as the basis for cus-
Concerning a Unique Consignment Reference (UCR) for Customs
toms tariffs and for the compilation of international trade statistics
Purposes. Available at http://www.wcoomd.org/
is an integral part of the Convention.
pftoolsucrrecomm.htm.
4 Because customs administrations control and administer interna-
———. 2007a. Compendium of Integrity Best Practices. Available at
tional trade, they are in a unique position to enhance supply chain
http://www.wcoomd.org/files/1.%20Public%20files/
security and contribute to socioeconomic development by improv-
PDFandDocuments/Capacity%20Building/Integrity/
ing trade facilitation and increasing revenue collection—critical fac-
CIBP_for_publication20March2007_English.pdf.
tors in the current global economic downturn.
———. 2007b. Integrity Development Guide. Available at
5 AEO programs are in place in Canada, China, the European Union,
Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Sweden, and
PDFandDocuments/Capacity%20Building/
the United States.
Integrity_Development_Guide_E_March_2007.pdf.
6 The Model will be marketed to customs, software developers,
———. 2007c. Model Code of Ethics and Conduct. Available at
and the private sector through a series of workshops in each of
the six WCO regions. These are (1) North Africa, Near and Middle
PDFandDocuments/Model%20Code%20of%20Ethics%20and
East; (2) West and Central Africa; (3) East and Southern Africa; (4)
%20Conduct.pdf.
South America, North America, Central America and the
Caribbean; (5) Europe; and (6) Far East, South and South East ———. 2007d. Single Window: Implications for Customs
Asia, Australasia and the Pacific Islands. Administrations (Annex I to Information Management Sub-
Committee Document No. PM0186E). Available at
7 The API guidelines were established jointly by the WCO, the
http://www.wcoomd.org/files/6.%20SW%20Files/
International Air Transport Association (IATA), and the International
SW%20Initiatives/WCO/003-Implications.pdf.
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
———. 2007e. WCO Data Model, Single Window Data Harmonisation.
8 The WCO’s regional structures are its Regional Offices for
52 Capacity Building (ROCB) and Regional Training Centres (RTC).
Available at http://www.wcoomd.org/files/6.%20SW%20Files/
Single%20Window%20Data%20Harmonisation%20V2.pdf.
9 The UN Convention was adopted by the General Assembly by
WCO/IATA/ICAO (World Customs Organization/International Air
Resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003. The text of the Convention
Transport Association/International Civil Aviation Organization).
was negotiated during seven sessions of the Ad Hoc Committee
2003. Guidelines on Advance Passenger Information (API).
for the Negotiation of the Convention against Corruption, held
Available at http://www.wcoomd.org/files/1.%20Public%20files/
between January 21, 2002, and October 1, 2003.
PDFandDocuments/Procedures%20and%20Facilitation/
10 Originally, the interagency coordination initiative on anti-corruption APIGuidelines_ENG.pdf.
was launched by the UN Deputy Secretary-General, who con-
vened two meetings in New York in late 2001 calling for
enhanced collaboration and coordination of anti-corruption efforts
within the UN. Following this call, the IGAC convened its first
meeting under the auspices of the UNODC in February 2002, and
has been meeting regularly ever since.
11 The Integrity Best Practice Resource Centre is the name given to

a database of integrity best practices.
References
G-20. 2009. Global Plan for Recovery and Reform: The Communiqué
from the London Summit. Available at
http://www.londonsummit.gov.uk/en/summit-aims/summit-
communique.
UN/CEFACT (United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic

Business). 2005. Recommendations and Guidelines on
Establishing a Single Window to Enhance the Efficient Exchange
of Information between Trade and Government: Recommendation
No. 33. New York and Geneva: United Nations. Available at
http://www.unece.org/cefact/recommendations/rec33/
rec33_trd352e.pdf.
UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime). 2003. United

Nations Convention against Corruption. Available at
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/index.html.
WCO (World Customs Organization). 1993. The Arusha Declaration:

Declaration of the Customs Co-operation Council Concerning
Integrity in Customs. Available at http://www.wcoomd.org/files/
1.%20Public%20files/PDFandDocuments/Capacity%20Building/
Integrity/Arusha%20E.pdf.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 53
1.4: IATA e-Freight: Taking the Paper Out of Air Cargo

CHAPTER 1.4 International trade is a key contributor to global eco-
nomic growth. Open trade policies encourage trade,
as does reliable, fast, and cost-effective transport. In
IATA e-Freight: Taking the fact, there is evidence to suggest that reductions in
transport costs have an equal or greater positive effect
Paper Out of Air Cargo on international trade than lower tariffs.1 Different
types of transaction costs related to trade are captured
STEVE SMITH and MICHAEL MOOSBERGER, International Air in the Enabling Trade Index discussed in Chapter 1.1
Transport Association (IATA) of this Report.This chapter examines IATA e-freight, an
initiative that improves the effectiveness and efficiency
of international airfreight and the potential of e-freight
to increase international trade in goods and services.
IATA e-freight replaces paper documents accompa-
nying airfreight shipments with electronic messages.This
facilitates the movement of goods by air; saves billions of
dollars for the supply chain; and offers a modern, more
environmentally friendly alternative to traditional air
cargo shipments.
The air cargo industry almost exclusively relies on
paper-based processes to support the movement of freight.
These paper-based processes are not cost effective, nor
do they serve the pressing needs for security and speed
that are the key characteristics of air cargo. In December
2004, the International Air Transport Association (IATA)
Board mandated IATA to lead an industry-wide project
with the aim of taking paper out of the air cargo supply
chain and creating the conditions needed to replace 53
the existing processes with new ones that rely on the
electronic exchange of information to facilitate the
movement of freight.Thus an industry action group
was established that included IATA, the World Customs
Organization (WCO), airlines, and freight forwarders to
lead the industry in migrating to a paper-free process.
IATA established a project team to identify those
locations that had the right regulatory and technical
environments to work in an electronic environment
while demonstrating the willingness to migrate from
paper-based to an electronic process. Six pilot locations
were identified as having met these criteria: Canada,
Hong Kong SAR, the Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden,
and the United Kingdom.The project team established
working groups in each of these locations that included
airlines, customs, freight forwarders, and ground handlers
who recognized the need to define a single e-freight
operating process that allows the clearance of exports
and imports without the use of paper documentation.
In November 2007, 12 months after initiating
the project, these pilot locations went live with the new
e-freight process. As of March 2009, 13 more economies
are e-freight live: Australia, Denmark, Dubai, France,
Germany, Korea, Rep., Luxembourg, Mauritius, New
Zealand, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, and the United
States.The project is targeting 44 locations that will be
using e-freight processes by the end of 2010.Together,
these locations account for more than 80 percent of
global international air cargo volumes.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 54
Figure 1: The air cargo supply chain
Shippers Origin freight Export Origin–destination Import Destination Consignees

forwarders customs carrier customs freight forwarders
Implementation in a given location now takes hampering the ability of customs officials to conduct
approximately three months and is led by an industry targeted screening.The administration of so many docu-
steering group normally chaired by an airline. However, ments also requires more resources across the air cargo
the implementation in Korea, Rep. in 2008 was chaired by supply chain, increasing overhead costs.
customs and supported by the airfreight community, and In addition, inefficient, unpredictable, and unclear
as a result it was one of the smoothest implementations. customs procedures and practices contribute to unneces-
Today, IATA forecasts a 17 percent reduction in sary costs and delays for exports and imports. In 1974,
2009 cargo volumes compared with 2008. Removing the International Convention on the Simplification
54 costly, inefficient paper-based processes is more relevant and Harmonization of Customs Procedures (Kyoto
than ever, as the supply chain looks for simpler ways of Convention) came into force as a voluntary agreement
doing business in an economic downturn. through the WCO, as an attempt to harmonize customs
systems internationally. Recognizing a need to harmonize
further, countries set forth a revised version of the
What is the air cargo supply chain? Kyoto Convention (see Chapter 1.3 for more details
The air cargo industry consists of a diverse set of parties on the Kyoto Convention).This went into effect on
involved in the transport of goods. Collectively referred February 3, 2006, with 44 contracting parties.
to as the air cargo supply chain, these parties include ship- The purpose of the treaty is to simplify customs
pers, freight forwarders, government customs officials, procedures, eliminate wasteful transaction charges,
airlines, ground handlers, and consignees.The interaction improve transparency and predictability, and facilitate
among these groups, in terms of the flow of business trade. One of the ways the agreement does this is by
and information, is shown in Figure 1. providing for the use of electronic data exchange in
customs clearance.This important measure means that
almost 80 percent of international trade will now be
The problem: Too much paper facilitated under the provisions of the revised Kyoto
Today, the air cargo supply chain relies heavily on paper Convention.
documents to support the movement of goods. In fact, As trade has developed, states have implemented
the average air cargo shipment generates more than 30 complex requirements for the provision of information.
documents, from the Certificate of Origin to the Governments often require data to be submitted on
Import Goods Declaration. paper and also to more than one authority.This adds to
This reliance on paper-based processes is based the cost of doing business without adding value to the
on a legacy system of transporting goods. It lengthens airfreight supply chain or for the end customer.
transport times, increases shipment costs, and provides Suppliers maintain inventory levels of around 12
little real-time visibility for the customer.With so many percent, of which 25 percent can be attributed to the
stakeholders in the supply chain exchanging informa- unreliability of the air cargo supply chain.2 This means
tion, the manual transfer of data from one to another is that shippers have to increase their goods inventory by 3
error-prone.These errors cause delays in shipments. percent to make sure they can deliver on commitments
The fact that the customs documents arrive at the to the end customer.
same time or even after the shipments arrive eliminates
the ability to pre-clear goods, causing delays and
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 55

Figure 2: The 16 documents that will be replaced by IATA e-freight messaging standards by the end of 2009
Shippers Origin freight Export Origin–destination Import Destination Consignees

forwarders customs carrier customs freight forwarders
e-Freight messaging
A B C D
1. Invoice 6. Master Air Waybill 11. Flight Manifest 15. Import Goods Declaration
2. Packing List 7. House Waybill 12. Transfer Manifest 16. Customs Release Import
3. Certificate of Origin 8. House Manifest 13. Export Cargo Declaration
4. Letter of Instruction 9. Export Goods Declaration 14. Import Cargo Declaration
5. Dangerous Goods Declaration
55
IATA e-freight: A paper-free alternative the shipment can reduce shipment times by a global
IATA e-freight involves the entire supply chain. average of 24 hours.
Currently IATA e-freight has published electronic mes- Countries adopting e-freight can also benefit from
saging standards that replace 13 paper documents. By reducing their environmental footprint. IATA estimates
the end of 2009, the project will have removed 16 paper that e-freight will eliminate almost 8,000 tons of paper
documents from the air cargo supply chain, accounting every year—based on the number of paper shipment
for over 60 percent of the paper documents by volume documents currently created—enough to fill 80 Boeing
(Figure 2). 747 freighters.
The implementation of e-ticket in the passenger IATA e-freight messaging standards comply with
domain removed one document—the equivalent of international and local regulations relating to the provision
the Air Waybill that is the contractual document for the of electronic documents and data required by customs,
air cargo industry. IATA e-freight, by contrast, removes civil aviation, and other regulatory authorities. Electronic
a significantly larger number of documents for cargo, documents also restrict the availability of data to only
which—unlike a passenger—is unable to walk and those parties that require them, enhancing the security
talk.This makes the need for a robust process critical— of shipment-related information.
otherwise the cargo sits still. Interoperability is a key criterion in the development
Replacing paper with electronic messages allows for of IATA e-freight messaging standards.The 13 electronic
the faster movement of goods, provides better information document standards developed—and the 3 more on the
to supply chain participants, and lowers costs for the way in 2009—work for companies large and small.These
industry. Electronic document auto-population allows standards allow systems to communicate with each other,
one-time data entry at the point of origin, eliminating including systems operated by customs and civil aviation
shipment delays that result from inconsistent manual authorities. IATA e-freight electronic messages that
data entry. Electronic documents are also less likely to replace documents used in all types of transport—such
be misplaced.They facilitate the transfer of information as the packing list, invoice, or Certificate of Origin—
required by customs officials before the actual shipment work for air, sea, and land shipments.
arrives, allowing government entities to pre-screen
air cargo and target their secondary screening efforts.
In fact, based on the experience of Singapore, IATA The regulatory environment needed to implement
estimates that this ability to send information ahead of IATA e-freight
When the IATA e-freight project considered implemen-
tation, it looked to economies and customs authorities
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 56
that had a legal and regulatory framework that would to process is largely driven by more accurate data com-
allow the removal of paper and operations by means of ing from the electronic exchange of information. If the
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) messaging. original data provided by the exporter are transmitted
Countries must pass two assessments—a high-level electronically through the supply chain, there is reduced
assessment (HLA) and a detailed-level assessment (DLA)— risk of inaccurate data being processed as each member
to be considered e-freight ready.The HLA criteria are: of the supply chain inputs data into their own systems.
The air cargo supply chain therefore has the inherent
• The intent of a country to implement the WCO inefficiency of manual data re-entry. In addition, if the
Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate data presented to customs are incorrect, shipments are
Global Trade. delayed.
Customs authorities will benefit because more-
• The country has already in place, or plans to put in targeted screening becomes possible because of the
place, an e-customs program that provides the process submission of customs information in advance of goods
and technology to exchange messages electronically arriving.With the increase in global trade, there is
between air cargo supply chain stakeholders and increasing pressure on customs resources to ensure that
governmental authorities (mainly customs). Most of the flow of goods is expedited, while at the same time
the documents that are considered for the e-freight providing increased security. Having to inspect every
project, such as the Master Air Waybill and the shipment that passes through a border is unnecessary
Certificate of Origin, are part of the customs clear- and would bring the flow of goods to a halt. Providing
ance process. If an e-customs program is in place, electronic export and import data in advance, which is
the paper documents can be replaced by standard possible with IATA e-freight, allows authorities to con-
electronic messages exchanged with the customs duct more focused risk management in order to identify
administrations. If a location cannot support the high-risk shipments.
exchange of electronic messages, paper cannot be With the electronic exchange of data between
replaced and e-freight cannot be implemented. export and import economies, there is less opportunity
for mis-declaration of goods.Therefore customs duties
56 • The country has ratified the Montreal Convention revenue leakage is reduced, which thus has a direct
99 or the Montreal Protocol 4.The Convention or financial benefit to the government.
Protocol eliminates the need for cargo consignors Although the widespread implementation of e-freight
to complete detailed paper-based air waybills. will bring tangible benefits in terms of efficiency and
time savings for shippers and other key stakeholders in
Even though a framework may be in place, a willing- the supply chain, the program will also offer benefits to
ness on the part of governmental authorities to implement the broader economy of implementing countries.
e-freight for the documentation in scope is also required. Looking at the global air cargo supply chain as a
That was the reason for choosing the six pilot locations whole, it is expected that US$4.9 billion of net benefits
in 2007—Canada, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, will be realized in 2015 as a result of e-freight implemen-
Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Customs tation.The savings primarily come from a combination
authorities in these economies were willing to consider of reduced document-processing costs and reduced
an IATA e-freight process that could be aligned to meet inventory capital requirements that are a consequence
their regulatory and operational processes. of faster delivery times and increased end-to-end supply
A country implementing an e-customs program chain reliability.There are additional benefits from
should do so in line with WCO standards, so that its revenues derived from improved market share.
program conforms to the electronic message standards Cost savings from e-freight would represent an
used in the IATA e-freight project. almost 2 percent reduction in the overall cost of moving
Once a location passes the HLA, a DLA is conducted. goods from shipper to consignee via the air cargo supply
This is a set of over 50 questions that diagnose the readi- chain. Reduced transportation costs can have an important
ness of a location and its stakeholders to participate in stimulation effect on trade between economies, and thus
IATA e-freight from technical, process, and regulatory on economic growth for those economies and prospects
points of view. for their respective geographic regions. In the specific
case of intra-Asian trade, econometric analysis indicates
that a 10 percent reduction in tariffs stimulates trade by
Benefits to implementing countries 2 percent, whereas a similar reduction in transportation
Implementing countries’ entire air cargo supply chain— costs led to a 6 percent increase in trade.3 Research
and by extension their broader economies—benefit by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
from the move to paper-free air cargo. Development (OECD) also indicates that a 1 percent
Shippers will benefit from faster processing times point reduction in trade transaction costs, measured as
and more convenience.This reduction in time needed
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 57

a proportion of the value of world trade, could lead to participants in the supply chain that do not exchange
an increase in world income of around US$40 billion.4 electronic messages.Thus, as the project continues to build
If the results of the Asian experience were general- the global e-freight network, the focus will shift more
ized to the rest of the world, the transportation cost and more to ensuring that there is maximum traffic on
savings driven by e-freight could lead to an increase in the network built by the air cargo supply chain.
trade of US$2 billion in 2015, given the higher value However, supply chains in economies that are
shipments typically carried by air.The direct benefits already using paper-free air cargo have begun to realize
to shippers and consumers of a faster, more reliable and the benefits of e-freight:
efficient supply chain, combined with the wider eco-
nomic benefits, make a strong case for the widespread • In Korea, Rep., freight forwarders can now transport
implementation of e-freight. Governments seeking to freight to the airlines as soon as the electronic Air
capture these benefits need to be aware of the remaining Waybill message is created. Printing and manual
implementation barriers and move to address them. pouching of the documents can be done after the
freight departs, saving time and money.
IATA e-freight in action • In Amsterdam, freight forwarders are now able to

Consider an Asian garment manufacturer sending goods bring freight directly to the delivery dock instead of
to a US retail store for December holiday sales. In the via the document center.This saves 30–60 minutes
case of a paper airfreight shipment, the opportunity for from the usual process, which means that truck
error arises the first time the goods change hands, from drivers can be engaged for shorter time periods.
the shipper to the origin freight forwarder.The freight
forwarder must complete documentation by manually • In various locations, airlines now have improved
transferring data that the shipper has provided. Should electronic arrival alert mechanisms.That means that
the forms not be completed consistently, export customs freight forwarders no longer have to go to the airline
authorities may not accept the shipment, causing delays or ground handling agents (GHA) arrival counter
and lost sales. In an e-freight scenario, the electronic to be notified of freight receipt.
messages use auto-population, so the data are entered 57
only one time: by the shipper at the point of origin.
This avoids the manual re-entering of data and any What can policymakers do to remove the barriers?
errors it can cause. Policymakers can promote conducting business electron-
Continuing with the paper-based scenario, the ically in terms of both commercial customs clearance
shipment is then released by export customs to the and security.The two key elements are the technical and
carrier and arrives at import customs in the United regulatory environments that must be in place to allow
States. Because of the holiday season, the customs the implementation of e-freight.
authorities at the port of entry are experiencing a Countries where a technical framework for elec-
backlog in processing goods, subjecting the shipment tronic message exchange for the purposes of customs
to delays. In an e-freight scenario, all the information clearance does not exist are advised to seek the support
required for customs clearance can be sent ahead of the of the WCO through their capacity-building program.
shipment’s arrival—allowing import customs authorities This program helps develop the customs processes
to pre-clear shipments and focus only on potentially that deliver an electronic environment for the purposes
hazardous goods.Thus, the goods can go straight to of customs clearance.The WCO promotes the single
the destination freight forwarder for delivery to the window concept that allows trading partners to lodge
consignee. standardized information and documents with a single
However, in the paper world, our goods have still point of entry to fulfill import, export, and transit-related
more hurdles to clear before arriving at the store for regulatory requirements. It eliminates the need for a
sale. Because of the manual transfer of data, there is trader to submit the same data to several authorities or
again an opportunity for error between import customs agencies.This framework is supported by IATA and is
and destination freight forwarder—an incorrectly entered an enabler of e-freight. Operating under this concept
address, for example—that can cause yet more delays to provides different governmental organizations with
the goods in question. quality information leading to improved security and a
With IATA e-freight, the Asian goods will arrive greater ability to target suspicious consignments while
in the United States nearly 24 hours before they would improving efficiency.
have using paper-based processes—saving time and In cases where paper documentation requirements
money. are in place for either commercial or security purposes,
The number of e-freight shipments in the live policymakers should promote the use of electronic data
locations is not yet significant enough for the whole exchange.The data required are often already provided
industry to declare financial benefits, as there are still within existing electronic messages and therefore prevent
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 58
duplicate and inefficient data provision. For example, as there still a requirement for inefficient paper-based
economies introduce security declarations, electronic processes? For example, both Hong Kong and Canada,
security declarations should be favored over paper-based IATA e-freight pilot locations, allow the supply chain
ones. If not, the supply chain and customs authorities to provide non-original copies of the Certificate of
will move in opposite directions: the supply chain will be Origin.
trying to remove paper while governments are adding There are other documents that currently require
cost and complexity back into the supply chain by paper versions, such as the Letter of Credit.While these
adopting nonstandard paper-based processes. are not yet part of IATA e-freight’s scope, policymakers
The standard regulatory framework for the imple- should promote and allow for electronic versions of
mentation of the removal of the Airway Bill is the ratifi- documents to ensure that the supply chain, and by
cation of treaties—that is, the Montreal Convention 99 extension the broader economy, realizes maximum
or the Montreal Protocol 4—that allows the replacement benefits from the more efficient e-freight process.
of this document by electronic messages. However, at
an operational level, customs needs to be aligned with
this international regulation to ensure that there is no Conclusion
expectation of receiving a paper copy of this document Reliable, efficient, and effective transport is essential to
in addition to an electronic version. facilitating international trade and global economic
Policymakers can reduce the inefficiencies of global growth. Given the increasing importance of air cargo,
trading by introducing technology that allows standard policymakers should provide an environment that enables
electronic data exchange for the purposes of goods clear- the efficient flow of goods without paper documents
ance. Introducing unique data requirements rather than through the electronic exchange of messages.
implementing standard processes and technology based That environment lies within the framework put
on the WCO framework means increased complexity forward by IATA e-freight.The operational standards
and cost. For example, if Country A requires X sets of and procedures defined by IATA e-freight are aligned
data and Country B requires Y sets of data, then an airline with the WCO and United Nations Centre for Trade
of freight forwarder operating in both of those countries Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT)
58 has to develop its processes and systems to be able to standards.Where the project has developed new messaging
cope with both scenarios. If this were to be replicated standards, they are appropriate for inter-modal shipments:
across many states, there would be a very large increase by air, land, and sea.
in process and messaging complexity and thus cost. IATA e-freight offers economies a common set of
In terms of implementing technology, some processes and standards for the exchange of electronic
economies have implemented their systems through messages. If the air cargo supply chain is to continue
in-house production or support from private companies, to efficiently meet the needs of the consumer through
while others have looked to the support of the United reduced costs, reliability, and improved transit times,
Nations Conference on Trade and Development economies must adopt a framework based on common
(UNCTAD) to provide technology solutions. If policy- processes and standards rather than proprietary ones that
makers are intending to implement the concept of would only add cost and complexity to the air cargo
e-business, then there are many parties to which to supply chain.
turn for advice, but it is important to ensure that the
recommended solutions are based on common interna-
tional standards as set by the UN, the WCO, and IATA. Notes
1 De 2008.
This will not only increase the likelihood of a successful
implementation but also will make certain that trade is 2 These percentages come from interviews with shippers,
November–December 2008, IATA e-freight project.
operating to one standard. IATA has a role in ensuring
3 De 2008.
that an agreed standard is set, and then working with
technology partners that are part of IATA’s Strategic 4 OECD 2003.
Partnership Programme to deliver solutions that meet

IATA e-freight requirements.
Specifically, there is still a need for many economies References
to allow the use of an electronic version or no original De, P. 2008. ”Trade Costs and Infrastructure: Analysis of the Effects of
Trade Impediments in Asia.” Integration and Trade 12 (28):
copy of the Certificate of Origin.This document identifies 241–66.
the country of origin for each of the goods related to OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).
one shipment. In the majority of economies, this is 2003. Quantitative Assessment of the Benefits of Trade
Facilitation. Paris: OECD.
required as an original paper document, often stamped
by authorities, to allow the release of goods.With an WCO (World Customs Organization). 1974; revised 1999. International
Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs
electronic document standard that can be transmitted Procedures (Kyoto Convention).
securely between the supply chain members, why is
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 59
1.5: A Tour of the Ongoing Work of the World Trade Organization on Trade Facilitation
CHAPTER 1.5 Over the last two decades, several things have happened
to force governments to look more closely at the need
to facilitate trade by eliminating procedural barriers to
A Tour of the Ongoing Work of goods moving across borders. First, as the World Trade
Organization (WTO) has succeeded in removing or
the World Trade Organization reducing high tariffs and other trade barriers, the
impediments to trade caused by inefficient official
on Trade Facilitation: The procedures at the border have become more apparent.
Traders’ Perspective Second, new techniques for creating, transmitting, and
processing trade data have enabled private traders and
carriers to eliminate significant delays formerly associated
JOHN SIMPSON, Global Express Association (GEA)
with moving and processing paper documents, further
illuminating the obsolescence of official procedures that
still rely on paper. Finally, modern logistics systems—
such as those introduced by the express delivery indus-
try—have made the global business community and
attentive governments painfully aware of the growing
efficiency gap between commercial and governmental
processes, and of the profound difference in their views
of the value of time.
As the defects of current official procedures for pro-
cessing cross-border trade have become more obvious,
other developments have made the need to address them
more pressing. Some manufacturing operations have
become intercontinental, assembling goods in stages in
widely separated facilities; many manufacturing operations
have adopted just-in-time practices for managing inven- 59
tories of materials and components prior to production;
and consumers are demanding and getting perishable
food and floraculture products from around the world
in all seasons. Moreover, it has become apparent to trade
ministers worldwide that inefficient border procedures
are thwarting the WTO’s accomplishments in bringing
down other trade barriers and—because border
inefficiency is not uniformly distributed—are adding
to trade tensions by aggravating trade imbalances.
Trade facilitation’s manifold nature

Any discussion of trade facilitation must recognize that
what constitutes trade facilitation is highly subjective.
Modernization of customs procedures is considered
by many to be at the heart of trade facilitation, but
inadequate infrastructure is a widespread problem that
impedes the movement of goods. Byzantine health,
safety, and environmental regulations are near the top
of the problem list for those who deal in regulated
products, which include almost everything in some
countries. Restrictions on foreign investment deprive
transportation companies, particularly airlines, of needed
investment, and cabotage laws force inefficient routing.
In the interest of brevity, this chapter will focus on
a single aspect of trade facilitation that is the proverbial
low-hanging fruit: customs reform and modernization.
Customs procedures have long been understood as
directly affecting the speed at which goods can move,
and solutions are well developed, feasible, and affordable.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 60
These subjects have already been addressed in the WTO’s • collecting and maintaining information that only
Doha Development Agenda negotiations currently government agencies require;
under way and the World Customs Organization
(WCO)’s revised Kyoto Convention, both of which • creating and transmitting original paper documents,
provide rational frameworks for dealing with what again something that only government agencies
can be a somewhat unwieldy topic.1 This chapter lays require; and
out the rationale for streamlining different aspects of
trade facilitation related to customs reform and evalu- • inefficient cash management resulting from slower
ates the current proposals deliberated under the Doha turnover. Short and predictable customs transit
Round negotiations on trade facilitation from a traders’ times enable traders to recover and reinvest their
perspective.2 working capital more quickly. More rapid turnover
Customs is the primary agency for control of goods is equivalent to a virtual injection of new capital.
at international borders. Customs agencies collect duties
and other taxes; enforce laws related to protection of Since the 1994 UNCTAD Columbus Symposium,3
human health and safety, animal and plant health, the surveys aimed at calculating direct costs have consistently
environment, intellectual property, endangered species, suggested that they may range from 2 percent to 15
and antiquities; administer trade sanctions under United percent of the value of traded goods, with variations
Nations or national mandates; and control weapons largely relating to the country of importation, types of
and hazardous materials. Because of the wide range of products, and transport restrictions. Critics of this estimate
customs’ responsibilities and the broad powers delegated correctly observe that it is difficult to verify: none of the
to it, the quality of customs’ performance is an impor- studies contributing to this range can be properly sub-
tant determinant of the efficiency of international trade, stantiated. Moreover, as noted, costs imposed by official
and many kinds of trade transactions are extremely procedures vary widely around the world and depend on
sensitive to inefficient customs’ performance. the character of goods being shipped. However, although
Notwithstanding the central role of customs in the exact magnitude of these costs may never be deter-
international trade, customs’ performance for many years mined with a high degree of accuracy, their existence is
60 escaped high-level policy attention, in part because its not in doubt, their adverse effects on trade are certain,
highly technical nature deterred the interest of ministry- and there is substantial anecdotal evidence to suggest that
level officials and in part because of the usual tendency in many countries this estimate is not far off the mark.
of specialized bureaucracies such as customs to keep
policymakers at arm’s length. However, within the last More effective border controls
decade, customs issues have been drawn into the center Increasing border inefficiency can not only reduce costs
of international trade discussions.This is largely a result to traders, but can also help governments more effec-
of a decision to include trade facilitation in the WTO’s tively administer border controls in at least two ways:
Doha Development Agenda, but it is also a consequence reducing lost revenue owing to an inability to detect false
of attention given to customs by multilateral donors, customs declarations, outright smuggling, and official
such as the World Bank, and other inter-governmental corruption; and increasing ability to ensure compliance with
organizations, such as the United Nations Conference health and safety rules for humans, animals, and plants.
on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Enhanced trade competitiveness
Additionally, a wholesome trend toward self-reform, Finally, inefficient border procedures are also likely to
orchestrated by the WCO with the support of progres- lead to poor export competitiveness and to make a
sive national customs administrations, has attracted country less attractive to investors. Actions that improve
attention to the very large potential to remove barriers the efficiency of border procedures have been shown
to trade through customs reform. to produce results remarkably quickly. Countries that
have improved the efficiency of border administrative
procedures have consistently seen increases in foreign
Benefits of trade facilitation investment and recognize significant increases in cus-
Among the benefits of trade facilitation are cost reduc- toms revenue even while reducing customs duty rates.
tion, more effective border controls, enhanced trade
competitiveness, and the creation of new trade. Creation of new trade
Trade facilitation has also enabled the creation of entirely
Cost reduction new trade, aided by modern capabilities to move goods
Opaque, inefficient, and prolix border procedures create and information rapidly over long distances. Examples
unnecessary costs for businesses, many of which would of this new trade can be found in the expansion of the
be greatly mitigated by trade facilitation.These costs global express delivery industry. International express
arise from: delivery companies carried an estimated US$2.86
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 61
trillion in goods across borders in calendar year 2008.4 administration, preferably one mouse click away via a
Much of this is trade that might otherwise not occur, link on the homepage.
since it responds to a demand for a high-quality,
end-to-end type of services. It is therefore reasonable Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
to conclude that much of the merchandise trade carried The WTO members are considering two proposals:
by international express delivery companies occurs one by the United States and a second by China, Hong
because of the availability of express delivery and the Kong SAR, Japan, Mongolia, Norway, Switzerland,
and Turkey. The requirement in the US proposal for a
efficient border procedures that make it possible.
“full and precise description” of customs procedures
is superior to the measure in the Hong Kong et al.
proposal requiring only “an outline of . . . border
Customs reforms
agency procedures.”
These benefits can be enhanced through reducing costs
and delays associated with border procedures, which
can be achieved by reforming customs procedures. In
Language of publication
this context, customs reform necessitates the review of
A second accommodation that is sometimes controversial
three areas: transparency, the ease with which information
but immensely helpful is the publication of national
about customs requirements and procedures can be
importing rules in one of the official languages of the
obtained by traders; efficiency, the reduction of reporting
WTO.Translating the entire text of customs and other
burdens and streamlining of processes to minimize
importing rules into another language is expensive and
delays; and fairness, the removal of arbitrariness and
sometimes controversial because occasionally thorny lin-
uncertainty from the customs-trader relationship (the
guistic barriers are encountered.Yet it is highly valuable
absence of “fairness” in the process adds to transaction
for the international trade community that each govern-
costs because traders must take precautions against
ment publishes its rules for importing in languages used
unforeseeable adverse official actions).These three
by the WTO.This makes it easier for traders to arrange
areas are captured in the Enabling Trade Index under
further translation into their own languages.
the border administration subindex.
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.

61
Transparency
The WTO members are considering a proposal sub-
The first area, transparency, can be enhanced by
mitted by China, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Mongolia,
addressing several aspects of the publication of rules. Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey that provides that
only rules published on websites in an official language
Publication of rules of the WTO fulfill the needs of trade for transparency.
For a trader contemplating entry into a new market,
the threshold question is whether the landed cost of his
goods, including customs duties and other taxes, will be Advance notice of changes to rules and opportunity
competitive with prices for similar goods in that market. to comment
Even a trader experienced in exporting to other foreign Successful economies are joint ventures between
markets will be unable to estimate landed costs or comply governments and their business communities. It is
fully with trade laws in a new market unless the govern- highly important that government agencies and affected
ment in that market has published a full set of rules for businesses collaborate in the establishment of economic
importing. Publication of importing rules effectively regulations, and that businesses have an opportunity to
opens a market to new competitors and enhances con- comment in advance on proposed new regulations or
sumer choice. In addition, full disclosure is necessary proposed changes to regulations.There will, of course,
for ensuring compliance with rules. be situations in which the exigencies of a matter
Full publication of importing rules has another addressed by regulations simply do not allow for the
advantage: it makes it more difficult for dishonest delay necessary to obtain public comments. A general
officials to extort bribes from carriers and importers policy in favor of public comment on new or revised
by maintaining that they have failed to meet official regulation must give way when circumstances genuinely
requirements. require immediate action.
It is particularly useful to international traders for
governments to post their customs regulations and some Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
other rules for importing on the websites of their The WTO members are considering two proposals,
national customs administrations. It is important that the one by China, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Korea, Rep.,
information be complete, and that it include the com- Mongolia, and Switzerland, and a second by Turkey.
plete text of the statutes and a full presentation of all The proposal by Turkey provides for advance notice
implementing rules. It is also important that information but appears to be intended to give traders an oppor-
be easy to find on the website of the national customs tunity to prepare for implementation of new rules
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 62
rather than an opportunity to submit comments that as the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of
may result in rules being revised. It would be more the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
meaningful if WTO members opted for a rule that 1994; and determination of country of origin.To pro-
makes clear that the provision for public comment is mote compliance with a national interpretation of laws,
not a mere formality or warning period, but rather a
the best practice among customs administrations is to
meaningful exchange of views among government
provide official interpretations of legal issues to parties
agencies and traders that may affect the content of
who request guidance.
rules or result in their withdrawal.
Absent a showing that material facts were misrepre-
sented by a party applying for a ruling, these rulings, once
issued, must be binding on all agencies and at all ports
Publication of agencies’ analysis and response to comments
of entry. If a determination is made that an issued ruling
The value of an opportunity to comment on proposed
was erroneous, government must give the recipient (and
rules is greatly diminished if an agency proposing new
the public if the ruling has been published) advance
rules is not required to make all comments received
notice of revocation in order to minimize the adverse
available for public examination or to publish an expla-
consequences of traders who have acted in reliance on it.5
nation of its response. Even when public parties disagree
with an agency’s disposition of comments on an issue,
public confidence in the regulatory process is greatly
The WTO members are considering a proposal by
enhanced when government agencies make an effort to
Australia, Canada, Turkey, and the United States that
explain their decisions.
meets the needs of traders; however, other WTO
members have asked that the proposal be limited to
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations. rulings on classification only. Such a limitation would
This point is not currently addressed in the WTO trade make the proposal much less useful. Three decades
facilitation negotiations and it is a major omission. As after adoption of the WTO Valuation Code, valuation
noted, if agencies issuing regulations are under no of imported goods remains a wild frontier for trade,
obligation to publish a response to reasonable com- and rulings on valuation are especially needed.
ments from affected public parties, it appears that the
62 comment process is a mere formality, and confidence
in both the regulatory process and the quality of the
Customs efficiency
final rules is diminished.
Reducing reporting burdens and streamlining processes
to minimize delays is the next area addressed in the
border administration subindex of the Enabling Trade
Deferred effective dates for new rules
Index.
Once an agency has published a new or significantly
revised regulation, it should defer the effective date for a
Elimination of paper documents / Automation
period that is adequate to allow affected parties to make
Few developments of the last 30 years have created
adjustments to their operations to comply with the new
greater benefits for trade than automation of customs’
rules. If the notice and comment process is to have sig-
entry procedures. Such automation has:
nificance, the possibility must be left open that the rule
finally adopted may differ in substantial respects from
• eliminated the need to convert data and documents
the original proposal.
created electronically into paper documents;

• expedited transmission of required information
The WTO members are considering a proposal from
to customs, thus enabling customs to begin entry
China, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Korea, Rep., Mongolia,
and Switzerland that fully meets the needs of traders.
processing while goods are still in transit;
• enabled customs administrations to make

Advance rulings on technical legal issues meaningful use of information received without
Completion of customs formalities in every country time-consuming re-entry of information from
involves interpretation and application of complex laws paper documents into automated systems; and
and coding systems, including classification of goods
under the Harmonized Commodity Description and • improved revenue compliance and the ability
Coding System (popularly known as “the Harmonized of customs administrations to detect violations.
System”), an internationally standardized system of
names and numbers for classifying traded products This is only a partial list; it does not even touch on
developed and maintained by the WCO; valuation of the environmental benefits that flow from eliminating
goods under the WTO Valuation Code, formally known hundreds of millions of paper documents each year.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 63
Notwithstanding its indisputable benefits, the Separation of the two processes is made possible by
automation of customs processes faces several hurdles. arrangements under which traders provide financial
It is never a simple information technology project, and guarantees that, in exchange for quick release of their
many countries lack the expertise and the funds to create shipments, they will complete all customs formalities
and maintain automated customs systems. An example and pay assessed duties and taxes within a specified
of a tool to automate customs procedures for air freight time period (usually 10 to 30 days). Such arrange-
that has been developed by IATA is described in ments include bank guarantees, special customs
Chapter 1.4. bonds guaranteed by sureties, and, in some cases, liens
Serious consideration should be given to creating against assets of importers, although this last option
an opportunity for customs administrations to outsource is generally seen by governments as awkward.
this function to one or more service centers (with appro-
priate backup sites) operated by contractors under the Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
supervision of the WCO. Each participating customs The WTO members are considering proposal
administration could have its own secure account, acces- TN/TF/W/136/Rev.2 from Canada and Switzerland.
sible only by its authorized officers. Automated risk This proposal requires each WTO member to adopt
assessment could either be part of the system, with each or maintain procedures authorizing an importer, upon
customs administration establishing its own risk criteria, tender of a guarantee in the form of a surety, a
deposit, or some other appropriate instrument for this
or risk assessment could be a separate function retained
purpose, to remove goods from customs’ control
by customs administrations.
prior to the final determination and payment of cus-
This approach to extending automation to all
toms duties, taxes, and fees when these are not
customs administrations would greatly reduce the costs determined at or prior to arrival of the goods.
of creating and maintaining systems, and would free However, the proposal does not recommend a mini-
national customs managers to concentrate on their pri- mum period for deferring payment of duties, taxes,
mary missions rather than diverting much of their time and fees, and should be amended to set a minimum
and resources to information technology management. of 10 days.
Immediate release of shipments 63

The celerity with which goods transit borders is com- • Pre-arrival processing: Using the time while shipments
mercially critical, yet time from the arrival of shipments of goods are in transit to process electronic information
to their release can range from minutes to days. Many related to the shipments. Customs administrations that
customs administrations provide quick release for require paper documents, or that insist on delaying
shipments of correspondence and documents and for the processing of electronic information until ship-
low-value consignments for which no duty or taxes ments actually arrive in their territories, cause
are collected (the definition of low value varies from unnecessary delays that are more harmful than is
country to country). However, for dutiable consignments, realized. At land borders, these delays cause traffic
including even consignments of low-value dutiable congestion, deferred delivery schedules, and envi-
goods, delays can extend to days.There are certain well- ronmental pollution. For express delivery companies
understood keys to faster release of shipments, listed providing end-to-end services, the loss of time can
below, but the record among customs administrations cause missed transfers between transport modes and,
for implementing them is spotty. if delays are routine, add an extra day to standard
delivery schedules.
• Separating release of goods from completion of formalities.
Customs processing at the border has two compo- Many customs administrations have agreed to
nents. First is the process by which customs deter- process release information in advance of shipment
mines whether goods are admissible immediately arrivals but prefer to wait until actual arrival before
or admissible only after examination.This process indicating which shipments are released and which
is often referred to as risk assessment. Second is a are subject to further examination. For air shipments
more time-consuming and technically complex and most maritime shipments this precaution is
process of classifying goods under the Harmonized excessive, but—as long as release messages and
System, calculating the customs value, providing examination directives are communicated promptly
other information such as country of origin for after arrival—there is no loss of efficiency.
statistical purposes, and paying duties and other
taxes. Customs administrations that do not separate Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
the two processes cause substantial delays, in some The WTO is considering a proposal by Hong Kong
cases up to several days. SAR, China, Japan, Korea, Rep., Mongolia, and
Switzerland that provides that WTO members shall
maintain or introduce pre-arrival processing, which is
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 64
defined as administrative procedures of customs and required, plus costs of moving containers to
other relevant border agencies to accept and examine examination stations.There is also a cost for
import documentation and other required information customs administrations: this policy distributes
upon the submission by traders prior to the arrival of scare enforcement resources uniformly over the
goods, in order to further expedite the clearance of
entire risk spectrum, giving as much attention to
goods where appropriate. In cases where it is
low-risk shipments as to those that are high risk.
decided that no further examination is required,
goods should be cleared immediately upon arrival.
2. Random examinations. Some customs administra-
tions have created systems that randomly select
the containers to be subjected to intensive
Waiver of full formalities for small and low-value
physical examination.While this method allows
shipments
the examination workload to be contained at a
There is a significant cost to government and business,
specified level, it still distributes customs enforce-
in terms of administrative burdens and delays, resulting
ment resources uniformly over the entire risk
from subjecting shipments of minimal value to full cus-
spectrum, because random examination tech-
toms formalities. All WTO members should adopt the
niques are as likely to select low-risk shipments
practice of having de minimis exemptions from full for-
for examination as those that are truly high risk.
malities for small shipments. It is common in income
Random examination systems also reduce rewards
tax regimes to provide for simplified tax returns for
for highly compliant traders, as their shipments
persons having only small incomes. Much of the logic
are as likely to be delayed for inspection as the
that lies behind this policy is applicable to collection of
shipments of less compliant parties.
tax information on goods crossing borders.
3. Inspector discretion. All customs administrations

leave some discretion to inspectors to examine
This issue has not been addressed in the WTO
trade facilitation negotiations and it is a significant
shipments that simply do not “look right,” and
omission. many customs inspectors have developed
64 remarkable instincts for sniffing out suspect
shipments. But reliance on inspector discretion
Waiver of small amounts of duties and taxes as the primary basis for examining shipments
Related to but separate from the issue of waiving full has two substantial flaws: first, not all inspectors
customs formalities for small-value shipments is the are equally gifted with good detection instincts;
more sensitive issue of waiving collection of small and second, handing such broad discretion to
amounts of duties and taxes. Even in a moment such as customs inspectors invites abuse. Lord Acton’s
the present, when public revenues are reduced, govern- observation that “power tends to corrupt, and
ments that do not already have them should establish absolute power corrupts absolutely” is usually
value limits below which shipments will not be subject amply demonstrated in these circumstances.
to taxation; collecting taxes on such shipments is a pro-
cedure that is not cost effective. 4. Automated risk assessment. The clearly superior
method of risk assessment is to use automated
systems that apply both rational risk factors
The WTO members are considering proposal TN/TF/ (objective characteristics of shippers and shipments
W/144/Rev.2 by the United States that appropriately likely to violate laws) and empirical risk factors
leaves to each WTO member the latitude to set a (the actual experiences of the most successful
national de minimis exemption.6 customs inspectors in detecting violations). A
well-designed automated risk assessment system
will provide also for a statistically valid random
Automated risk management sampling of goods for intensive examination
Customs administrations use essentially four methods simply to validate risk criteria, and, as noted
to determine which shipments will be subjected to previously, there must always be some limited
thorough physical examination. latitude for inspectors to examine shipments that
are suspicious. But primary reliance is on risk
1. All or virtually all shipments are examined. For factors programmed into the automated system.
some customs administrations, the policy is to Of course, each customs administration must
examine, or attempt to examine, all shipments. create its own list of risk factors, depending on
The result for trade is significant additional its unique circumstances, but customs adminis-
cost—indirectly in terms of delays and directly trations that apply automated risk assessment
in terms of inspection fees that are usually are invariably more effective and efficient, and
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 65
demonstrable benefits flow to their national different ports, a higher level of unpredictability for
economies and to the health and safety of their traders, and greater opportunities for corrupt behavior
populations. by port-level customs officials.

Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations. WTO members are considering a proposal by Japan
WTO members are considering two proposals on and Mongolia that meets the needs and expectations
this point, one by Taiwan, China; Korea, Rep.; and of traders.
Switzerland and the other by China. Either of these
proposals meets the needs expectations of traders,
although the former is somewhat more Time limit on customs’ demands for additional payment
comprehensive. or recall
Currently, in many countries there is no limit on the
time within which customs administrations may demand
Periodic filing of complete customs returns and payment additional payments or return of goods released from
of duties and other taxes customs custody.This exposes traders to indefinite liabil-
With the exception of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, ities on goods long ago resold and delivered to other
the United States, and some members of the European parties. Absent proof of deception on the part of a trader,
Union,7 finance ministries and customs administrations there should be a clear time limit on customs’ demands
the world over have not moved away from a full tax for further payments or return of goods. In cases where
return and payment for each importation, despite the an order for return of goods is within a prescribed time
significant administrative burden this method entails. limit but a trader is unable to comply because goods
It is time for customs administrations, certainly in have passed out of his control, the government’s remedy
the most advanced nations, to implement systems for fil- should, absent a showing of bad faith on the part of the
ing customs returns and payments periodically.The tran- trader, be limited to a reasonable penalty or, more con-
sition can be done in a way that is revenue neutral. venient for customs, to liquidated damages under the
Savings to governments resulting from a greatly reduced terms of the trader’s bond or other financial guarantee. 65
volume of tax returns and small payments to be
processed would offset at least some of the cost of Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
allowing payments to be deferred and made periodically, There is no proposal in the WTO trade facilitation
and there are other ways of making up any shortfall. negotiations to provide for a time limit on demands
And, of course, traders would be expected to provide for additional payments or return of goods previously
appropriate financial guarantees to ensure completion of released. This is a significant omission that intro-
formal obligations and payment of amounts owed. duces a high level of uncertainty for traders and the
Provision for periodic filing of full customs returns and potential for abuse of discretion by unscrupulous
duty payments should be one of the first applications for customs officers.
an automated customs system.
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations. Elimination of mandatory use of customs brokers
There is no proposal in the WTO trade facilitation Customs brokers are professional service providers,
negotiations addressing periodic filing of full customs licensed by national customs administrations to provide
returns and payment of duties, even with an extended advice and services to importers and other parties
implementation period. This is a significant omission engaged in activities subject to the customs laws. Many
that locks both customs administrations and traders private traders, especially those who import a variety
into an obsolete, costly, and highly inefficient practice. of goods, sometimes on behalf of other parties, choose
to use the services of customs brokers to ensure that
complex decisions about classification and valuation are
Fairness made correctly. However, the practice in some countries
The next issue of concern is fairness. Ensuring that the of mandating the use of customs brokers in customs laws
process of moving goods across borders is fair and with- or regulations is objectionable and the reasons for doing
out arbitrary and uncertain consequences is essential to it are often suspect because it frequently is an indication
minimizing transaction costs. of corruption.
There are two kinds of corruption enabled by laws
Appeals process for customs decisions mandating the use of brokers. In the first form, customs
In some countries, decisions of local customs officers brokers “share” the revenues from their mandatory serv-
cannot be appealed to a higher administrative official or ices with legislators who enact and maintain such laws;
to the courts.The absence of an appeals process results in the second form, customs officials who wish to avoid
in inconsistent application of national customs laws at demanding illegal payments directly from traders use
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 66
more-or-less willing customs brokers as intermediaries. sophisticated automated risk assessment systems, customs
These are phenomena observed by all traders in certain officers sift through electronic data about each container
countries, and certainly observed by express delivery to identify factors associated with elevated levels of risk.
managers. This is, theoretically, a sound approach to risk manage-
ment, but in practice it has a critical flaw: the risk criteria
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations. in the automated systems are based on the knowledge
On June 6, 2006, the European Communities; and experience of the importing country only, while
Mongolia; Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu of Taiwan, many of the data being scrutinized relate to parties and
China; and Switzerland introduced a proposal that events in an exporting country.
would end mandatory patronage of customs brokers. Customs officers, in their quest to remove as much
Subsequently, on July 11, 2008, the same group of uncertainty as possible about incoming trade, would be
delegations submitted a revised proposal that would
better off using the information already available by par-
allow requirements for use of customs brokers to
ticipating in joint risk assessment with customs in the
continue in those WTO members that already have
country of exportation, which is much more likely to
such requirements; only new requirements for use of
brokers would be barred. The revised document cre-
know whether a trader is someone who raises concerns.
ated a “grandfather clause” that would have sanc- The way to enable both exporting and importing
tioned the use of a practice that is recognized as customs to contribute to risk assessment without unnec-
being undesirable. In early 2009, the revision was essary duplication of effort and delays is to allow a stan-
withdrawn and the original proposal was restored. dard goods declaration to be filed simultaneously with
both exporting and importing customs. Customs at each
end could perform risk assessment and exchange infor-
mation on any significant results.
Cross-border customs cooperation: Making trade A standard goods declaration, meeting the risk assess-
transparent ment needs of both exporting and importing customs
Inadequate cooperation among customs administrations administrations and submitted simultaneously to both,
has for years caused significant inefficiencies in trade would seem to be the solution, but many customs
66 that have deteriorated even further in the past decade administrations continue to oppose it as “futuristic.” It
because customs in many countries has acquired a major is clear that security interests need to be balanced with
counter-terrorism role. Customs administrations are the need for trade facilitation, and governments, even in
invariably national law enforcement agencies engaged in the most advanced economies, need to provide stronger
monitoring an activity that is entirely international.This leadership to create a better balance between security
is a serious mismatch. It has been made worse by general and trade facilitation.
indifference to improving cross-border cooperation.
To be fair, past limitations on technology have Revenue security
not made it convenient for customs administrations to The same logic applies to revenue security. Many gov-
communicate routinely with each other. But the histori- ernments, in particular in developing countries, still
cal root of the problem is that threats faced by customs derive a non-negligible part of their national revenues
officers in importing countries—chiefly revenue viola- from customs duties.Their concern is that imported
tions and contraband smuggling—have not always been goods are undervalued or otherwise misdescribed on
perceived in the same way by customs counterparts in customs import declarations—that is, the goods are
exporting countries. “double-invoiced,” with the actual selling price, quantity,
Times have changed.The threat faced by customs and/or quality stated on an invoice given to the buyer
today—the possible exploitation of international trade by and different invoice information given to customs in
terrorists to transport dangerous articles across borders— the country of importation to reduce ad valorem taxes.8
gives customs administrations a more urgent need to Customs administrations in importing countries
work with each other, and modern communications have attempted repeatedly to obtain assistance from
technologies make it easier for them to do so. But deter- exporting countries to verify selling prices of goods by
mined leadership is needed to break the old paradigm comparing import declarations to export declarations
in two areas of security that are primarily of concern where they are available. But exporting countries are not
to customs administrations. keen to place difficulties in the way of their exporters
by making it harder to avoid higher foreign taxes by
Physical security double-invoicing their sales.
To their great credit, heads of customs around the world In the absence of cooperation from their trading
have resisted political attempts to impose so-called 100 partners, importing governments take whatever measures
percent scanning of cargo containers in international they believe necessary to protect their customs revenues.
trade.The effect of such a requirement was described in Typically this includes time-consuming and physically
detail earlier. Instead, using a variety of increasingly intrusive examination of goods to verify statements made
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 67
on import declarations about the nature, quantity, and negotiating text was already advanced and robust when
value of goods. In many cases, values declared on import the Doha negotiations stalled in July of 2008.
declarations are summarily rejected as not credible and Some WTO members—at one point including
alternative values from a reference list are substituted. In the European Communities—have expressed interest in
some cases, governments engage so-called pre-shipment spinning off the Doha trade facilitation package if the
inspection companies to verify the value, quantities, and overall Doha negotiations collapse or become indefi-
quality of imported goods, and goods may not be admit- nitely stalled.WTO members who are interested in
ted until the pre-shipment company completes its work completing an agreement on trade facilitation could
and files its report. Of course, these measures seriously then finish their work in the context of a plurilateral
impede trade. (sectoral) agreement. However, many other WTO
members, who continue to seek a full multilateral Doha
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations. agreement, appear to believe that trade facilitation has
WTO members are considering two proposals: one value as a bargaining chip—not for tradeoffs among
by India, South Africa, and Sri Lanka and a second WTO members (as all or virtually all WTO members
by Canada. The proposal from India et al. represents see trade facilitation as in their own national interests),
the wishes of those countries that feel they are sys- but to provide an incentive for the private sector to
tematically defrauded and want help from their trading remain engaged in supporting the overall Doha negotia-
partners; the proposal from Canada represents a
tions and to promote acceptance of compromises in
conscientious effort to be accommodating, within
problematic areas of the negotiations.There is little
reason.
likelihood of a consensus forming in favor of a separate
Other industrialized countries seem less inclined
to go along, and they are able to make the valid argu-
plurilateral agreement until it becomes absolutely beyond
ment that routine exchange of data on individual reasonable dispute that the Doha negotiations have well
transactions is administratively burdensome. But the and truly hit a dead end.
same process that improves physical security—a A WTO agreement on trade facilitation is critical
standard goods declaration submitted simultaneously and could contribute to reviving global trade, thereby
to both exporting and importing customs—removes contributing to a faster recovery from the present reces-
the administrative burden entirely and reduces trans- sion.While other international organizations, such as the 67
action costs for traders, who get the benefits of a World Bank, UNCTAD, UNECE, and the WCO have
standard dataset and a single filing. active and well-managed trade facilitation programs—
and in the case of the World Bank, significant resources—
In the end, governments and their customs adminis- they tend to see obstacles to trade facilitation as a matter
trations will not tolerate a lot of mystery about freight of insufficient financial and human resources in develop-
containers entering their territories, whether out of ing countries and the solution as technical assistance.
concerns about terrorism or loss of critical revenues.They Although this view is understandable in light of the tools
will continue to intervene in a heavy-handed manner they have, it is inconsistent with what is seen in surveys
until their concerns are resolved. For that reason, greater of customs barriers. For example, looking at three trade
trade transparency is in the interest of both governments facilitation measures addressed in this chapter, there is
and private traders. As sensible as this is, there is a critical no apparent correlation between resources and progress:
precondition. Exporting nations will not agree to a system
of shared export-import data that reduces opportunities • pre-arrival risk assessment (Ecuador and St. Lucia
for double-invoicing until importing countries reduce have the capability to perform risk assessment in
their tariffs to levels that are not punitive. advance of arrival of goods; larger and richer Brazil
and Indonesia have chosen not to acquire it);
The way forward

• automated risk assessment (St.Vincent and the
Despite a somewhat slow beginning, trade facilitation has
Grenadines do perform automated risk assessment;
been one of the success stories of the Doha negotiations.
larger and richer Algeria and Mexico do not); and
It has benefitted from the care of three excellent negoti-
ating group chairs and a growing recognition on the part
• separation of release from completion of formalities
of developing countries that trade facilitation is not a
(Qatar and Lebanon do separate release from com-
zero sum proposition. In addition to improving market
pletion of formalities; larger Brazil, China, Egypt,
access for trading partners (improving market access
and Japan do not).
for imports is, unfortunately, often seen as a concession
in trade negotiations), it also enhances the abilities of
This pattern strongly suggests that political will,
customs administrations to collect revenues and ensure
rather than availability of financial and human resources,
compliance with health and safety laws. Because of
is the primary determinant of progress on trade facilita-
this appealing balance of benefits, the trade facilitation
tion. It also confirms the importance of completing a
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 68
binding WTO agreement on trade facilitation and then

monitoring its implementation.This agreement should
come soon, as part of a comprehensive Doha package if
that can be done within the next year; otherwise, as a
stand-alone sectoral agreement under WTO auspices.
Recovery of global trade will not make its full contribu-
tion to recovery of the global economy unless there is a
binding agreement to facilitate trade.
Notes
1 Eglin 2008 provides an overview of the Doha Round negotiations
on trade facilitation. See also the revised Kyoto Convention, avail-
able at http://www.wcoomd.org/kybodycontent.htm.
2 The multiple functions that customs perform are to be kept in

mind when discussing customs reform. Yet there appears to be
much room for improving customs operations and facilitating the
flow of goods across borders while maintaining or even increasing
their effectiveness.
3 United Nations International Symposium on Trade Efficiency held

at Columbus, Ohio, from October 17 to 21, 1994.
4 In comparison, the total world merchandise trade amounted to

US$16.1 trillion in 2008, according to the WTO.
5 Maintenance of a professional staff competent to issue binding

legal rulings is expensive and difficult for some developing coun-
tries that may not have a deep reservoir of expertise from which
to draw. The WCO is conducting a test of a program under which
WCO member administrations may forward to the WCO requests
for classification rulings in complex areas of the Harmonized
System. The test should be expanded and customs administrations
68 needing assistance should be encouraged to use it. Major
economies should be willing to increase their contributions to
the WCO to support this effort. It is clearly more economical
than funding separate legal offices within each national customs
administration, and certainly more likely to result in globally
uniform rulings.
6 Some WTO members that already have de minimis exemptions

have set them at a level that is excessively low (for example,
22 euros per consignment for the 27 members of the European
Union, well below the 430 euro exemption for arriving passengers;
the European Union is said to be considering a substantial increase
in the de minimis level, but there is reportedly a disagreement
between customs and value-added tax (VAT) authorities).
7 These EU members are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland,

France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain,
Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
8 Undervalued internal transfer prices are also being used to

“move” profits to countries with lower corporate taxes.
References
Eglin, R. 2008. “The Doha Round Negotiations on Trade Facilitation.”
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2008. Geneva: World Economic
Forum. 35–9.
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). The

Report of the United Nations International Symposium on Trade
Efficiency held at Columbus, Ohio, from October 17 to 21, 1994.
Available at http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/SG-Rpt/ch3b-2.htm.
WCO (World Customs Organization). 2006. The International Convention

on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures
(as amended). Available at http://www.wcoomd.org/
kybodycontent.htm.
WTO (World Trade Organization). Doha Development Agenda. Available

at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/dda_e.htm.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 69
1.6: Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the Business Sector

CHAPTER 1.6 A multitude of multilateral, regional, and bilateral trade
negotiations, as well as several voluntary commitments—
such as unilateral tariff preferences—to improve market
Obstacles to Trade from the access have contributed to the overall decrease of tariff
rates to a historically low level. In order to foster interna-
Perspective of the Business tional trade, trade-related policies have focused primarily
on reducing tariff protection measures. Other factors,
Sector: A Cross-Country however, have proved to be more burdensome than tariffs
Comparison for exporting companies, especially in developing coun-
tries.The business sector as well as trade policymakers
are more and more concerned about non-tariff obstacles
MONDHER MIMOUNI, CAROLIN AVERBECK, and
to trade, which are less visible and more complex than
OLGA SKOROBOGATOVA, International Trade Centre (ITC)
tariff protection.
These non-tariff measures (NTMs) refer to a wide
range of measures, including technical regulations and
product standards as well as customs procedures. NTMs
partly reflect the increasing sophistication of markets,
with consumers demanding more information about the
products they buy.
Often it is difficult to distinguish between NTMs
that are applied for legitimate reasons and those used as
instruments of protection, or non-tariff barriers (NTBs).
There is no international consensus on what can be
considered legitimate NTMs and what measures are ille-
gitimate barriers to trade—making it difficult to provide
a clear picture. Moreover, not every exporter, in particular
in developing countries, is able to comply with NTMs. 69
From the perspective of the business sector, NTMs
increase trade-related costs. If an NTM is used for pro-
tectionist reasons, the associated costs are even higher.
The increased costs resulting from NTMs penalize not
only producers in the exporting country but also busi-
nesses and final consumers in the importing country.
Technical regulations and product standards, for ex-
ample, can increase the costs of compliance in two ways.
First, they can impose additional fixed costs on exporters
who have to adapt products to the specific standards and
regulations applied by the importing country. Second,
conformity assessment procedures such as testing to
demonstrate compliance with these technical measures
induce additional costs.
Trade-related costs and non-tariff obstacles to trade
have been the subject of numerous studies. Some of
these studies use country-level data but do not capture
the experiences of exporters in their daily operations.
Others, such as time-release studies, concentrate on very
specific aspects of customs’ efficiency without taking
into consideration the global framework. Studies focus-
ing on the national level often do not allow cross-country
comparison because they employ country-specific
methodologies. Only a few studies center on the under-
standing of the obstacles to trade that affect products
The authors would like to thank Benjamin Prampart, Helen Lassen, and
Mathieu Loridan for their contributions to this chapter.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 70
Table 1: Selected groups of non-tariff measures that exporting companies experienced as non-tariff barriers,
percent
Simple
cross-country
NTM group1 Chile Philippines Thailand Tunisia Uganda average
Technical measures to trade (e.g., product characteristic

requirement; production process; conformity assessment) 70.3 76.4 93.5 62.7 64.1 73.4
Pre-shipment inspection and other customs formalities 14.0 3.1 2.3 22.6 23.1 13.0
Licences, quotas, and other quantity control measures 6.1 0.4 2.2 0.5 0.3 1.9
Charges, taxes, and other para-tariff measures 1.2 2.7 0.2 4.7 7.4 3.2
Finance measures regulating the access to and cost of
foreign exchange for imports and defining the terms of payment 2.1 0.6 0.1 4.2 0.2 1.4
Other 6.4 16.9 1.6 5.3 4.9 7.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 See Appendix B for definitions of these groups.
throughout the whole export process, from the origin as NTBs concern technical measures, which account for
country to the destination country—either on one side an average of about 73 percent of the total measures con-
of the border or the other—from the perspective of the sidered per surveyed country.These measures include reg-
business sector. Hence it remains difficult to fully capture ulations related to product characteristics or the associated
the various obstacles to trade faced by the business sector production process. Exporters can find it challenging to
or to identify their possible patterns across products and comply with these regulations, as they are sometimes very
sectors as well as countries and regions. complex and often vary significantly.
70 The International Trade Centre (ITC) aims to assist More than 93 percent of all barriers reported by
countries to better understand the non-tariff obstacles to Thai exporters refer to technical measures to trade—in
trade experienced by their business sectors and to identify comparison with between 62 percent and 64 percent for
potential bottlenecks at the national level. In January Tunisia and Uganda, respectively. For these countries,
2008, the ITC and the United Nations Conference on however, the share of reports on customs formalities is
Trade and Development (UNCTAD) launched a joint significantly higher (around 23 percent) than the average
15-month pilot project for the collection and classification (13 percent).The share of reports on customs formalities
of data on NTMs in seven developing countries. In each varies considerably across countries. For the Philippines
country, among other activities, a company-level survey and Thailand, less than 4 percent of the reported cases
with 300 to 400 face-to-face interviews was carried out refer to this category.
in order to identify, at the product level, those measures Chilean exporters reported three times more than
that exporting companies perceive as barriers in their daily the cross-country average on quantity control measures
business, as well as the reasons why companies experi- such as licenses or quotas.These types of barriers are very
ence a measure as burdensome.1 The following analysis low for the Philippines,Tunisia, and Uganda. Exporters
will be based on the survey results for five countries— in Tunisia and, in particular, Uganda complained more
Chile, the Philippines,Thailand,Tunisia, and Uganda.2 often about customs surcharges and other additional
The applied survey methodology and the questionnaire charges and taxes (4.7 percent and 7.4 percent, respec-
used were the same in all countries; the surveys were car- tively) than exporters in the other surveyed countries.
ried out by trained local partners. Companies reported This first highly aggregated overview of the survey
their experiences with obstacles to trade by “cases.” Each results already shows some regional patterns. In the two
case has several parameters, including the exported prod- African countries,Tunisia and Uganda, customs formalities
uct, the relevant NTM, and the partner country applying and pre-shipment inspection are of much more concern
the NTM as well as a description of the challenges the to the private sector than they are in the other surveyed
exporter faces when complying with the applied NTM. countries.The share of reports on technical measures is
Table 1 presents the major groups of NTMs reported the highest for the two Asian countries,Thailand and
by exporting companies as serious obstacles to trade in the Philippines, while the share of licenses, quotas, and
five surveyed countries.The numbers are expressed in per- other quantity control measures is more than twice as
centages, capturing a share of reports on a certain type high in Chile as it is in other countries.
of measure in the total number of reports.
As is to be expected, the majority of NTMs that
exporters across the five surveyed countries experienced
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 71

Figure 1: Types of non-tariff measures that surveyed companies experienced as barriers, by regional destination,
percent
Africa North America

Asia Oceania
冦
Tolerance limits for residues Europe Latin America & the Caribbean
and contaminants, or restricted
use of certain substances
Labeling, marking,
and packaging requirements
Most
reported
technical Traceability requirements
measures
Testing requirements
Certification requirements
Pre-shipment inspection and

other customs formalities
Charges, taxes, and

other para-tariff measures
0 5 10 15 20 25
Note: See Appendix A, Table A2 for absolute numbers. 71
Barriers in partner countries Certification requirements, which refer in particular to

The survey captured those NTMs applied by destination the verification of the conformity of products with tech-
countries that companies perceive as barriers to trade. nical regulations, are a major concern for the surveyed
One would expect the reasons exporters experience these exporters, no matter which region is the destination for
measures as burdensome to be linked with the destination their product—with the exception of Africa. For goods
country.To test this view, the reported cases of all the five exported to African countries, as well as to Latin America
surveyed countries have been grouped according to the and the Caribbean, the share of barriers related to cus-
geographic regions of the partner countries and accord- toms formalities (22 percent and 15 percent, respectively)
ing to the types of reported measures. is much higher than it is for goods shipped to other
Each reported barrier refers to a specific case, which regions.
was reported by one company in relation to a specific At the same time, the shares of obstacles to trade
product, partner country, measure and associated prob- experienced in relation to traceability requirements and
lem. Companies might have reported several cases, in tolerance limits for residues and contaminants or the
particular if they export a range of products to different restricted use of certain substances are very low in these
partner countries. As Appendix A Table A1 indicates, the two regions.The share of testing requirements is also
average number of cases per company varied consider- very low when goods are bound for Africa (2 percent
ably across the surveyed countries. In order to level off against 6 percent on average).
these differences, for each surveyed country, the share Asia (with Japan and China as main export destina-
per total number of reported cases has been calculated. tions), North America, and Oceania (with Australia as
In a second step, based on these calculations, a simple the main export destination) have similar patterns in the
average share across all five countries has been used. sense that exporters have to comply with similar types of
Figure 1 illustrates the seven most prevailing types of measures in comparable proportions.The most frequently
measures that exporters experienced as barriers. Most of reported measures for these regional destinations are
these are technical measures.The others are related to the related to technical measures to trade: certification
cross-border transaction process and to para-tariff meas- requirements; labeling, marking, and packaging require-
ures, such as additional charges. ments; and traceability requirements (all these range
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 72
from 10 percent to 22 percent).The shares of experienced to measures applied by these destination countries, they
obstacles related to pre-shipment inspection and other may not necessarily cause the problems and challenges
customs formalities—as well as to charges, taxes, and about which the exporters complain.The causes can be
other para-tariff measures—are low (below 4 percent). partly located in the origin countries.
For Europe, on the other hand, the picture is slightly dif- The analysis of reported cases suggests that many
ferent.The share of reports on technical measures has of the problems faced by the surveyed companies range
generally the same proportions as the shares related to Asia, from weak customs and administrative procedures to a
North America, and Oceania—with the exception of lack of local facilities and infrastructure and capacity
certification requirements, which are less predominant. within their own country.
Obstacles to trade related to customs formalities are rel- Reports from Philippine furniture exporters on
atively high in Europe (11 percent) compared with certification requirements, for example, applied by the
other developed destinations, but lower than in Africa United States illustrate the findings with regard to weak
(22 percent) and Latin America and the Caribbean (15 customs and administrative procedures within the origin
percent). country. Certification requirements are categorized into
Thus the survey suggests that export to countries in certificates issued by government agencies of the coun-
Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean face more tries of origin and those issued by local agencies in the
procedural barriers, including inspections, formalities, and destination market—hence it is possible to locate where
charges, while exports to other regions—in particular to exporters face most problems.
developed countries—are subject to technical measures The furniture sector is among the Philippines’ top-10
that focus on the characteristics of the specific product export sectors and the United States is its major destina-
and production process. Obstacles to trade in relation to tion country, accounting in 2007 for an export value
certification requirements are the most frequently reported of US$156 million and for almost 60 percent of total
cases for all export destinations, with the exception of exported furniture from the Philippines. Also relatively
Africa, where customs formalities are predominant. high is the number of cases reported by Philippine
The survey data also reveal that for Chile,Thailand, exporters on this sector: furniture is the Philippines’
and Uganda, and to a lesser extent Tunisia, non-tariff second most affected sector and around one-third of all
72 obstacles are much more widespread when trading reports on this sector are related to the United States
regionally. Chile, for example, mainly exports to the (34 cases).This figure is almost five times larger than the
Asia-Pacific region, but most of the reported cases of number of reports on any other destination country for
trade obstacles concern Latin American and the exported furniture from the Philippines. In comparison,
Caribbean countries.3 Almost 38 percent of total Thai furniture exporters reported fewer barriers related to
Chilean exports are destined for Asia-Pacific, but only 8 the United States although Thailand’s export of furniture
percent of all reported cases are related to this region. to the United States is much larger (US$335 million).
The situation is the opposite in Chile’s home region: The number of reported cases on the United States, how-
no more than 14 percent of exports are regional, but 43 ever, accounts for only 16 percent of the total 44 cases
percent of all obstacles concern Latin American and from Thailand’s furniture sector, similar to the number
Caribbean countries. In the case of Uganda, 44 percent of cases reported on Japan, the United Kingdom, and
of exports are bound for African countries. Uganda’s other countries—so the cases reported by Thai furniture
neighboring countries—the Democratic Republic of exporters are much more balanced in terms of the partner
Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, and Sudan—account for more countries than those reported by Philippine exporters,
than 40 percent of all reported trade barriers, despite which are concentrated in the United States.
existing trade agreements.This can be partly explained The reasons that Philippine companies experience
by the fact that Uganda is a landlocked country and problems when exporting furniture to the United States,
Ugandan exporters have to comply with transit country however, partly originate from their own country: 50
requirements as well as the requirements imposed by the percent of all reports on the United States pertain to
countries that are their final export destinations. It could the certificates that are requested by the United States
be interesting to further analyze the patterns of intra- but issued by the different agencies in the Philippines.
regional barriers and potential correlations between Philippine exporters commented on the low efficiency
types of measures, provisions of trade agreements, and a of these agencies, in particular that of the customs
country’s export structure, but this is beyond the scope administration—and associated export delays of their
of this chapter. products.They also reported a significantly high number
of cases of irregular payments.These observations are in
line with Philippines’ assessment by the Enabling Trade
Domestic roots of the obstacles to trade Index 2009 discussed in Chapter 1.1, which ranks the
The surveyed companies reporting obstacles to trade efficiency of customs administration and of import-
were asked to indicate the destinations of their exported export procedures as well as the transparency in border
goods.Though the obstacles to trade are mainly related administration across countries, among other factors.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 73

The burden of customs procedures in the Philippines Out of 46 reported cases, 27 refer to Philippine
is ranked 95th out of 121 countries, in comparison to agencies that are involved in the export process.
Thailand, for which it is 48th.The effectiveness and effi- Philippine companies exporting wood in particular
ciency of the clearance process by the Philippines’ cus- report weak certification and fumigation procedures.4
toms and border controls is ranked better in interna- From the perspective of the Philippine business sec-
tional comparison—48th out of 121 countries (Thailand tor, there is clearly an issue strongly affecting their export
is ranked 11th). In contrast to this is the Philippines’ of wood to the United States. Policymakers and trade
ranking with regard to irregular payments in exports support institutions may be interested in identifying the
and imports: the country ranks 116th out of 121 coun- roots of the problems, especially for those 27 reported
tries, while Thailand ranks 72nd. cases associated with Philippine agencies. It could be the
This finding is in line with the total number of case that US requirements are too demanding to meet.
reports by Philippine exporters on exported furniture: In this context, it is worth comparing the United
50.5 percent of all reported cases on furniture are related States with other export destinations. Exporting compa-
to the certification procedures within the Philippines. nies reported 12 cases related to wood exported to
The global picture across all sectors is different, however: Australia, 6 cases on wood exported to China, and 3 each
10 percent of all reported Philippine cases and 22 percent to Germany and France.These numbers are significantly
of those related to the United States concern certificates lower than the number of cases reported about wood
that are issued in the Philippines.This might be explained exported to the United States. However, the value of
by the nature of the exported product: some products and the bilateral trade in wood and wood articles is at least
packaging materials—such as wood—require specific or four times higher with the United States than it is with
many certificates (for example, phytosanitary certificates) any of the countries listed above.Thus, at this stage it is
from specialized Philippine agencies. Interestingly, a dif- not possible to conclude whether the barriers related to
ferent pattern is found for Thai cases: only 12.5 percent Philippine agencies have their roots in the United States
of all reported cases from Thai exporters on the United or in the Philippines themselves.
States concern the certification process—less than 17 Uganda’s situation as a landlocked country is spe-
percent of these are specifically related to the certifica- cial, and many survey responses refer to high transporta-
tion process within Thailand. For the furniture sector, tion costs in general and challenges encountered for 73
26 percent of reported Thai cases (23 cases) refer to transit goods. An overwhelming number of exporters’
certification in general; none of these are specific to the complaints refer to the high transportation costs (e.g.,
United States or to certificates issued by Thai agencies. air freight charges, the low quality of roads, high fuel
However, these data should be read with caution— costs).The Enabling Trade Index 2009 ranks Uganda’s
a simple explanation could be that local interviewers quality of railroad infrastructure 97th out of 112, and its
in Thailand categorized answers differently. Globally, quality of roads 101st. Other reported constraints
for Thailand, 5.5 percent of all reported cases concern include the limited number of cooling rooms and ware-
certification. Of these, only 12 percent are related to houses, or power outages in general. Also the lack of
certificates issued in Thailand; 88 percent are related to skills and technology are experienced as obstacles to
certificates issued in the export destination countries. trade for exporters. A large number of exporters explicit-
Most of these reports are related to agricultural products. ly mention the challenges they face due to the fact that
One reason for the high percentage related to agricul- Uganda is landlocked, referring to two sets of problems.
tural products might be that these products require a First, the cost of inland transportation is high. Second,
comprehensive certification process. the barriers arise in transit countries (the Democratic
The survey data revealed a similar pattern for the Republic of Congo, Kenya, Rwanda) rather than in the
Philippines’ wood sector.Wood and articles of wood destination markets.The comments mostly mention the
exported to the United States were mentioned 46 times, security situation in transit countries (e.g., roadblocks),
which is the highest number of cases for a single sector time delays, and bribes.
and partner country.These cases affect a significant share These observations suggest that some of the obsta-
of trade: the Philippines’ export of wood to the United cles to trade that exporters face are located in their home
States amounts to almost US$30 million. Interestingly, country and involve local or national agencies—as is the
Thai companies, exporting wood worth US$120 million case for the Philippines.The process of exporting goods
to the United States, reported only four barriers related involves agencies and infrastructure in both the exporting
to technical measures. An explanation can be found by and importing country. Although the destination coun-
looking at the nature of the problems that Philippine try might apply a specific measure, the challenge that
exporters encounter when exporting wood to the United exporters face with this measure often relates to the lack
States.Though the measures with which Philippine of infrastructure or efficiency in their own country, which
exporters need to comply are themselves applied by the thus leads to difficulties with compliance.The positive
United States, the obstacles they face in relation to these side of this conclusion is that such obstacles can be
measures seem to be located in their own country. resolved domestically.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 74
Conclusion Notes
The elimination of NTBs has been gaining importance 1 See Appendix A for the number of interviewed companies per
country.
on the international trade agenda. Since the overall level
of tariff protection is quite low, these obstacles are becom- 2 The goal of the pilot survey was to test and validate a representa-
tive cross-country and cross-sector methodology for the collection
ing a major determinant of market access conditions. and classification of barriers experienced by the business sector
There is no international consensus on what can be in developing countries; the sample size per surveyed country
was determined accordingly. The seven countries selected to test
judged legitimate NTMs and which measures are pro- the methodology were therefore diverse in terms of geographical
tectionism in disguise. Countries may have legitimate location as well as level of development. The cross-country analy-
sis in this chapter is based on the data for five of the seven coun-
reasons to introduce NTMs—for example, consumer tries; a larger data analysis is planned for the future.
protection, public health, or national security. Some of
A number of specific and unique differences were identified in
these measures however, may be experienced by exporters each country owing to the nature of the topic itself, to different
as obstacles to trade. First, importing countries may use levels of local expertise and activities on the topic, and to local
language requirements and cultural differences.
NTMs for protectionist goals. Second, even legitimate
Across the seven surveyed countries, interviewed companies
measures can have a prohibitive cost of compliance.
reported the barriers they faced based on a global questionnaire.
Finally, exporting companies may experience difficulties The local interviewers categorized these obstacles to trade
in meeting the requirements because of an inadequate according to a new classification on NTMs, which has been pre-
pared by a number of international organizations within the frame-
domestic business environment, such as obsolete local work of UNCTAD’s multi-agency initiative on NTMs. It might be
facilities and procedures that are lacking in efficiency. possible that, in this process, reported NTMs have not been con-
sistently matched against the corresponding measures.
Policymakers as well as the business sector can ben- Furthermore, the way interviews were conducted could vary
efit from a better understanding of non-tariff obstacles slightly across countries—also, the way interviewed companies
responded to the survey might vary across countries. For exam-
to trade to make better-informed decisions. It is there- ple, in one country, interviewed companies only reluctantly shared
fore important to identify not only those measures that their experiences on non-tariff obstacles to trade, as they consid-
ered these experiences already as a comparative advantage
the business sector perceives as obstacles to trade, but
against their local competitors. Consequently, the results, as pre-
also their root causes. sented, can only show tendencies across countries.
A company-level survey designed to address these 3 The analysis of the regional distribution of trade obstacles report-
issues is being undertaken in several developing coun- ed by Chilean exporters is based on top-20 export destinations,
representing 88 percent of the total Chilean export value. All trade
74 tries across the world.The results from the first set of statistics referred to in this article are sourced from United
countries have provided data inputs for this chapter. Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database, 2007 data. These
export destinations have been categorized into geographic
Although capturing information on only five countries,
regions, namely Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the
this analysis sheds light on variations that exist in the inci- Caribbean, North America, and Oceania. Similar calculations were
dences and types of NTBs experienced by the business performed for each surveyed country.
sector across products, countries, and regions.The analy- 4 Fumigation refers to a method of pest control that completely fills
an area with gaseous pesticides, or fumigants, to suffocate or poi-
sis of the reported barriers suggests that the prevailing son the pests within. Fumigation can be requested before cross-
types of barriers are linked to the destination regions border transaction of goods to control pests and to prevent trans-
fer of exotic organisms. In the survey, exporting companies in the
of exports.
Philippines often commented on the high cost of fumigation.
However, the causes that lead an exporting company
to qualify an applied measure as problematic are not nec-
essarily associated with the country that applies the
References
measure.The obstacles may be caused by factors linked UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development).
to the home country of exporters—for example, a lack 2009. Classification of Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs), prepared by
of infrastructure or a lack of efficient procedures. UNCTAD’s multi-agency initiative on NTMs.
A more global analysis would facilitate a better UNSD (United Nations Statistics Division). Commodity Trade Statistics
Database, 2007 data. Available at http://comtrade.un.org/.
understanding about NTMs and the challenges exporting
companies face when complying with these measures,
either because they are used for protectionist purposes or
because of an inadequate domestic business environment.
This understanding could facilitate the identification of
policy options at the national and international level.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 75

Appendix A: Scope of the survey
Table A1: Number of surveyed companies and reported cases, per country
Number of surveyed Number of
Surveyed country exporting companies reported cases
Chile 251 673

Philippines 303 851
Thailand 430 1,803
Tunisia 279 810
Uganda 210 593
Table A2: Absolute number of reported cases by selected measures, per country
Measure group Chile Philippines Thailand Tunisia Uganda
Selected technical measures

Tolerance limits for residues and contaminants or restricted use of certain substances 18 47 165 9 1
Labeling, marking, and packaging requirements 132 72 169 72 64
Traceability requirements 29 34 253 92 32
Testing requirements 17 40 140 40 69
Certification requirements 119 244 305 86 22
Pre-shipment inspection and other customs formalities 7 44 58 16 55
Charges, taxes, and other para-tariff measures 8 23 4 38 44
Other 343 347 709 457 306
TOTAL 673 851 1,803 810 593
75
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 76
Appendix B: Definitions of non-tariff measures
This appendix refers to a selected group of non-tariff purpose is to verify the conformity of products
measures that exporters in the surveyed countries have with certain conditions.
experienced as obstacles to trade.These non-tariff
measures have been categorized as follows, based on Pre-shipment inspection and other customs formali-
a new NTM classification prepared in a multi-agency ties include all the measures related to inspection of the
framework. products in the country of export before shipment as
Technical measures to trade refers to product charac- well as special customs formalities not related to TBT or
teristics or their related process and production methods. SPS—for example, the requirement that a particular
These measures include packaging, marking, and labeling shipment pass through a specified port of customs.
requirements as well as conformity assessment procedures. Licenses, quotas, and other quantity control measures
Within the multilateral context, these measures are include the requirements on different forms of licensing,
categorized into technical barriers to trade (TBT) and quotas, and prohibitions.
sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS), depending on Charges, taxes, and other para-tariff measures
the purpose of the measures. SPS measures are designed include all the measures related to charges; taxes on
to protect human, animal, and plant life or health from imports that are not tariffs, such as internal taxes on
risks caused by pests, diseases, and disease-carrying or imports; general sales taxes; excise taxes and charges; and
disease-causing organisms; and risks arising from additives, decreed customs valuations.
contaminants, toxins, or disease-causing organisms in Finance measures regulate the access to and cost of
foods, beverages, or feedstuffs.TBT measures are applied foreign exchange for imports, and define the terms of
for the purpose of national security, protection of human payment—for example, advance payment requirement,
safety, protection of the environment, and prevention of multiple exchange rates, restrictive official foreign ex-
deceptive practices. See the WTO Agreement on Technical change allocation, regulations related to terms of payment
Barriers to Trade and the WTO Agreement on Sanitary for imports, transfer delays, and surrender requirement.
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) for further information.
76
For the purpose of the cross-country analysis, the
following selected technical measures have been covered:
• Tolerance limits for residues and contaminants, or restricted

use of certain substances determine the maximum
limit for residues, contaminants, microorganisms, or
certain substances that can be present in products.
• Traceability requirements relate to the measures on the

disclosure of information concerning different
stages of production process and distribution of a
certain product, such as origin of materials used,
processing history, and so on.
• Labeling, marking, and packaging requirements: Labeling

is a requirement to provide certain information on
products, or their production process, while marking
is providing information that the product should
carry for transport and customs purposes. Packaging
requirements relate to the way products can be
packed and to the packaging materials.
• Testing requirements are conformity assessment proce-

dures, required by the importing country, that
envisage verifying the conformity of the products
to certain SPS or TBT regulations by testing or
sampling.
• Certification requirements concern certification that is

required by the importing country and is issued by
either the importing or the exporting country; its
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 77
1.7: Enabling Trade: Relationship to Clusters and Setting an Openness Agenda

CHAPTER 1.7 The Enabling Trade Index (ETI) is a tool that informs
countries how they compare with other countries in
terms of enabling cross-border trade and that gives insight
Enabling Trade: Relationship to into the specific elements that support their overall per-
formance. For governments that would like to be more
Clusters and Setting an effective in enabling trade, the ETI can help identify the
important issues for each country and provide valuable
Openness Agenda guidance on where to focus their efforts.The idea
underlying this ranking is that trade has a positive effect
SAM SIDIQI and FOUAD ALAME, Agility
on countries’ growth and development, and that countries
should aspire to remove existing trade barriers and further
enable trade so that they will be positioned better to
achieve higher prosperity for their people.While this is an
obvious conclusion for economists and some businessmen,
it is not always a priority for important constituents
who drive the political decision-making process.
Someone needs to do the hard work of implementing
policy changes in support of trade enablement in the
face of budget constraints and a noisy political climate.
Research to action: Next steps after reading The

Global Enabling Trade Report
How can the ETI be used by government and business
actors to facilitate the hard work of implementation
more effectively? Governments have limitations in terms
of both monetary and political capital, which requires 77
them to choose which reforms and advances they can
feasibly make given their constraints. An important area
to be explored is how government can make the most
appropriate strategic decisions to enable trade most
effectively.This chapter puts forward two frameworks
linked to the ETI that can allow an official to make
more informed decisions about where and how to
focus implementation efforts. First, it looks at theories
of cluster development and explores the relationship
between the ETI and cluster development.With this
link and a closer look at the pillars of the Index, one
can derive recommendations about where to prioritize
focus based on the performance across different ele-
ments of an economy’s ETI results. Next, the chapter
puts forward a simple framework that could help an
official to decide what would be the best strategy when
driving the enabling trade agenda in his or her country.
Implications of comparing cluster formation to the ETI

The options available in drawing up an economic
policy are broad. Legislation can be passed that will adjust
minimum wages, provide subsidies, increase or decrease
taxes, invest in education, sign free trade agreements—
the list is practically endless. Many of the alternatives on
that list are supported by active lobbying efforts. Amid
the din of discussion of all the potential options, it is
important that those pursuing an agenda of enabling
trade treat the problem strategically.What information
does an ETI ranking provide to policymakers that assists
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 78
those groups of countries with analyses of clusters based

Box 1: Why clusters matter on data collected about clusters around the world.3
The figure shows that the number of clusters in the
Michael Porter’s studies show that clusters have a crucial group of countries scoring in the top 40 of the ETI is
role in defining countries’ economic success because of the many times higher than it is in the second group, and
following factors: higher by an even wider margin than in the trailing
Clusters increase productivity and efficiency by promoting group.
• efficient access to specialized inputs, services, This progression illustrates the close relationship
employees, information, institutions, and public goods between enabling trade and the number of clusters active
(e.g., training programs); in a country.While the formation of internationally
• ease of coordination and transactions across firms; competitive clusters is certainly related to a number
• rapid diffusion of best practices; and of other factors besides the country’s openness of trade,
• ongoing, visible performance comparisons and strong it is undoubtedly significant. Porter argues that it is
incentives to improve over local rivals. important for countries to build their “basic national
Clusters stimulate and enable innovations by encouraging infrastructure”;4 he goes on to assert that “government
• an enhanced ability to perceive innovation opportunities, policy should pursue open market access in every for-
• the presence of multiple suppliers and institutions to eign nation.”5 Although a country certainly needs more
assist in knowledge creation, and than policies conducive to trade, as reflected in good
• ease of experimentation given locally available performance on the pillars of the ETI, to have competi-
resources.
tive international clusters, it will struggle to get there
Clusters facilitate commercialization by providing without key reforms in this area.
• opportunities for new companies, and making new lines This approach could certainly be questioned on
of established businesses more apparent; and the grounds of the different size of countries, a better
• assistance in making new products commercially viable understanding of how openness drives cluster develop-
and facilitating an easier start for new companies
ment (is the driver openness, or is it something else
because of available skills, suppliers, and so on.
correlated with openness?),6 and selection bias in terms
78 of which countries have been analyzed for clusters. On
the first point, Figure 1 should be looked at directionally.
Although the size of countries could affect the result,
there are larger and smaller countries in all three groups,
and the scale of the difference in cluster formation
in deciding what to do next? If using cluster formation seems to outweigh the difference in average country size
can improve a country’s economy, what additional infor- between groups. Second, it is clear that clusters have a
mation can be gained from the ETI? Specifically, how number of building blocks. Factors that enable trade are
do analyses of clusters interact with the ETI to help only part of the story, and correlation does not imply
policymakers decide on a target and scope of policies causality. However, the relationship between clusters and
that will be the most effective in further enabling trade? openness is striking in this figure.
Michael Porter, a leading researcher and writer in An analysis of data from the Forum’s Executive
the field of business and economics, finds that one of Opinion Survey (Survey), which is used to capture the
the drivers of competitiveness is the presence of clusters, development of clusters in the Global Competitiveness
which are groupings of businesses, trade associations, Index, confirms these results: the related variables are
and educational institutions that drive innovation and highly correlated with the ETI results.7
improvement for the set of linked industries on which
the cluster is focused.1 Porter argues that competitiveness
is the key driver of productivity, and that productivity, Extending the analysis: Where to focus
along with endowments, ultimately drives the prosperity A key take-away from the above analysis is that what
of a country.2 He thus sees the creation of vibrant clusters actions a government should take to strengthen clusters
that increase competitiveness and productivity as a sus- depends heavily on where the country stands in terms of
tainable approach to improving the living standards of a enabling trade. A country that is in the top 40 already has
country’s populace (see Box 1). strong foundations in this respect.While this government
The first link between cluster theory and the ETI can and should continue to drive trade enablers generally,
is that the ultimate goal of both is to help economies the majority of its work should be concerned with
increase productivity and, consequently, prosperity. general cluster upgrading, which “involves recognizing
Further exploring the relationship between the ETI and the presence of a cluster and then removing obstacles,
Porter’s cluster theory, Figure 1 divides the countries relaxing constraints, and eliminating inefficiencies that
covered by the ETI into three approximately equal impede cluster productivity and innovation.”8
groups of about 40 each. It then cross-references each of
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 79

Figure 1: The number of clusters per ETI ranking groups
700
662
600
500
Number of clusters
400
300
200
137
100
17
0
Top 40 41–80 81–118
ETI country ranking groups
More challenging are possible prescriptions for for input goods to be easily imported. Once clusters 79
countries in the second and third groups. If you do not become more sophisticated, governments can support
have globally competitive clusters in your country today, the process by creating regional markets.This involves
how do you get there? One could argue that a country coordination with neighboring countries to improve
in the third group should actually not distract itself by infrastructure that enables regional trade, and pursuing
trying too hard to develop internationally competitive agreements that ease trade within the region. Finally, as
clusters. However, because of the potential importance clusters begin to reach a globally competitive level,
of clusters for long-term development, giving up on the governments will need to continue driving steps that
pursuit of international clusters would mean that an enable trade to allow for a proliferation of participants
important tool was never developed.To understand how and competitors that are interlinked in reinforcing and
to achieve internationally competitive clusters, it would uninhibited ways.This is a summary review of actions
be good to first understand more about how clusters that will support cluster development at different stages.
start and evolve. In fact, a deep, globally competitive A more nuanced exploration of specific pillars of the
cluster evolves from local to national to regional cluster ETI within the context of a specific country should
and, finally, international cluster. yield more specific prescriptions.
The problem for new entrants to cluster formation
is that clusters are self-reinforcing, so it is difficult to
start a fresh one in the face of competition from those Framework to choose tactics
that are already deeply developed.The impediments to Once a country knows its strategic priorities related to
the development of internationally competitive clusters enabling trade from a cluster development perspective, as
are so large that government leaders need to think care- discussed in the previous section, work has to be done
fully about where to focus their efforts, otherwise they on a tangible level to implement reforms. In this regard,
risk investing in something that ultimately will not be one needs to think explicitly about what actions are eas-
successful.While new cluster creation is difficult and ier to accomplish based on the current budgetary and
requires a long-term effort that could take decades to political environment in a specific country.
bear fruit, the development of existing clusters can be Any economics student learns early a basic ortho-
managed and influenced. doxy of the field—that trade increases wealth because
To support the development and upgrade of specialization and comparative advantage allow for an
clusters, governments need first to focus on domestic increase in total output, which is then traded among
transport infrastructure, transport providers, and the market participants to improve everyone’s level of
overall business environment; they should clear the way consumption, or gains from trade. Although this idea is a
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 80
Figure 2: Budgetary and political tradeoffs to enabling trade
Expensive
Improve highways
Improve port
Decrease infrastructure Decrease
import tariffs
Budgetary capital
export tax
Improve communications
infrastructure
Decrease border Decrease protective

Cheap
admininistrative costs barriers for industry X
Cheap Expensive
Political capital
80
winner in the classroom, it has a long way to go before improvement in terms of enabling trade, reflected in the
it will convince protesting farmers or people who have ETI score—for example, a port infrastructure project
been pushed out of work because their sector is no may be more expensive than a highway infrastructure
longer competitive in their home country.While an project, but in a specific country, the port infrastructure
economist can coolly argue that the overall benefit to will create a better improvement per dollar spent. Because
society of productivity gains is greater than the one- it is more efficient in enabling trade, it appears cheaper
time loss to individuals in transition, the benefits to the on the budgetary axis even if it is more expensive overall.
economy often come as very small, almost imperceptible While it would be a fallacy to think that these measures
positives across a very large number of individuals, can be plotted perfectly, a policymaker can use such an
while the losses come in big painful chunks to specific exercise to make a rough estimate about how to address
individuals who have a high motivation to avert this a particular country’s weaknesses that could lead to
outcome. In many cases, the moves that can be made quick improvements.
to enable trade are very expensive politically. In other To improve the ease of getting goods across borders
cases, instead of costing political dollars, a move to enable as captured by the ETI, specific actions for a notional country
trade will cost real dollars, which presents another set of have the budgetary and political tradeoff illustrated in
hurdles. It is important to think through these hurdles Figure 2. Although improving the ETI score is not the
and make tradeoffs when choosing the specific tactics final goal, it can provide guidance on the degree to
of an enabling trade program. which a country enables trade.
One approach that might be useful is to put together The example chart is only a thought exercise. Specific
a simple heuristic method to visualize what choices a moves will have different budgetary and political capital
country has before it (Figure 2). By plotting on one axis costs depending on each country’s specific situation.
the political capital involved and on the other axis the What is important is that, by putting things down in a
budgetary capital involved, a government official can framework like this, an official can also start thinking
start to see the tradeoffs involved in developing an over- through the tactical moves that could decrease the
all enabling trade agenda.This chart should be a way investment needed to get a particular improvement done.
to visualize and compare efficiency of improving a For example, although improving the highway infra-
country’s score on the Index.To read the chart, imagine structure faces huge budgetary hurdles, in a developing
that each step taken creates an equivalent unit of country that has access to development grants or loans
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 81

for infrastructure development, the hurdle is no longer a
budgetary one. Box 2: More than beneficiaries: Can clusters help
Another way to enhance trade is to address the the political process?
political side. By building coalitions, one can make a
specific move less politically costly. Here a benefit of the Beyond taking quotes from important academic studies and
ETI is that it encompasses a lot of details. Instead of notable academics, what else can an official use to support
imagining a broad abstract trade score, an official can look an agenda that enables trade? This chapter has looked in
into specific tangible pillars.While it might be difficult detail at how clusters benefit from government policies that
to get people excited about broad topics, it may be easier enable trade. It is worth evaluating what happens when the
responsibility for change is shifted to the clusters rather than
to get political groups motivated to take steps around
resting on policies. One prospect worth further investigation
actions focused on specific parts of a pillar that will affect
is to consider activating clusters themselves as political con-
them. One example would be to decrease an export tax
stituencies that can proactively support the agenda.
while at the same time reducing import tariffs on other By creating clusters, business leaders who belong to
products.While farmers might be against a reduction of local and national clusters create associations that bring
tariffs for a product they produce, they would support a their industry together. It is here that an official can poten-
decrease of an export tax that would increase the profit tially build a constituency that will help drive the enabling
from their harvest. By bundling these two measures, trade agenda. Although clusters may not be large in terms of
officials could gain support for the unpopular move, numbers of voters, they should be able to make up for that
thereby building a coalition supporting that specific politically in organizational ability and financial clout. Each
move. One place worth looking for potential coalitions is cluster will have its own forums for meeting, and it is up to
in clusters themselves (see Box 2). local officials to pick the groups that can be most effective in
driving their particular cause.
Another way to look at the diagram of Figure 2 is
Interestingly, by using the ETI analysis a productive dia-
to use it to think through potential baskets of reforms
logue could be started with cluster leaders to identify the
that could build a larger coalition.This is the stereotype
specific pillars that are most important to them according to
of what politicians are supposed to be able to do—find their ETI ranking group, as discussed above. The push for
ways of getting groups to agree on legislation by horse enabling trade could thus be made much more specific and
trading.While in the United States this often leads to actionable, rather than being lost in vague discussion. 81
“pork barrel” bills, where the bill is overloaded with
benefits for different localities, a smartly crafted piece of
legislation can meet different constituents’ needs and
push through some politically difficult measures. For
example, one could garner a lot of political good will
for a legislative measure by putting in some expensive framework to help a policymaker strategically decide on
infrastructure that helps a specific community but that is tactics by visualizing the tradeoffs between budgetary and
also an enabler to trade, and use that goodwill to get a political capital. However, while helpful for planning,
basket of initiatives passed that includes politically more this study does not diminish the need for continued hard
difficult measures, like a decrease in trade barriers.The work by policymakers who will advance the enabling
actual approach to this negotiating should be left to the trade agenda with real actions and policies.The details
professionals, but the above framework could help in of any particular program cannot be generalized; they
the planning phase. must be made for a specific country at a specific point
There are probably other models that would be in time. It is up to the doers to take the information
helpful in navigating the creation of the right steps in available in the ETI and work with their peers and con-
an enabling trade agenda. However, what is important stituents to come up with the right agenda to effectively
is to bring the agenda back to tangible steps that can move forward in their country.
be executed as real projects or policy changes.
Notes
Conclusion 1 Porter 1998, pp. 199, 213.
It is hoped that the points raised in this chapter and 2 Porter et al. 2008, p. 44.
elsewhere in The Global Enabling Trade Report will help 3 These data were collected by the Cluster Meta-Study, a multi-year
initiate good discussions among policymakers and their research project conducted by the Harvard Institute for Strategy
and Competitiveness that gathered data from existing publications
constituents.The chapter began by focusing on the con- worldwide about clusters.
nection between the ETI and Michael Porter’s cluster
4 Porter 1998, p. 186.
theory, both of which share the same objective—
5 Porter 1998, p. 190.
increasing national competitiveness and prosperity. It
then developed some prescriptions for focus that come 6 Both the number of clusters and ETI scores are highly correlated
with the level of development.
from the joint analysis. Finally, the chapter proposed a
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 82
7 This result is confirmed when correlating the ETI scores with the
scores of indicators assessing the state of cluster development
from The Global Competitiveness Report. ETI scores are highly
correlated with the variable obtained from the Executive Opinion
Survey “State of cluster development” and also with the category
“Clusters and supporting Industries” from the Global
Competitiveness Index. For details about the variables, see Sala-i-
Martin et al. 2008.
8 Porter 1998, p. 247.
References
Porter, M. E. 1998. On Competition. Boston: The Harvard Business
School Press.
Porter, M. E., Delgado, M., C. Ketels, and S. Stern. 2008. “Moving to a

New Global Competitiveness Index.” The Global Competitiveness
Report 2008–2009. Geneva: World Economic Forum. 43–63.
Sala-i-Martin, X., J. Blanke, M. Drzeniek Hanouz, T. Geiger, and F. Paua.

2008. “The Global Competitiveness Index: Prioritizing the
Economic Policy Agenda.” The Global Competitiveness Report
2008–2009. Geneva: World Economic Forum. 3–41.
82
1.8: Implementing Trade Facilitation
CHAPTER 1.8 Trade facilitation can play an important role in achieving
national development objectives because it enhances
countries’ competitiveness, and allows them to trade
Implementing Trade Facilitation goods and services on time and with low transaction
costs. Many developing countries may not be able to
JEAN-FRANÇOIS ARVIS, GERARD MCLINDEN, and take advantage of opportunities presented by interna-
MONICA ALINA MUSTRA, The World Bank tional trade unless they can make investments in the
LAURI OJALA, Turku School of Economics, Finland areas where binding constraints to trade development
are most pronounced.
Trade facilitation, development, and trade

competitiveness
This facilitation may involve reform of border manage-
ment institutions; policy changes in the area of transport
regulation; and, in some cases, significant investment in
trade-related infrastructure, among other elements.The
key issue is that a trade supply chain is only as strong as
its weakest link. Determining where the weaknesses are
and addressing them through targeted development
interventions has therefore become a major element of
the new trade facilitation and logistics agenda.
A practical focus
Surprisingly, there is no universally accepted definition
of exactly what trade facilitation is. A narrow, yet
consistent, approach focuses on the simplification and 83
streamlining of trade-related procedures (red-tape
obstacles to the movement of goods across borders),
and defines it as simplification, standardization, and
harmonization of procedures and associated information flows
to move goods from seller to buyer and to make payment. This
definition is the one followed by many facilitation bodies
in developed economies and is the focus of the current
trade facilitation negotiation at the World Trade
Organization (WTO).
In recent years, however, trade facilitation practi-
tioners are tending to adopt a wider total supply chain
perspective and to look not just at trade procedures, but
rather at the export and import supply chains of develop-
ing countries and the associated physical movements of
goods. Hence, in practice, a more comprehensive defini-
tion might describe trade facilitation as the process of
identifying and addressing bottlenecks affecting the cost-effective
and timely movement of goods imposed by weaknesses in trade-
related logistics. This wider definition implies that trade
facilitation covers issues such as logistics, trade-related
infrastructure, and transport facilitation together, along with
the simplification, rationalization of procedures, and, where
possible, the elimination of red tape.
This wider supply chain focus is logical from the
perspective of firm competitiveness, since the ability
of firms to connect effectively to international markets
depends in part on the performance of the entire supply
chain in terms of cost, time, and—above all—reliability
and predictability.The performance of trade supply
chains—especially their reliability—is determined by a
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 84
A growing awareness
Box 1: The Logistics Performance Index and Achieving practical trade facilitation reform has become
Doing Business indicators a key development priority in recent years. Several factors
have contributed to the growing importance of this
The Logistics Performance Index (LPI), the first of its agenda and to the awareness and motivation of policy-
kind and published in the 2007 edition of the World Bank’s makers and development agencies.
report Connecting to Compete: Trade Logistics in the Global First, the economic benefits from trade facilitation
Economy,1 is a comprehensive index created to help coun- are now widely acknowledged, especially as the reduction
tries identify the challenges and opportunities they face in
of logistics costs may be of an even higher order of
their performance on trade logistics. It presents disaggregat-
magnitude in their impact on trade than that of tariffs.
ed data in seven different categories, allowing countries to
Recently, empirical literature has provided evidence on
know exactly what areas need to be strengthened. The
LPI is the first comprehensive cross-country assessment of
the cost of inefficiencies and the large returns from
logistics performance in 150 countries, based on a world investments and reforms in facilitation.1 For example,
survey of international freight forwarders and express Francois et al. simulate the impact on income of a
carriers completed by more than 800 logistics professionals. reduction of 3.0 percent in trade transaction costs for
The International Finance Corporation and the World goods, which is probably a conservative estimate of the
Bank jointly maintain the Doing Business database. This reduction in transactions costs.2 Such research suggests
major initiative provides objective measures of business reg- that world annual income could increase by US$151
ulations and enforcement (http://www.doingbusiness.org). billion with a 3.0 percent cut in trade transaction costs.
Doing Business 2008 presents quantitative indicators on In proportion to national income, the authors estimate
business regulations and the protection of property rights
that most of these gains would benefit developing coun-
that can be compared across 175 economies and over time.
tries. Evidence from the Logistics Performance Index
This dataset includes indicators of trade regulations.
(LPI) survey (see Box 1) indicates that, at the same level
of development per capita, the countries with the best
Note
logistics performance experience additional growth of
1 Arvis et al., 2007. 1 percent for GDP and 2 percent for trade.
84 Second, there is evidence from the last four years of
cross-country comparable sets of performance indicators,
which were previously only partially available in this area.
complex set of factors in three broad and interdependent The main indicators have been the LPI at the World
categories discussed in more detail in the next section of Bank, the “Trading across Borders” chapter in Doing
this chapter.These categories are (1) the quality of trade- Business by the International Finance Corporation
related infrastructure, (2) trade procedures and regulations, (World Bank Group) (Box 1), and the Enabling Trade
and (3) the availability and quality of private-sector Index by the World Economic Forum.The publication
services. and wide dissemination of this information have been a
The supply chain perspective is also reflected in the wakeup call for many countries. All of this evidence has
operational focus of trade facilitation as supported by the pointed out the wide gap of performance between
World Bank and other development partners.The main developing and high-income countries, but has also
operational areas of focus include: indicated significant differences for countries at similar
levels of development (Table 1).
• infrastructure investment; Finally, this awareness of the importance of trade
facilitation is reflected in the numerous trade facilitation
• customs modernization and improvement
–related provisions that have been incorporated in various
of the border-crossing environment;
bilateral and regional trading agreements.This trend also
• the streamlining of documentary requirements led to the decision to launch negotiations to overhaul and
and information flows; modernize the WTO trade facilitation rules that are now
over 50 years old as part of the Doha Round of multi-
• the efficiency of gateways such as ports lateral trade negotiations.3 The WTO negotiations in this
and airports; area have been productive beyond their initial mandate.
• the regulation and competitiveness of logistics
Logistics and trade competitiveness
and transport services;
An effective connection with international markets
• corridor facilitation and transit trade facilitation, depends to a large extent on the efficiency and, especially,
especially in the context of landlocked countries; the reliability of the supply chain for firms and for
countries. A key insight from the LPI survey of logistics
• multimodal freight transport (i.e., rail-road); and professionals is that, although costs and timeliness are of
great importance, traders are primarily concerned with
• transport security.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 85

Table 1: Wide gap of performance among regions
Physical
Customs inspection Time Time Documents Documents
clearance (percent of export import for export for import
Region (days) shipments) (days) (days) (number) (number)
East Asia & Pacific 2.1 18.0 2.5 5.7 6.7 7.1
Europe & Central Asia 1.2 8.0 1.7 4.5 7.1 8.3
Latin America & Caribbean 2.0 14.0 2.7 5.7 6.9 7.4
Middle East & North Africa 2.2 14.0 2.1 7.2 6.5 7.6
South Asia 2.0 27.0 4.4 7.2 8.5 9.0
Sub-Saharan Africa 3.3 29.0 4.8 13.3 7.8 8.8
High income: OECD 0.9 3.0 1.8 4.6 4.5 5.1
Source: LPI, 2007; Doing Business, 2008.
the overall reliability of the supply chain. A firm’s com- Malawi, for example, prefer to haul their containers 2,500
petitiveness is influenced by the cost and performance kilometers to the port of Durban in South Africa instead
of its supply chain, and thus it depends on the overall of going through the much less reliable Mozambican
logistics environment—but the main impact on the port, although the port in Mozambique is only one-
trade environment occurs less through transportation third of the distance.
costs than through the predictability of delivery.
Excessively bureaucratic border processing systems
and procedures, poor infrastructure, or inadequate services Emerging issues and developments in trade facilitation
result in long delays and unpredictability in the clearance The focus of trade facilitation has been evolving in the
of goods. Excessive bureaucracy is often accompanied by last few years, and it is becoming clear that to address it
85
high levels of corruption. Hence, on top of direct costs thoroughly, one has to look at many elements of the
associated with moving goods—such as freight costs and international supply chain.
port charges—firms have to absorb the induced costs
associated with hedging for the lack of predictability and The first generation of implementation projects:
reliability of the supply chain (Figure 1).4 They must Infrastructure and customs
either carry higher inventories of supplies or finished As mentioned above, at the practical level, trade facilita-
products, or switch to more expensive modes of trans- tion requires a commitment to investment and reform
portation to be sure to meet delivery schedules.5 These in three main areas: trade-related infrastructure, border
costs are inversely related to predictability, and they tend processing and clearance systems and procedures, and
to rise steeply with declining logistics performance logistics services. Unlike multilateral trade liberalization,
(Figure 2). which requires coordination at the international level,
The high costs of unpredictability in the interna- many trade facilitation initiatives are implemented pri-
tional supply chain are a major constraint for companies marily at the country level. In some cases—such as land
and countries trying to diversify into higher-value border trade and transit trade for landlocked countries—
production. In global production chains, countries face the solutions need to be comprehensive and include
the double challenge of maintaining efficiency in the bilateral and/or regional cooperation for trade facilita-
supply chain not only for exports but also for imported tion reform to be effective.
inputs and components. Suppliers to the same automobile Over the last two decades, trade facilitation projects
manufacturer will carry inventory for 7 days in Italy but in developing countries have concentrated primarily on
for 35 days in Morocco. Importers of spare parts for the first two areas, notably focusing on port, road, and rail
electrical and mechanical equipment in, for example, infrastructure, and on customs processing and clearance
Albania and Ukraine typically carry three to four times systems and procedures.This focus has been an attempt to
larger inventories than similar firms in neighboring make the flow of trade cheaper, faster, and more reliable.
European Union (EU) countries.This is an even higher These efforts are important and still need to be pur-
burden for least-developed countries, where inputs often sued, but much progress has been achieved. For example,
cannot be sourced regionally, so firms must store even in port management, the separation of commercial and
larger amounts of inventory in case supplies are delayed. services activities from the port authority is now the
Some least-developed countries also have to contend norm in developing countries, and there are many
with the fact that ports that are geographically closer to examples of the successful participation of the private
them may be more unreliable. Garment exporters from sector in container terminal operations. Automation
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 86
Figure 1: Structure of logistics costs supported by various trade facilitation initiatives, the time to import
traders containers has been systematically reduced in the ports
of some of the poorer countries. For example, the port
communities in Douala and Mombasa have taken serious
Direct costs Induced costs steps to improve the processing of imports with schemes
Freight and other
costs associated
+ Cost of non-delivery,
storage
such as the single window in Douala and a similar port
community initiative in Mombasa. As a result, dwell
with shipment
times of containers in Douala and Mombasa have been
halved over the last decade, although the average is still
Source: Arvis et al., 2007b.
over 10 days.6
The state of trade corridor infrastructure—a key
area especially for landlocked developing countries—
of customs procedures has now been generalized, and rehabilitation needs, and, above all, sustainable resources
there are few countries without some form of auto- for maintenance are high priorities for development
mated customs system in place. agencies.Thanks to efforts by donors to upgrade and
As a result, some level of information technology expand the network, most road corridors in Africa are
for customs is usually available; thus it is among the today in reasonably good or at least passable condition,
mildest of the constraints to trade facilitation faced, and the state of the road infrastructure is no longer a
even by the least-developed countries.Yet, in many major source of costs or delays.7 Moreover, all capital
cases, there is a huge scope for upgrading and making cities of landlocked developing countries are now con-
better use of automation processes, notably when it nected by all-weather routes.
comes to the exchange of information with the trading
communities (e.g., freight forwarders) or with other Priorities and needs are shifting to new issues: Border
trade-related agencies. In many developing countries management, transit, and services
it is rare for non-customs border management agencies With the shift in emphasis away from first-generation
to be automated (Table 2). investments in port and road infrastructure and customs
86 The ports and corridors in Central and Eastern reform to new areas not previously addressed, the binding
Africa face the most severe trade facilitation challenges. constraints are not only more institutionally complex
Anecdotal evidence points to the fact that, thanks to but also of a cross-cutting nature.
Figure 2: Reliability matters
100
Predictability of deliveries (percent)
80
60
40
20
0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Logistics Performance Index score
Source: LPI, 2007.

Note: Percent refers to respondents of the LPI survey who say that import shipments are not cleared and delivered on time.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 87

Table 2: Trade logistics constraints worldwide
Top quintile Bottom quintile
Issue Q1 (percent) Q2 (percent) Q3 (percent) Q4 (percent) Q5 (percent)
Usage of information technology in customs administration 78 50 50 58 35

Quality of logistics services 47 34 17 19 8
Competence in customs 55 32 19 18 11
Non-customs agencies 38 13 10 9 18
Source: LPI, 2007.

Note: The percentages indicate the prevalence of the issue as reported by international freight forwarders. Q1= top quintile, highest performance in the LPI; Q2 =
second quintile, high performance in the LPI; Q3 = third quintile, average performance in the LPI; Q4 = fourth quintile, low performance in the LPI; Q5 = bottom
quintile, lowest performance in the LPI.
The constraints experienced by operators are Movement of goods and vehicles across borders
increasingly found in these new areas (Table 2).The new and overland over long distances relies on putting in
agenda will need to address issues such as improving place a seamless transit system at the regional level or
coordination among agencies involved in border process- at least bilaterally in order to be able to allow efficiency.
ing; transport policies and regulation designed to improve The single and most important practical constraint is
market structure; and competition in trade-related services the arrangement, or the transit regime, by which goods can
such as trucking, forwarding, and railways. In addition, move efficiently in the country of transit, although the
more attention will need to be given to problems that duties are to be collected in the country of destination—
can be adequately addressed only at the level of regional a landlocked country for imports, or its final commercial
economic groupings. partner for exports.To facilitate trade, transit is founded
This expansion of the traditional scope of trade on a delayed clearance regime based on authorized transit
facilitation and logistics reform is visible not only in the operators, bonds, secure cargo, and proper information
content of various development projects but also in the systems in customs.
trade facilitation negotiations taking place in the WTO, A recent global review of transit systems shows that
where the content of the General Agreement on Tariffs on most corridors crossing the territory of developing 87
and Trade (GATT) Articles VIII and X address issues not countries, transit systems are far from effective.There are
previously covered comprehensively in the first genera- some exceptions: very efficient regional transit systems—
tion of reforms described above. Another example is the such as Transports Internationaux Routiers (International
complex question of facilitating trade on transit corridors Road Transport, or TIR) and Common Transit9—were
for the benefit of landlocked developing countries.This developed in Europe after World War II, allowing for
issue is the focus of another international initiative, the seamless door-to-door operation over several borders.
Almaty Programme of Action launched in 2003 under But in many parts of the world, overregulation and
the auspices of the United Nations.8 lengthy chain control prevail and the movement of
The imperative to better integrate border manage- goods can take weeks.10 Many regional treaties have a
ment for imports and exports is the most widely provision for regional systems similar to that in Europe
acknowledged element of the new agenda. It addresses (this is the case in most of Africa, for instance). But imple-
coordination among border control agencies such as mentation has been jeopardized by lack of implementing
standards, sanitary, phytosanitary, and veterinary agencies. mechanisms and poor cross-country cooperation. It is
Although goods are finally cleared by customs, this occurs now accepted by the international trade community that
only after clearances from other border agencies have improving the transit system is a high priority, especially
been obtained, which often significantly delays release. for landlocked developing countries. On most trade cor-
Figure 3 illustrates the gains on clearance that have ridors, existing or projected investment in infrastructure
been achieved in the context of a trade facilitation project, will not deliver benefits without parallel changes in the
supported by the World Bank, that focuses on border transit system.
management in the port of Radès,Tunisia.The project Awareness of the importance of improving the
focuses on integrating the clearance procedures of dif- quality of logistics and trade-supporting services is fairly
ferent agencies: clearance operations (the middle band recent, but this quality is becoming increasingly central
in the figure) accounted for one-third of the dwell time, to trade and transport facilitation and related regulatory
and further gains are expected to come upstream (the reform packages. Recent trucking surveys indicate that
bottom band) from automated transmission of the mani- differences among countries in freight costs are largely
fest by the port operators and investment in handling due to the market structure for transport providers, to
to customs and downstream (the top band) by making regulatory barriers, and to the degree of competition.11
e-payment possible and by changes in port rate structure The trucking market structure and environment in West
to make the rates predictable. and Central African corridors are characterized by strict
market regulation, which leads to low transport quality
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 88
Figure 3: Structure of clearance time for containers at the port of Radès, 2006–08
12
Post-clearance
Clearance operations
10 Pre-clearance
8
Days
0
2006 S1 2006 S2 2007 S1 2007 S2 2008 S1 2008 S2
Source: World Bank project data.

Note: S = semester.
88
and limited vehicle usage (a truck may run as little as the benefits of progress in one area may not be reaped
2,000 kilometers a month, compared with a long-haul until progress is achieved in other areas as well.12
truck in the United States that can run almost 10 times The impediments observed in logistics performance
as far).This results in excessive fixed costs (gross margin) show similar patterns in countries, depending on how
and costs of transportation up to three times higher than advanced their reform program is. Following the typology
those observed in corridors in Southern Africa, where of developing countries proposed in the LPI 2007 report,
competition allows for moderate rates and good quality we classify countries as follows: (1) severely logistically
of services. constrained countries (LDCs), (2) partial reformers in
There is only limited experience with reforms that the low-income and middle-income groups of countries,
address private logistics services. It is essential that trade and (3) consistent reformers (those countries achieving
facilitation improvements provide incentives for high- better logistics performance than their income group).
quality and reliable services, notably through regulation Based on these categories, a rough intuitive typology
of entry. For instance, improvements in regional transit of typical constraints faced by these three groups of
systems are dependent upon the quality of trucking countries is presented in Table 3.
services: implementation of the international TIR system
imposes strict technical and financial requirements in
exchange for facilitated transit. However, the political Stepping up implementation
economy of the “soft” and “hard” trade infrastructure Although the priorities may be set and the initiatives
may not favor changes that depart from current business are in place, implementation must still be emphasized
practices and limit historical rents. In many developing if serious progress is to be made. Some of the ways to
countries, for example, broker licenses are a de facto priv- ensure progress is to focus on the collective aspects of
ilege for retired customs officers, or fragmented informal the efforts at reform, to consider a large portfolio of
trucking regimes are maintained to meet social goals. development assistance programs, and to obtain technical
assistance.
Countries and constraints
Priorities for trade facilitation are essentially set at the Promoting trade facilitation is a collective effort
country or regional level.What adds to the complexity Many entities are active in the area of trade facilitation
of the issue is that the areas of reforms are often greatly to help developing-country policymakers and stakeholders
entangled in development concerns, and because the better implement the most appropriate roadmap to
robustness of a supply chain depends on its weakest link, reform and modernization (see Table 4).These activities
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 89

Table 3: Typology of countries according to impediments to logistics performance
Logistics Performance Impediments Severely constrained countries (LDCs) Partial reformers Consistent reformers
Trade-related infrastructure Not the major constraint, but a Capacity issues can be Capacity bottlenecks to
serious maintenance issue for addressed by soft reforms support trade expansion
road or rail network soft reforms
Core customs modernization Potentially a major constraint Potentially a major constraint No longer a constraint
Integration of border management Comparatively a lesser problem Serious problem Typically the key remaining
facilitation problem
Regional facilitation and transit The main issue for landlocked Systematic problem with few Systematic problem with few
LDCs exceptions (e.g. countries exceptions (TIR developing
where TIR is implemented)1 countries)
Quality and supply Serious constraint at various Serious constraint at various Still a problem when restrictions
of logistics services degrees depending on regions degrees depending on regions on the entry of international
logistics providers are applied
1 TIR stands for Transports Internationaux Routiers (International Road Transport). For more information on the TIR,
please visit http://www.iru.org/index/en_iru_about_tir.
include not only promoting projects on the ground, but in negotiating a new trade facilitation agreement in the
also promoting the international standards and practices WTO and helps them understand their potential capacity
that guide reform.The main participants in this effort gap with regard to the measures under negotiation.
at the global level include the World Bank, the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development A growing portfolio of development assistance:
89
(UNCTAD), the United Nations Economic Commission The example of the World Bank
for Europe (UNECE), the World Customs Organization Over the last five years, the World Bank and other
(WCO), the WTO, the Organisation for Economic agencies have increased the share of projects related to
Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the facilitation of trade and transportation. In the case of
International Monetary Fund (IMF). Private global groups the World Bank, the portfolio of projects in this area has
are also very active in promoting this agenda and can been growing and diversifying according to the change
help setting the priorities, including the International in demand and the shift of priorities. Investments and
Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the International Federation reforms are complemented by technical assistance and
of Freight Forwarders Associations (FIATA), the Global knowledge sharing.
Express Association (GEA), the International Air Transport The World Bank’s projects in support of trade facil-
Association (IATA), and the International Road itation total about US$1.4 billion in projected commit-
Transport Union (IRU), among others. Some of these ments for the fiscal year 2009 (Figure 4).This represents
entities are also involved in implementation activities. approximately 40 percent of the World Bank’s total
Regional organizations such as UN commissions or trade-related lending.The most significant projects fall
regional development banks are also making decisive into the following categories: modernizing customs,
contributions to the implementation in their respective improving gateway infrastructure such as ports and
areas. Bilateral agencies are playing a key role as well, airports, modernizing trade corridors, improving export
and in fact are the main donors of technical assistance.13 promotion, improving trade facilitation and logistics, and
The Global Facilitation Partnership for Transportation modernizing multimodal transport.
and Trade (GFP) was launched in 1999.The GFP is a Customs modernization projects have been and
network of 250 public and private partners and is the remain a major part of the portfolio worldwide.The
reference forum in trade and transport facilitation where World Bank has financed over 120 customs-related
participants work together to design and undertake projects over the past two decades.The current portfolio
specific programs, create knowledge, or support trade totals US$409 million, with another US$94 million in the
facilitation training opportunities. pipeline. Improving the performance of customs admin-
Several ongoing initiatives have put these partner- istrations remains a high priority for many countries,
ships into effect and stimulated implementation in but increasingly these projects support the moderniza-
developing countries. Launched in 2005, the Trade tion of agencies with border responsibilities such as
Facilitation Negotiations Support Project (TFNSP) those concerned with health, agriculture, quarantine,
responds to demands by developing countries engaged police, immigration, product standards, and so on.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 90
Table
T 4: Supporters of trade facilitation activities in developing countries
International organization • World Trade Organization (WTO)

• World Customs Organization (WCO)
• UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
• United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT)
• UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
• International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
• International Maritime Organization (IMO)
• World Bank
• International Monetary Fund (IMF)
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
• Regional international financial institutions (IFIs)
Global business, • International Road Transport Union (IRU)

nongovernmental organizations • International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
and institutions, and forums
• International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations (FIATA)
• International Air Transport Association (IATA)
• World Economic Forum
• Global Express Association (GEA)
• Global Facilitation Partnership for Transportation and Trade (GFP)
Regional and bilateral entities • Regional and subregional economic unions

and agreements — Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
— Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)
— East African Community (EAC)
— Southern African Development Community (SADC)
— Mercado Común del Sur, or Southern Common Market and so on (MERCOSUR) (there were
185 regional agreements registered by the WTO in force at the end of 2005)
• Corridor authorities
90 • Regional UN agencies
• Regional IFIs
• Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
National entities • Trade and transport facilitation and coordination committees and task forces, trade procedures
committees (UNECE currently has 48 registered)
• Customs and other border agencies
• Transport agencies and operators
• Private-sector associations (forwarders, shippers, truckers, and so on)
Corridor projects are an increasingly important part Further increasing impact: Technical assistance
both of the Bank’s trade facilitation work program and In addition to investment or reform projects, there is a
of client demand across the regions.These projects cover growing demand from developing-country governments
several countries on the same trade corridors and address for technical assistance, advice, and transfer of knowledge.
issues such as gaps in infrastructure, border management, Technical assistance and lending are increasingly linked.
and trade transit systems (Box 2). Recent examples Indeed, most of the gains in terms of supply chain relia-
include projects in Central America; Central, Eastern, bility or reducing the cost of logistics are likely to come
and Western Africa; and Pakistan-Afghanistan. from the implementation of measures that do not cost
The Bank continues its support of trade-related much, such as organizational changes and regulatory
infrastructure projects, emphasizing ports and airports. reform. However, in many client countries and especially
The area of multimodal transport (railway systems) has in least-developed countries, trade facilitation measures
proved the most difficult in which to make headway. are easier to implement as part of bigger financial pack-
Despite the potential of railroads to reduce freight costs ages than as standalone activities.
and carbon footprints, the state of the sector makes it a The World Bank and other organizations are assist-
marginal player for logistics in less-developed countries ing developing countries in many different ways.These
and in many middle-income countries as well. include (1) making reform toolkits available;14 (2) pro-
viding data on trade facilitation (such as the LPI and
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 91

Figure 4: World Bank trade facilitation funding by projects type and region
4a: Trade facilitation lending: Commitments, 2002–09 (US$ millions)
1,500
1429
Trade facilitation
1,200
Development policy lending
US$ millions
900
616 595
600 547
475
381 357
300
226
169
124 135
24 13 29 37
0 2
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Source: World Bank projects.
91
4b: Trade facilitation lending: Regional breakdown, fiscal years 2004–09
4%
6%
18%
Africa
20% East Asia & Pacific
Eastern & Central Europe
16% Latin America & Caribbean
Middle East & North Africa
South Asia
36%
Source: World Bank projects.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 92
Box 2: Re-engineering transit regimes: Box 3: The Trade Facilitation Facility will boost
The case of Central Africa implementation of new projects
The notion that regional transit trade arrangements in Africa The World Bank Trade Facilitation Facility (TFF) program
or Asia should be reengineered along the principles assists in the implementation of practical initiatives in the
of the systems already available in Europe, such as the TIR,1 following key areas: border management improvement,
has now gained acceptance worldwide. For instance, Chad institutional development, transit and regional facilitation,
and the Central African Republic are primarily served by a logistics services markets, and gateway infrastructure. TFF
road-rail corridor through the port of Douala in Cameroon. assistance will be delivered through technical advisory
The transit of goods used to take up to six weeks or more, services and capacity-building activities. Examples of TFF
with seven documents required, all to be cleared by three activities include:
separate offices. There were also multiple checkpoints and
• long-term technical advisers to support the
controls on the roads to the landlocked countries.
implementation of regulatory and policy reforms
Thanks mainly to strong leadership from Cameroonian
related to trade and transport facilitation;
customs, agreement was eventually reached on a substan-
tially revised transit system as part of a World Bank regional • short-term advisory services in the design and
corridor project. The main elements of the agreement are improvement of regional trade facilitation and
the introduction of a one common transit document (based transit regimes;
on the model of the EU Single Administrative Document), the
• technical support for the improvement of border
removal of intermediate checkpoints, the use of information
management, clearance, technical controls, and
technology based on UNCTAD’s Automated System for
standards systems; and
Customs Data (ASYCUDA) system, the addition of a bar code
to the transit document and container with optical reading at • capacity building to promote better design,
borders, and a new bonds system. investment, and management of critical trade-
supporting infrastructure.
Note The TFF is currently supported by the governments of

92 1 TIR stands for Transports Internationaux Routiers (International Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.
Road Transport). For more information on the TIR, please visit
http://www.iru.org/index/en_iru_about_tir.
Doing Business indicators); (3) diagnosing weaknesses, primarily on land transportation for their exports are at
for example through trade and transport facilitation an even bigger disadvantage than before.
audits, which are especially important for project The current crisis is also an opportunity to rethink
preparation in least-developed countries; and (4) assist- priorities. It is leading to the first decline in international
ing domestic or regional institutions in the design and trade in 25 years, pushing millions of people in the devel-
implementation of reforms.The recently launched oping world back into crippling poverty. Governments
Trade Facilitation Facility (TFF) (Box 3) will further are increasing public investments so as to counter falling
scale up technical assistance in this area.15 demand and ought to be targeting those projects with
large economic payoffs, such as those associated with
trade facilitation. Development agencies could counter
Conclusions the impact of the global crisis with a proactive strategy
Trade facilitation is a dynamic field and is high priority to support reforms that reduce the trade costs facing
for governments in developing countries and for inter- traders around the globe.The payoff to developing
national organizations.The current economic downturn countries that depend heavily on trade could be partic-
has made it even more relevant. As international shipping ularly significant, capitalizing on the growing consensus
costs have dropped dramatically, the cost of domestic that trade facilitation is a good new agenda for all.
inefficiencies in trade facilitation is more important than
it used to be and comprises a higher share of total trade
costs.The changes in demand and cost structures are also Notes
influencing the way international buyers are organizing 1 Wilson et al. 2004.
their supply chains, favoring leaner, shorter, and more 2 Francois et al. 2003.
reliable supply chains.16 In times of crisis, those coun- 3 See Eglin 2008 for more details.
tries with lower logistics performance or that depend
4 Arvis et al. 2007a.
5 Guasch and Kogan 2003.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 93

6 LPI survey.
7 Arvis 2007b; World Bank 2008b.
8 See http://www.un.org/special-
rep/ohrlls/lldc/default.htm#ALMATY.
9 TIR is a 60-year-old arrangement that was instrumental in the

development of trade across borders in Europe. It remains
essential to overland trade beyond the EU borders.
10 World Bank 2008a.
11 Raballand and Teravaninthorn 2008.
12 This is especially true for investments in information technology,

which are unlikely to deliver results if they are limited to customs
and do not involve other agencies. Investments in corridor infra-
structure will not reduce trade costs if they are not complemented
by measures to improve the transit systems and the quality of
services delivered by truck or multimodal transportation. Likewise,
the adoption of modern approaches to risk management by cus-
toms simply will not deliver rapid clearance if standards and
quarantine agencies continue to require the physical inspection
of all imports that fall into any of a large range of tariff headings.
13 Statistics are available from the Doha Development Agenda (DDA)

Database (http://tcbdb.wto.org), established jointly by the WTO
and the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee in
November 2002.
14 Examples of toolkits are customs modernization handbooks and

port reforms.
15 The TFF was launched in April 2009.
16 McKinsey 2008a, b.
References
93
Arvis, J., M. Mustra, J. Panzer, L. Ojala, and T. Naula. 2007a.
Connecting to Compete: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy.
The Logistics Performance Index and Its Indicators. Washington,
DC: World Bank.
Arvis, J., G. Raballand, and J. Marteau. 2007b. “The Cost of Being

Landlocked: Logistics Costs and Supply Chain Reliability.” Policy
Research Working Paper 4258. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Eglin, R. 2008. “The Doha Round Negotiations on Trade Facilitation.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2008. Geneva: World Economic
Forum. 35–9.
Francois, J., H. van Meil, and F. van Tongeren. 2003. “Economic

Benefits of the Doha Round for the Netherlands.” Project Report.
Agricultural Economics Research Institute, The Hague.
Guasch, J. and J. L. Kogan. 2003. “Just in Case Inventories: A Cross

Country Analysis.” Policy Research Working Paper 3012. World
Bank, Washington, DC: World Bank.
McKinsey & Company, Inc. 2008a. “How Companies Act on Global

Trends: A McKinsey Global Survey.” The McKinsey Quarterly.
April. Available at http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com.
———. 2008b. “Managing Global Supply Chains: A McKinsey Global

Survey.” The McKinsey Quarterly. June. Available at
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com.
Raballand, G. and S. Teravaninthorn. 2008. “Transport Prices and Costs

in Africa: A Review of the International Corridors.” Directions in
Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.
United Nations. Almaty Programme of Action. Available at

http://www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/lldc/default.htm#ALMATY.
Wilson, J. S., C. L. Mann, and T. Otsuki. 2004. “Assessing the Potential

Benefit of Trade Facilitation : A Global Perspective.” World Bank
Policy Research Paper 3224. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. 2008a. Doing Business 2008. Washington, DC: World

Bank.
———. 2008b. “Improving Trade and Transport for Landlocked

Developing Countries: World Bank Contributions to Implementing
the Almaty Programme of Action: A Report for the Mid-Term
Review.” October. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Part 1.r2 6/19/09 12:40 PM Page 94
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 95
Part 2
Country/Economy Profiles
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 96
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 97
2.1
Country/Economy Profiles
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 98
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 99
How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles

EVA TRUJILLO HERRERA, World Economic Forum
The Country/Economy Profiles section presents a two-

page profile for each of the 121 economies covered by Albania
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009. Key indicators
Population (millions), 2008 .............................................3.2
Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade World average trade
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)........................28.8
80 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................13.0
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ............4,073.9
FDI inflows
60 6
Trade
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................70
40 4
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................6.8
20 2
Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank
Page 1 0
1995
Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
0
Main trade data Trade policy data

Key indicators Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ........................................–13.5
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ...........................................1,072.0
WTO accession year ..................................................................................2000
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................63.4
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .........................................1,398.9 Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................3
The first section presents a selection of key indicators: Total exports (rank out of 121).....................................................................100
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ............................................4,196.0
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .............7.0; 5.4
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008 ............1.9
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .........................................1,391.2 Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.......................................0.0
Total imports (rank out of 121) ......................................................................93 Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008 ...............................0.0
Source: WTO; IMF Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank
• Population figures are from the United Nations Main trading partners, 2007
Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)
Exports and imports by sector, 2007
Population Fund (UNFPA)’s State of World Exports destination

EU27 83.1
Imports origin
EU27 59.9
100
80
■ Manufactures
Serbia 6.7 Turkey 7.3 ■ Fuels and mining
Population 2008 and surface area data are from the Others 10.2 China
Switzerland
6.6
4.9
60
40
71.7
65.1
products
■ Agricultural
products
Russian Federation 4.1
16.9
World Bank’s World Development Indicators 2008. Source: WTO

Others 17.2 20
0
19.5
7.3
Exports
17.9
Imports
Source: WTO
• GDP figures are from the International Monetary Enabling Trade Index Rank
(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
Fund (IMF)’s World Economic Outlook Online 2009 Index..............................................................................63

Market access ...................................................................................................30
3.8
4.6
Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................30 4.6 99
Database (April 2009). Border administration.......................................................................................60
Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................60
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................64
3.9
3.6
4.7
Transparency of border administration...........................................................66 3.4
Transport and communications infrastructure ............................................94 2.8
Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .......................................97 2.9
Availability and quality of transport services.................................................85 3.1
The chart on the upper right-hand side displays the Availability and use of ICTs................................................................................82
Business environment ......................................................................................83
2.5
3.9
Regulatory environment ...................................................................................105 3.2
evolution of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and trade Physical security .................................................................................................74 4.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
volume as a percentage of GDP from 1995 through page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”
2007 (or over the subperiod for which data were avail-
able) for the economy under review (blue line).The
black line represents the evolution of trade as percentage
of GDP for the world as a whole, for comparison. Data
used to calculate total trade volumes are from the World
Trade Organization (WTO)’s Statistics Database,Time The first part presents main trade-related indicators.
series on merchandise and commercial services, representing Current account balance data are from the IMF’s World
the sum of total imports and exports of both merchan- Economic Outlook Online Database (April 2009).
dise and commercial services.These trade values were Merchandise and commercial services data come from
then divided by each country’s GDP. GDP data come the WTO’s Statistics Database. Data used to calculate
from the IMF’s World Economic Outlook Online Database total exports and imports ranks represent the sum of
(April 2009).The gray bars in the background represent merchandise and commercial services exports and
the evolution of FDI inflows as a percentage of GDP. imports, respectively.The values for total imports and
FDI flows with a negative sign indicate reverse invest- total exports were then ranked (out of the 121 countries
ment or disinvestment, as data on FDI flows are present- included in this Report).
ed on a net basis (capital transactions’ credits less debits The second part presents selected trade
between direct investors and their foreign affiliates). FDI policy–related indicators.WTO accession year, regional
data are from the United Nations Conference on Trade trade agreements, and simple tariff average data come
and Development’s foreign direct investment database from the WTO’s Statistics Database. Multilateral agree-
FDIstat (May 2009). ments and domestic agricultural and domestic non-
agricultural tariff peaks data come from the
Main trade data and trade policy data International Trade Centre. Applied tariff escalation data
The second section presents main trade and policy data come from the World Bank’s World Trade Indicators 2008.
that aim to provide an overview of trade patterns and The third part displays the main trading partners for
main trends in each economy.This section is split into each country and a bar chart summarizing imports and
three parts: exports by sector.The tables on the left-hand side show
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 100
the share in the total volume of merchandise trade by

origin and destination country. Note that data for Chad Albania
The Enabling Trade Index in detail ■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
and Tajikistan are mirror data (obtained from partner INDICATOR

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access
RANK/121 SCORE BEST PERFORMER SCORE
1.01 Tariff barriers.................................................................................43 .....■ .........4.0 Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
countries’ trade data).The chart on the right-hand side 1.02

Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ..................................48 .....■ .........3.6
Tariff barriers for agricultural products ...........................................7 .....■ .........6.3
Non-tariff barriers .........................................................................15 .....■ .........5.5
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
1.03 Complexity of tariffs .......................................................................7 .....■ .........6.9 Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
shows the share of total volume of merchandise imports Variance of tariffs ...........................................................................9 .....■ .........5.6
Domestic tariff peaks .....................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Specific tariffs.................................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................20 .....■ ............6 Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
and exports for each of the three main merchandise 1.04

1.05
1.06
Share of duty-free imports ...........................................................89 .....■ ..........29
Tariffs faced ................................................................................113 .....■ .........6.0
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................17 .....■ .......55.1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6
sectors of each economy: manufactures, fuels and mining 2.01

2.02
2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Burden of customs procedures....................................................93 .....■ .........3.1
Customs services index ...............................................................45 .....■ .........7.2
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0
products, and agricultural products. Note that no sector 3.01

3.02
3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance..................................106 .....■ .........2.0
Time for import.............................................................................63 .....■ ..........22
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
3.03 Documents for import ..................................................................85 .....■ ............9 France ...................................................2
data are available for Mauritania, and data for Lesotho 3.04
3.05
3.06
Cost to import ..............................................................................19 .....■ ........775
Time for export .............................................................................70 .....■ ..........21
Documents for export ..................................................................67 .....■ ............7
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
3.07 Cost to export ..............................................................................28 .....■ ........770 Malaysia ............................................450
and Chad are mirror data. According to the WTO 4.01

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Irregular payments in exports and imports ..................................69 .....■ .........3.8 Sweden ..............................................6.6
4.02 Corruption Perceptions Index.......................................................67 .....■ .........3.4 Multiple economies ..........................9.3
International Trade Statistics (ITS), the breakdown by 5.01

5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
Airport density ..............................................................................90 .....■ .........0.3 Norway .............................................10.6
5.02 Transshipment connectivity index ................................................91 .....■ .......51.9 United Kingdom .............................100.0
main commodity group is as follows: Agricultural products 5.03

5.04
5.05
Paved roads..................................................................................66 .....■ .......39.0
Road congestion...........................................................................25 .....■ ..........15
Quality of air transport infrastructure ...........................................69 .....■ .........4.4
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
5.06 Quality of railroad infrastructure.................................................102 .....■ .........1.3 Switzerland.........................................6.8
refers to food (SITC Rev. 3 sections 0, 1, 4, and division 5.07

5.08
Quality of roads ..........................................................................104 .....■ .........2.4
Quality of port infrastructure ......................................................112 .....■ .........2.4
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8
6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
22) and raw materials (SITC Rev. 3 divisions 21, 23, 24, 6.01
6.02
6.03
Liner Shipping Connectivity Index................................................95 .....■ .........2.0
Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................98 .....■ .........2.3
Competence of the logistics industry ........................................108 .....■ .........2.0
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
6.04 Ability and ease of tracking ........................................................120 .....■ .........1.7 Singapore ...........................................4.3
25, and 26). Fuels and mining products includes ores and 6.05
6.06
6.07
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .......................119 .....■ .........2.1
Postal service efficiency...............................................................71 .....■ .........4.2
GATS commitments in the transport sector ..................................6 .....■ .......53.0
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6
other minerals, as well as fuels and non-ferrous metals. 7.01

7.02
7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Firm-level technology absorption ...............................................100 .....■ .........4.1
Mobile telephone subscribers ......................................................68 .....■ .......72.1
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
7.03 Broadband Internet subscribers ...................................................82 .....■ .........0.3 Denmark...........................................36.0
Manufactures refers to iron and steel, chemicals, other 7.04

7.05
Internet users ...............................................................................73 .....■ .......15.0
Telephone lines ............................................................................83 .....■ .........9.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9
8th pillar: Regulatory environment
semi-manufactures, machinery and transport equipment, 8.01

8.02
8.03
Property rights............................................................................115 .....■ .........2.9
Ethics and corruption ...................................................................87 .....■ .........2.6
Undue influence .........................................................................107 .....■ .........2.4
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
8.04 Government inefficiency ..............................................................95 .....■ .........3.1 Singapore ...........................................6.1
textiles, clothing, and other consumer goods. Please note 8.05

8.06
Domestic competition ................................................................111 .....■ .........3.6
Openness to foreign participation ................................................83 .....■ .........4.6
Ease of hiring foreign labor ............................................................2 .....■ .........6.0
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Prevalence of foreign ownership ...............................................101 .....■ .........4.3 Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
that the sum of shares may not add up to 100 because Business impact of rules on FDI ................................................105 .....■ .........4.3
Capital controls.............................................................................93 .....■ .........3.9
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6
9th pillar: Physical security

the world total merchandise trade includes other com- 9.01
9.02
9.03
Reliability of police services .........................................................71 .....■ .........4.0
Business costs of crime and violence..........................................69 .....■ .........4.6
Business costs of terrorism .........................................................77 .....■ .........5.3
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8
modities and transactions that are not part of the three

main groups.These commodities are gold, arms and
ammunition, and commodities and transactions not clas-
sified elsewhere (SITC Rev. 3, section 9).
100 The Enabling Trade Index

The bottom section of the left-hand side presents the ranks 21st, constitutes a competitive disadvantage
economy’s performance on the Enabling Trade Index for the country.
(ETI) and its various components. Data Tables made
available on the Report’s website (www.weforum.org/getr) • For those economies ranked from 11th to 50th on
provide detailed rankings and scores for each of the the overall ETI, any variables with a higher rank
variables included in the ETI. than the economy’s overall rank are considered to be
advantages. Any variables ranked equal to, or lower
than, the economy’s overall rank are disadvantages.
Page 2 For instance, in the case of the Malaysia, ranked 28th
overall, its rank of 2nd for the “cost to import”
The Enabling Trade Index in detail makes this variable a competitive advantage. On the
This page presents the rank achieved by an economy on other hand, “tariff barriers,” in which the Malaysia
each of the indicators entering the composition of the ranks 59th, represents a competitive disadvantage.
ETI. Indicators are organized by pillar. Please refer to
the Appendix A of Chapter 1.1 for the detailed structure • For economies with an overall rank on the ETI
of the ETI. lower than 50, any variables for which the economy
Next to the rank, a colored square indicates has a rank of 50 or higher are considered to be
whether the indicator constitutes an advantage (the blue advantages. Any variables ranked below 50 are con-
square) or a disadvantage (black square) for the country. sidered disadvantages. For Peru, ranked 65th overall,
In order to identify variables as an advantage or dis- the “tariffs faced” constitutes a competitive advantage
advantage, the following rules apply: (32nd), whereas the relatively high “quality of roads”
constitutes a competitive disadvantage (89th).
• For the top 10 economies in the overall ETI, any
variables on which the economy is ranked 10th or For comparison, the last two columns on the page
higher are considered to be advantages. Any variables show the best performer in each indicator, accompanied
ranked below 10 are considered to be disadvantages. by the score achieved. A list of countries/economies is
For example, in the case of Canada, which is ranked provided below for those indicators where the best per-
6th overall, its 7th rank in the variable “share of former is indicated as “multiple economies”:
duty-free imports” makes this variable a competitive
advantage, whereas “non-tariff barriers,” on which it
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 101

• Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products (2 economies):
Hong Kong SAR and Singapore.
• Domestic tariff peaks (23 economies): Albania, Algeria,

Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso,
Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, Côte
d’Ivoire, Ethiopia,The Gambia, Ghana, Hong Kong
SAR, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania,
Mozambique, Paraguay, and Senegal.
• Specific tariffs (30 economies): Albania, Algeria,

Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia,
Cameroon, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire,
Ecuador, Ethiopia, Hong Kong SAR, Madagascar,
Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique,
Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines,
Senegal,Tunisia, Uruguay,Venezuela, and Vietnam.
• Time for export (3 economies): Denmark, Estonia,

and Singapore.
• Corruption Perceptions Index (3 economies):

Denmark, New Zealand, and Sweden.
• Paved roads (18 economies): Austria, Czech

Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hong Kong
SAR, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Latvia, 101
Luxembourg, Mauritius, Singapore, Slovenia,
Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the
United Kingdom.
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 102
102
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 103
List of Countries/Economies
List of Countries/Economies
Country/Economy Page Country/Economy Page Country/Economy Page
Albania 104 Guyana 190 Paraguay 276

Algeria 106 Honduras 192 Peru 278
Argentina 108 Hong Kong SAR 194 Philippines 280
Armenia 110 Hungary 196 Poland 282
Australia 112 India 198 Portugal 284
Austria 114 Indonesia 200 Qatar 286
Azerbaijan 116 Ireland 202 Romania 288
Bahrain 118 Israel 204 Russian Federation 290
Bangladesh 120 Italy 206 Saudi Arabia 292
Belgium 122 Jamaica 208 Senegal 294
Benin 124 Japan 210 Singapore 296
Bolivia 126 Jordan 212 Slovak Republic 298
Bosnia and Herzegovina 128 Kazakhstan 214 Slovenia 300
Brazil 130 Kenya 216 South Africa 302
Bulgaria 132 Korea, Rep. 218 Spain 304
103
Burkina Faso 134 Kuwait 220 Sri Lanka 306
Burundi 136 Kyrgyz Republic 222 Sweden 308
Cambodia 138 Latvia 224 Switzerland 310
Cameroon 140 Lesotho 226 Syria 312
Canada 142 Lithuania 228 Taiwan, China 314
Chad 144 Luxembourg 230 Tajikistan 316
Chile 146 Macedonia, FYR 232 Tanzania 318
China 148 Madagascar 234 Thailand 320
Colombia 150 Malawi236 236 Tunisia 322
Costa Rica 152 Malaysia 238 Turkey 324
Côte d’Ivoire 154 Mali 240 Uganda 326
Croatia 156 Mauritania 242 Ukraine 328
Cyprus 158 Mauritius 244 United Arab Emirates 330
Czech Republic 160 Mexico 246 United Kingdom 332
Denmark 162 Moldova 248 United States 334
Dominican Republic 164 Mongolia 250 Uruguay 336
Ecuador 166 Morocco 252 Venezuela 338
Egypt 168 Mozambique 254 Vietnam 340
El Salvador 170 Namibia 256 Zambia 342
Estonia 172 Nepal 258 Zimbabwe 344
Ethiopia 174 Netherlands 260
Finland 176 New Zealand 262
France 178 Nicaragua 264
Gambia, The 180 Nigeria 266
Germany 182 Norway 268
Ghana 184 Oman 270
Greece 186 Pakistan 272
Guatemala 188 Panama 274
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 104
2.1: Country/Economy Profiles
Albania
Key indicators Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
80 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................13.0
FDI inflows
60 6
Trade
40 4
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ........................................–13.5 WTO accession year ..................................................................................2000
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ...........................................1,072.0 Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................63.4
Total exports (rank out of 121).....................................................................100 Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .............7.0; 5.4
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ............................................4,196.0 Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008 ............1.9
104 Main trading partners, 2007 Exports and imports by sector, 2007
Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent) Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)
Exports destination Imports origin 100
EU27 83.1 EU27 59.9 80

■ Manufactures
Serbia 6.7 Turkey 7.3 65.1 ■ Fuels and mining
60 71.7 products
Others 10.2 China 6.6
Switzerland 4.9 ■ Agricultural
40
Russian Federation 4.1 products
16.9
Others 17.2 20
19.5
17.9
0 7.3
Source: WTO
Exports Imports
Source: WTO
Enabling Trade Index Rank

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................63 3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................30 4.6
Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................30 4.6
Border administration.......................................................................................60 3.9
Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................60 3.6
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................64 4.7
Availability and use of ICTs................................................................................82 2.5
Business environment ......................................................................................83 3.9
Physical security .................................................................................................74 4.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 105
Albania

INDICATOR RANK/121 SCORE BEST PERFORMER SCORE
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ..................................48 .....■ .........3.6 Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Tariff barriers for agricultural products ...........................................7 .....■ .........6.3 Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
1.02 Non-tariff barriers .........................................................................15 .....■ .........5.5 Chad ...................................................0.0
Variance of tariffs ...........................................................................9 .....■ .........5.6 Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Domestic tariff peaks .....................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0 Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Specific tariffs.................................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0 Multiple economies ..........................0.0
1.04 Share of duty-free imports ...........................................................89 .....■ ..........29 Hong Kong SAR ................................100
1.05 Tariffs faced ................................................................................113 .....■ .........6.0 Chile ...................................................3.8
1.06 Margin of preference in target markets .......................................17 .....■ .......55.1 Nepal ................................................94.6

2.01 Burden of customs procedures....................................................93 .....■ .........3.1 Singapore ...........................................6.5
2.02 Customs services index ...............................................................45 .....■ .........7.2 United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3.01 Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance..................................106 .....■ .........2.0 Netherlands ........................................4.0
3.02 Time for import.............................................................................63 .....■ ..........22 Singapore ..............................................3
3.04 Cost to import ..............................................................................19 .....■ ........775 Singapore ..........................................439
3.05 Time for export .............................................................................70 .....■ ..........21 Multiple economies .............................5
3.06 Documents for export ..................................................................67 .....■ ............7 France ...................................................2

4.01 Irregular payments in exports and imports ..................................69 .....■ .........3.8 Sweden ..............................................6.6
105
5.01 Airport density ..............................................................................90 .....■ .........0.3 Norway .............................................10.6
5.03 Paved roads..................................................................................66 .....■ .......39.0 Multiple economies ......................100.0
5.04 Road congestion...........................................................................25 .....■ ..........15 Bangladesh............................................1
5.05 Quality of air transport infrastructure ...........................................69 .....■ .........4.4 Singapore ...........................................6.9
5.07 Quality of roads ..........................................................................104 .....■ .........2.4 France ................................................6.7
5.08 Quality of port infrastructure ......................................................112 .....■ .........2.4 Singapore ...........................................6.8

6.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index................................................95 .....■ .........2.0 China ..............................................137.4
6.02 Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................98 .....■ .........2.3 Netherlands ........................................4.1
6.03 Competence of the logistics industry ........................................108 .....■ .........2.0 Netherlands ........................................4.3
6.05 Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .......................119 .....■ .........2.1 Singapore ...........................................4.5
6.06 Postal service efficiency...............................................................71 .....■ .........4.2 Switzerland.........................................6.9
6.07 GATS commitments in the transport sector ..................................6 .....■ .......53.0 Moldova ...........................................60.6

7.01 Firm-level technology absorption ...............................................100 .....■ .........4.1 Japan ..................................................6.3
7.02 Mobile telephone subscribers ......................................................68 .....■ .......72.1 United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
7.04 Internet users ...............................................................................73 .....■ .......15.0 Norway .............................................85.0
7.05 Telephone lines ............................................................................83 .....■ .........9.0 Switzerland.......................................65.9

8.01 Property rights............................................................................115 .....■ .........2.9 Switzerland.........................................6.5
8.02 Ethics and corruption ...................................................................87 .....■ .........2.6 Singapore ...........................................6.5
8.03 Undue influence .........................................................................107 .....■ .........2.4 Denmark.............................................6.3
8.05 Domestic competition ................................................................111 .....■ .........3.6 Singapore ...........................................5.7
8.06 Openness to foreign participation ................................................83 .....■ .........4.6 Singapore ...........................................6.3
Ease of hiring foreign labor ............................................................2 .....■ .........6.0 United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Business impact of rules on FDI ................................................105 .....■ .........4.3 Ireland ................................................6.7
Capital controls.............................................................................93 .....■ .........3.9 Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9.01 Reliability of police services .........................................................71 .....■ .........4.0 Finland ................................................6.7
9.02 Business costs of crime and violence..........................................69 .....■ .........4.6 Syria ...................................................6.7
9.03 Business costs of terrorism .........................................................77 .....■ .........5.3 Finland ................................................6.8
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 106
Algeria
Population (millions), 2008 ...........................................34.4
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)...................2,381.7
80 4
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................159.7
FDI inflows
60 3
Trade
40 2
20 1
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ..........................................23.2 WTO accession year............................................................................Observer
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) .........................................60,163.2 Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................59.4
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................48 Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 ............—; 18.6
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ..........................................27,631.0 Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2007 ............3.1
Exports destination Imports origin 100 0.9
EU27 43.6 EU27 51.9 80

■ Manufactures
United States 30.1 China 8.6 74.9 ■ Fuels and mining
Canada 7.8 United States 7.7 60 products
98.9
Others 18.6 Others 31.7 ■ Agricultural
40
products
3.0
20
22.1
0 0.2
Source: WTO
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................112 3.2

Market access .................................................................................................118 2.8
Domestic and foreign market access............................................................118 2.8
Efficiency of customs administration.............................................................105 2.4
Availability and quality of transport services...............................................111 2.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 107
Algeria

1.01 Tariff barriers...............................................................................117 .....■ .......15.6 Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ................................117 .....■ .......14.4 Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Tariff barriers for agricultural products .........................................98 .....■ .......22.3 Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
1.02 Non-tariff barriers .........................................................................89 .....■ .......78.4 Chad ...................................................0.0
1.03 Complexity of tariffs .....................................................................26 .....■ .........6.7 Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Variance of tariffs .........................................................................52 .....■ .......10.1 Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Number of distinct tariffs ...............................................................4 .....■ ............4 Hong Kong SAR ....................................1

2.01 Burden of customs procedures..................................................115 .....■ .........2.6 Singapore ...........................................6.5

3.04 Cost to import ..............................................................................80 .....■ .....1,428 Singapore ..........................................439
3.07 Cost to export ..............................................................................75 .....■ .....1,248 Malaysia ............................................450

107
5.06 Quality of railroad infrastructure...................................................61 .....■ .........2.6 Switzerland.........................................6.8
5.07 Quality of roads ............................................................................69 .....■ .........3.3 France ................................................6.7
5.08 Quality of port infrastructure ........................................................93 .....■ .........3.1 Singapore ...........................................6.8

6.02 Ease and affordability of shipment.............................................115 .....■ .........2.0 Netherlands ........................................4.1
6.04 Ability and ease of tracking ..........................................................98 .....■ .........2.3 Singapore ...........................................4.3
6.05 Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .........................93 .....■ .........2.8 Singapore ...........................................4.5
6.06 Postal service efficiency.............................................................104 .....■ .........3.2 Switzerland.........................................6.9
6.07 GATS commitments in the transport sector ...............................n/a ..................n/a Moldova ...........................................60.6


8.03 Undue influence ...........................................................................70 .....■ .........3.2 Denmark.............................................6.3
8.06 Openness to foreign participation ..............................................118 .....■ .........3.5 Singapore ...........................................6.3
Ease of hiring foreign labor ........................................................112 .....■ .........3.7 United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Capital controls...........................................................................118 .....■ .........2.8 Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9.03 Business costs of terrorism .......................................................111 .....■ .........4.3 Finland ................................................6.8
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 108
Argentina
100 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................326.5
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ............8,214.1 80 8
FDI inflows
Trade
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................52 60 6
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................7.0 40 4
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ............................................1.4 WTO accession year ..................................................................................1995
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .......................................10,175.5 Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................3
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................45 Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .........31.9; 12.0
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .......................................10,521.7 Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.......................................0.0
Brazil 18.8 Brazil 32.8 80 30.8 ■ Manufactures

EU27 17.6 EU27 16.7 ■ Fuels and mining
China 9.3 United States 11.9 60 14.7 products
85.0
United States 7.8 China 11.4 ■ Agricultural
40
Chile 7.5 Others 27.2 products
51.5
Others 39.0 20
9.3
0 5.0
Source: WTO
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................97 3.5

Market access ...................................................................................................95 3.7
Business environment ....................................................................................111 3.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 109
Argentina

Tariff barriers for agricultural products .........................................44 .....■ .........9.9 Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Domestic tariff peaks ...................................................................54 .....■ .........1.5 Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Specific tariffs...............................................................................85 .....■ .........7.1 Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................84 .....■ ........700 Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
1.05 Tariffs faced ..................................................................................40 .....■ .........5.3 Chile ...................................................3.8


3.01 Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance....................................50 .....■ .........2.7 Netherlands ........................................4.0

4.01 Irregular payments in exports and imports ................................104 .....■ .........2.9 Sweden ..............................................6.6
109
5.04 Road congestion..........................................................................n/a ..................n/a Bangladesh............................................1
5.05 Quality of air transport infrastructure .........................................113 .....■ .........3.1 Singapore ...........................................6.9

6.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index................................................37 .....■ .......25.7 China ..............................................137.4
6.03 Competence of the logistics industry ..........................................39 .....■ .........3.0 Netherlands ........................................4.3
6.07 GATS commitments in the transport sector ................................68 .....■ .........0.0 Moldova ...........................................60.6

7.01 Firm-level technology absorption .................................................76 .....■ .........4.5 Japan ..................................................6.3
7.02 Mobile telephone subscribers ......................................................39 .....■ .....102.2 United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
7.05 Telephone lines ............................................................................49 .....■ .......24.0 Switzerland.......................................65.9

8.02 Ethics and corruption .................................................................115 .....■ .........1.8 Singapore ...........................................6.5
8.04 Government inefficiency ............................................................119 .....■ .........2.4 Singapore ...........................................6.1
Ease of hiring foreign labor ..........................................................45 .....■ .........5.0 United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Prevalence of foreign ownership .................................................89 .....■ .........4.7 Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7

9.01 Reliability of police services .......................................................117 .....■ .........2.3 Finland ................................................6.7
9.02 Business costs of crime and violence........................................100 .....■ .........3.7 Syria ...................................................6.7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 110
Armenia
120 12
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................11.9
10
FDI inflows
90
8
Trade
60 6
4
30
Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Commercial services exports (US$ millions) ............................................570.9 Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................8
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) ............................................772.0 Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.......................................3.5
Total imports (rank out of 121) ....................................................................103 Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008 ...............................0.0
EU27 50.0 EU27 33.2 80

■ Manufactures
Russian Federation 17.7 Russian Federation 15.8 54.0 ■ Fuels and mining
Georgia 6.2 Ukraine 8.2 60 54.9 products
Switzerland 4.4 Kazakhstan 7.9 ■ Agricultural
40
United States 4.4 China 6.3 products
24.9 17.7
Others 17.4 Others 28.6 20
17.0 16.9
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................64 3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................42 4.2
Transparency of border administration.........................................................106 2.7
Regulatory environment .....................................................................................91 3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 111
Armenia

Tariff barriers for agricultural products .......................................121 .....■ .......83.4 Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
1.02 Non-tariff barriers.........................................................................n/a ..................n/a Chad ...................................................0.0
Variance of tariffs .......................................................................119 .....■ .......59.4 Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................57 .....■ ..........32 Hong Kong SAR ....................................1


3.04 Cost to import ............................................................................101 .....■ .....1,981 Singapore ..........................................439
3.07 Cost to export ............................................................................100 .....■ .....1,746 Malaysia ............................................450

111
5.02 Transshipment connectivity index ...............................................n/a ..................n/a United Kingdom .............................100.0

6.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index ...............................................n/a ..................n/a China ..............................................137.4

7.03 Broadband Internet subscribers ..................................................n/a ..................n/a Denmark...........................................36.0
7.04 Internet users ...............................................................................97 .....■ .........5.7 Norway .............................................85.0
7.05 Telephone lines............................................................................n/a ..................n/a Switzerland.......................................65.9

8.01 Property rights..............................................................................70 .....■ .........4.0 Switzerland.........................................6.5
Business impact of rules on FDI ..................................................79 .....■ .........4.8 Ireland ................................................6.7

Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 112
Australia
80 6
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 .........................................1,010.7
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ..........47,400.4
FDI inflows
60 3
Trade
40 0
20 -3
0 -6
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ..........................................–4.2 WTO accession year ..................................................................................1995
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) .......................................141,358.4 Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................83.8
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................28 Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .............9.9; 3.5
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ........................................165,336.0 Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2007 ............3.9
Japan 19.0 EU27 21.9 80

■ Manufactures
18.5
China 14.0 China 15.5 ■ Fuels and mining
EU27 11.4 United States 12.9 60 products
75.8
Korea, Rep. 8.0 Japan 9.6 50.9 ■ Agricultural
40
United States 6.0 Singapore 5.6 products

14.4
15.8
0 5.7
Source: WTO
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................14 5.1

Market access ...................................................................................................97 3.7
Transparency of border administration.............................................................8 6.2
Availability and quality of transport services...................................................9 5.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 113
Australia

1.06 Margin of preference in target markets .....................................119 .....■ .........2.6 Nepal ................................................94.6


3.05 Time for export .............................................................................18 .....■ ............9 Multiple economies .............................5

4.01 Irregular payments in exports and imports ....................................9 .....■ .........6.2 Sweden ..............................................6.6
4.02 Corruption Perceptions Index.........................................................8 .....■ .........8.7 Multiple economies ..........................9.3
113
5.01 Airport density ................................................................................3 .....■ .........7.3 Norway .............................................10.6


7.03 Broadband Internet subscribers ...................................................16 .....■ .......23.3 Denmark...........................................36.0

8.01 Property rights................................................................................8 .....■ .........6.2 Switzerland.........................................6.5
8.03 Undue influence .............................................................................8 .....■ .........5.8 Denmark.............................................6.3
8.05 Domestic competition ....................................................................3 .....■ .........5.5 Singapore ...........................................5.7

Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 114
Austria
120 12
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................415.3
FDI inflows
90 9
Trade
60 6
30 3
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .......................................55,210.5 Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ................................................27
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .......................................38,908.6 Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.....................................41.9
EU27 72.3 EU27 74.5 80

■ Manufactures
United States 5.1 Switzerland 4.2 ■ Fuels and mining
Switzerland 4.4 China 4.0 60
84.6 76.3 products
40
products
20
14.5
6.0
8.9 8.7
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index................................................................................9 5.3

Market access ...................................................................................................84 3.8
Border administration.........................................................................................6 5.9
Efficiency of customs administration.................................................................3 6.0
Transport and communications infrastructure ..............................................6 5.6
Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .........................................9 5.2
Business environment ........................................................................................8 5.9
Physical security ...................................................................................................5 6.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 115
Austria

1.01 Tariff barriers...................................................................................3 .....■ .........1.1 Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ....................................5 .....■ .........0.5 Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Specific tariffs...............................................................................90 .....■ .......10.5 Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................92 .....■ .....1,491 Hong Kong SAR ....................................1

2.02 Customs services index .................................................................4 .....■ .......11.5 United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3.01 Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance......................................8 .....■ .........3.8 Netherlands ........................................4.0
3.02 Time for import.............................................................................11 .....■ ............8 Singapore ..............................................3
3.05 Time for export ...............................................................................8 .....■ ............7 Multiple economies .............................5
3.06 Documents for export ....................................................................5 .....■ ............4 France ...................................................2

115
5.03 Paved roads....................................................................................1 .....■ .....100.0 Multiple economies ......................100.0
5.07 Quality of roads ..............................................................................6 .....■ .........6.4 France ................................................6.7

6.02 Ease and affordability of shipment.................................................3 .....■ .........4.0 Netherlands ........................................4.1
6.03 Competence of the logistics industry ............................................4 .....■ .........4.1 Netherlands ........................................4.3
6.05 Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination ...........................3 .....■ .........4.4 Singapore ...........................................4.5
6.07 GATS commitments in the transport sector ................................11 .....■ .......47.9 Moldova ...........................................60.6

7.01 Firm-level technology absorption ...................................................6 .....■ .........6.2 Japan ..................................................6.3

8.05 Domestic competition ..................................................................10 .....■ .........5.3 Singapore ...........................................5.7

9.02 Business costs of crime and violence............................................9 .....■ .........6.3 Syria ...................................................6.7
9.03 Business costs of terrorism ...........................................................7 .....■ .........6.6 Finland ................................................6.8
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 116
Azerbaijan
120 60
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................46.4
FDI inflows
90 40
Trade
60 20
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ................................11.6
30 0
0 -20
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ..........................................35.5 WTO accession year............................................................................Observer
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) .........................................21,269.3 Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009...........................73
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................63 Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 ..............—; 9.2

EU27 27.6 EU27 29.3 80
■ Manufactures
Turkey 17.4 Russian Federation 17.6 ■ Fuels and mining
77.6
Russian Federation 8.7 Turkey 10.9 60 products
90.5
Iran, Islamic Rep. 7.2 Ukraine 8.2 ■ Agricultural
40
Indonesia 6.4 Japan 5.2 products
Others 32.6 Others 28.9 20 4.5

14.43
16.8
5.2
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................70 3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................52 4.1
Border administration.....................................................................................103 2.9
Efficiency of import-export procedures ........................................................118 1.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 117
Azerbaijan

Variance of tariffs .........................................................................45 .....■ .........9.4 Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0


3.02 Time for import...........................................................................112 .....■ ..........56 Singapore ..............................................3
3.03 Documents for import ................................................................120 .....■ ..........14 France ...................................................2
3.05 Time for export ...........................................................................112 .....■ ..........48 Multiple economies .............................5

4.02 Corruption Perceptions Index.....................................................114 .....■ .........1.9 Multiple economies ..........................9.3
117




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 118
Bahrain
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)..........................0.7
200 40
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................21.2
FDI inflows
150
30
Trade
100
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................6.1 20
50 10
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ..........................................10.6 WTO accession year ..................................................................................1995
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................67 Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 ...........34.4; 5.0

9.8
Saudi Arabia 5.3 EU27 11.4 80 35.2 ■ Manufactures
Others 94.7 Australia 6.3 ■ Fuels and mining
Japan 5.2 60 products
89.7
Saudi Arabia 4.8 ■ Agricultural
40 59.1
China 4.2 products
Others 68.1 20
0.5 5.6
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................24 4.8

Market access ...................................................................................................26 4.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 119
Bahrain

1.02 Non-tariff barriers ...........................................................................8 .....■ .........2.1 Chad ...................................................0.0



119
5.06 Quality of railroad infrastructure ..................................................n/a ..................n/a Switzerland.........................................6.8


7.02 Mobile telephone subscribers ........................................................6 .....■ .....148.3 United Arab Emirates .....................176.5

Business impact of rules on FDI ....................................................6 .....■ .........6.1 Ireland ................................................6.7
Capital controls...............................................................................9 .....■ .........6.1 Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 120
Bangladesh
Population (millions), 2008 .........................................161.3
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)......................144.0
80 2.0
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................81.9
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ...............506.1
FDI inflows
60 1.5
Trade
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008.........................112
40 1.0
20 0.5
0 0.0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................71 Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .......169.2; 14.6
EU27 49.3 China 16.4 80 56.0 ■ Manufactures

United States 26.7 India 12.0 ■ Fuels and mining
China 6.6 EU27 11.0 60 products
93.0
Others 17.3 Kuwait 9.3 ■ Agricultural
40
Japan 5.7 13.1 products
Others 45.7 20
1.1 24.7
5.7
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................111 3.2

Market access ...................................................................................................57 4.0
Transport and communications infrastructure ..........................................108 2.5
Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .....................................102 2.8
Availability and use of ICTs..............................................................................102 1.9
Physical security ...............................................................................................104 3.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 121
Bangladesh

1.04 Share of duty-free imports .........................................................114 .....■ ............3 Hong Kong SAR ................................100
1.05 Tariffs faced ....................................................................................9 .....■ .........4.8 Chile ...................................................3.8



121
5.01 Airport density ............................................................................120 .....■ .........0.1 Norway .............................................10.6
5.03 Paved roads................................................................................109 .....■ .........9.5 Multiple economies ......................100.0
5.04 Road congestion.............................................................................1 .....■ ............1 Bangladesh............................................1


7.02 Mobile telephone subscribers ....................................................105 .....■ .......21.7 United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
7.04 Internet users .............................................................................121 .....■ .........0.3 Norway .............................................85.0
7.05 Telephone lines ..........................................................................109 .....■ .........0.7 Switzerland.......................................65.9


Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 122
Belgium
200 20
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................506.4
FDI inflows
150 15
Trade
100 10
50 5
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Total exports (rank out of 121).........................................................................9 Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .............5.4; 5.2
EU27 76.7 EU27 71.3 80

■ Manufactures
United States 5.6 United States 5.3 ■ Fuels and mining
60 73.9 products
Others 17.7 China 4.1
79.4
Others 19.3 ■ Agricultural
40
products
20 16.9
10.7
9.5 9.1
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................21 4.9

Market access ...................................................................................................80 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 123
Belgium




123
5.02 Transshipment connectivity index ..................................................3 .....■ .......96.3 United Kingdom .............................100.0
5.06 Quality of railroad infrastructure.....................................................8 .....■ .........5.7 Switzerland.........................................6.8
5.08 Quality of port infrastructure ..........................................................7 .....■ .........6.3 Singapore ...........................................6.8

6.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index..................................................8 .....■ .......78.0 China ..............................................137.4



Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 124
Benin
80 4
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................6.9
FDI inflows
70 3
Trade
60 2
50 1
40 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ..............................................875.0 Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009...........................52
Total exports (rank out of 121).....................................................................112 Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .........28.3; 11.9
China 36.2 EU27 38.5 80

■ Manufactures
44.1
EU27 10.1 China 8.8 ■ Fuels and mining
India 6.9 Ghana 7.2 60 products
Nigeria 5.8 Côte d’Ivoire 6.9 6.2 0.6 21.4 ■ Agricultural
40
Niger 5.3 Thailand 6.7 products
Others 35.9 Others 32.0 20 34.2

41.7
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................96 3.5

Market access ...................................................................................................47 4.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 125
Benin

1.04 Share of duty-free imports .........................................................103 .....■ ..........12 Hong Kong SAR ................................100

2.02 Customs services index .............................................................108 .....■ .........2.5 United Kingdom ...............................12.0


125




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 126
Bolivia
80 16
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................17.4
FDI inflows
60 11
Trade
40 6
20 1
0 -4
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ............................................3,457.0 Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008..........–1.3

7.3
Brazil 36.7 Brazil 20.2 80
■ Manufactures
Argentina 8.7 Argentina 16.9 ■ Fuels and mining
79.2
United States 8.6 United States 11.7 60 75.0 products
Japan 8.5 Japan 9.4 ■ Agricultural
40
EU27 7.9 EU27 9.1 products

17.6 11.8
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................88 3.6

Market access ...................................................................................................11 5.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 127
Bolivia




127




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 128

150 20
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................18.5
FDI inflows
120 15
Trade
90 10
60 5
30 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ........................................–15.0 WTO accession year............................................................................Observer
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) ............................................550.3 Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.....................................34.0
EU27 57.3 EU27 47.9 80

■ Manufactures
Croatia 18.4 Croatia 17.6 60.0 63.6 ■ Fuels and mining
Serbia 13.7 Serbia 10.2 60 products
Others 10.6 Turkey 5.8 ■ Agricultural
40
China 4.3 products
25.4 18.3
Others 14.2 20
13.5 17.0
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................102 3.4

Market access .................................................................................................107 3.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 129




129




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 130
Brazil
80 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 .........................................1,572.8
FDI inflows
60 6
Trade
40 4
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 25.2 EU27 22.2 80

■ Manufactures
United States 15.8 United States 15.7 47.2 70.6 ■ Fuels and mining
Argentina 9.0 China 10.5 60 products
China 6.7 Argentina 8.6 20.0
■ Agricultural
40
Others 43.4 Nigeria 4.4 products
Others 38.7 20 23.3

30.0
0 6.0
Source: WTO
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................87 3.6

Market access .................................................................................................100 3.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 131
Brazil




131




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 132
Bulgaria
160 32
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................52.0
FDI inflows
120 24
Trade
80 16
40 8
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .........................................6,333.0 Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ................................................27
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .........................................4,812.3 Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2005.....................................30.3
EU27 60.8 EU27 58.5 80

■ Manufactures
Turkey 11.4 Russian Federation 12.5 56.0 63.4 ■ Fuels and mining
Serbia 4.7 Ukraine 7.2 60 products
Others 23.1 Turkey 6.8 ■ Agricultural
40
Others 15.1 products
32.6
20 28.7
10.4 7.0
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................72 3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................55 4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 133
Bulgaria




133




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 134
Burkina Faso
70 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................8.1
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ...............577.0 60 8
FDI inflows
Trade
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008.........................110 50 6
30 2
20 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ..............................................623.0 Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................48.5
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) ..............................................69.7 Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................2
Ghana 60.9 EU27 29.7 80

■ Manufactures
6.5
EU27 15.4 Côte d’Ivoire 17.9 2.7
62.0 ■ Fuels and mining
Côte d’Ivoire 3.8 Japan 13.1 60 products
Niger 2.9 United States 7.1 ■ Agricultural
40 72.4
Others 17.0 South Africa 4.9 products
32.6 25.0
Others 27.4 20
12.5
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................104 3.4

Market access ...................................................................................................46 4.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 135
Burkina Faso



3.06 Documents for export ................................................................114 .....■ ..........11 France ...................................................2

135


7.03 Broadband Internet subscribers .................................................103 .....■ .........0.0 Denmark...........................................36.0


Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 136
Burundi
75 2.0
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................1.1
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ...............138.0 60 1.5
FDI inflows
Trade
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008.........................120 45 1.0
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................4.5 30 0.5
15 0.0
0 -0.5
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ................................................53.0 Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009...........................34
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) ................................................6.6 Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................1
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ...............................................319.1 Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008 ..........10.2

15.8
UAE 34.2 Saudi Arabia 27.4 80 6.7 ■ Manufactures
EU27 12.9 EU27 21.9 67.0 ■ Fuels and mining
Switzerland 10.9 Uganda 10.7 60 products
Congo, Dem. Rep. 9.4 Kenya 7.9 ■ Agricultural
40 77.5
Kenya 7.2 Japan 7.0 products
5.5
23.4
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................116 3.0

Market access ...................................................................................................68 3.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 137
Burundi

1.01 Tariff barriers.................................................................................99 .....■ .......11.6 Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0

2.02 Customs services index ..............................................................n/a ..................n/a United Kingdom ...............................12.0


137
5.03 Paved roads................................................................................105 .....■ .......10.4 Multiple economies ......................100.0


7.02 Mobile telephone subscribers ....................................................119 .....■ .........2.9 United Arab Emirates .....................176.5


Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 138
Cambodia
150 12
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................11.2
10
FDI inflows
120
8
Trade
90 6
4
60
Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank 2
30 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

United States 46.9 Hong Kong SAR 19.9 80

■ Manufactures
Hong Kong SAR 22.0 China 16.5 ■ Fuels and mining
EU27 21.2 Taiwan, China 11.8 60 products
97.4
Others 9.9 Thailand 11.2 48.1 ■ Agricultural
40
Vietnam 8.2 products
Others 32.5 20
11.4
0 2.6 5.2
Source: WTO
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................91 3.5

Market access ...................................................................................................27 4.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 139
Cambodia




139




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 140
Cameroon
80 7
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................23.2
FDI inflows
60 5
Trade
40 3
20 1
0 -1
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


EU27 74.3 EU27 35.0 80
■ Manufactures
48.3
United States 6.4 Nigeria 23.3 ■ Fuels and mining
65.3
Others 19.4 China 6.3 60 products
40
31.5 products
20 30.5
19.6
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................106 3.4

Market access ...................................................................................................83 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 141
Cameroon




141




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 142
Canada
100 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 .........................................1,511.0
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ..........45,428.2 8
FDI inflows
80
Trade
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................17 6
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................0.5 4
60
2
40 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

United States 79.0 United States 54.2 80

■ Manufactures
Others 13.3 China 9.4 60 77.3 products
Mexico 4.2 ■ Agricultural
40
29.5
20
12.5
11.6 7.2
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index................................................................................6 5.3

Market access ...................................................................................................13 5.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 143
Canada

1.04 Share of duty-free imports .............................................................7 .....■ ..........89 Hong Kong SAR ................................100

2.02 Customs services index ...............................................................12 .....■ .......10.3 United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3.03 Documents for import ....................................................................5 .....■ ............4 France ...................................................2

143


7.03 Broadband Internet subscribers .....................................................8 .....■ .......27.6 Denmark...........................................36.0
7.04 Internet users .................................................................................9 .....■ .......73.0 Norway .............................................85.0
7.05 Telephone lines ..............................................................................7 .....■ .......55.5 Switzerland.......................................65.9


9.01 Reliability of police services ...........................................................8 .....■ .........6.3 Finland ................................................6.7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 144
Chad
150 50
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................8.4
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ...............862.3 40
FDI inflows
120
Trade
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008.........................102 30
90
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ................................–0.4 20
60
10
30 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

United States 80.6 France 22.2 80

■ Manufactures
China 10.4 United States 14.9 ■ Fuels and mining
Others 9.0 Germany 8.7 60 81.1 products
96.1
Cameroon 7.1 ■ Agricultural
40
India 6.9 products
Others 40.1 20
0.9
3.1 13.4
Source: ITC 0
Exports Imports
Source: ITC

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................121 2.8

Market access ...................................................................................................50 4.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 145
Chad



3.02 Time for import...........................................................................120 .....■ ........102 Singapore ..............................................3

145




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 146
Chile
100 12
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................169.6
FDI inflows
80 9
Trade
60 6
40 3
20 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


9.8
EU27 24.5 United States 17.0 80
■ Manufactures
China 15.2 EU27 14.0 ■ Fuels and mining
56.0
United States 12.8 China 11.4 60 products
63.6
Japan 10.8 Brazil 10.5 ■ Agricultural
40
Korea, Rep. 5.9 Argentina 10.1 products
Others 30.8 Others 37.0 20 27.3

20.0
7.3
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................19 5.0

Market access .....................................................................................................3 5.6
Domestic and foreign market access................................................................3 5.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 147
Chile


2.01 Burden of customs procedures......................................................7 .....■ .........5.6 Singapore ...........................................6.5


147




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 148
China
Population (millions), 2008 ......................................1,336.3
80 5
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 .........................................4,401.6
FDI inflows
Trade
40 1
30 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ....................................1,218,635.0 Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009...........................88
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .....................................121,653.7 Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................7
Total exports (rank out of 121).........................................................................3 Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 ...........10.0; 9.9
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .....................................129,254.4 Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.......................................7.8
Total imports (rank out of 121) ........................................................................3 Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008 ...............................1.3
EU27 20.1 Japan 14.0 80

■ Manufactures
United States 19.1 EU27 11.6 ■ Fuels and mining
70.9
Hong Kong SAR 15.1 Korea, Rep. 10.9 60 products
93.2
Japan 8.4 Taiwan, China 10.6 ■ Agricultural
40
Korea, Rep. 4.6 China 9.0 products
Others 32.6 Others 44.0 20 22.0

3.4
3.2 6.8
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................49 4.2

Market access .................................................................................................103 3.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 149
China



3.04 Cost to import ................................................................................3 .....■ ........545 Singapore ..........................................439
3.07 Cost to export ................................................................................3 .....■ ........460 Malaysia ............................................450

149

6.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index..................................................1 .....■ .....137.4 China ..............................................137.4



Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 150
Colombia
100 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................240.7
FDI inflows
Trade
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


■ Manufactures
39.2
Venezuela 17.4 EU27 12.4 ■ Fuels and mining
EU27 15.2 China 10.1 60 82.1 products
Ecuador 4.3 Mexico 9.3 ■ Agricultural
40 38.6
Others 27.8 Brazil 7.3 products
Others 34.6 20
6.0
19.5
10.5
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................84 3.6

Market access ...................................................................................................48 4.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 151
Colombia




151




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 152
Costa Rica
120 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................29.8
FDI inflows
100 6
Trade
80 4
60 2
40 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


■ Manufactures
60 74.2 products
China 9.4 China 5.9
Hong Kong SAR 6.3 Mexico 5.8 ■ Agricultural
40
Others 32.3 Japan 5.7 2.0 products
Others 33.0 20 16.3

33.0
9.5
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................43 4.4

Market access .....................................................................................................5 5.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 153
Costa Rica




153




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 154
Côte d’Ivoire
100 4
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................23.5
FDI inflows
80 3
Trade
60 2
40 1
20 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 49.9 EU27 36.1 80

13.4 ■ Manufactures
46.2
Nigeria 8.0 Nigeria 24.1 ■ Fuels and mining
60 31.3 products
United States 6.8 China 6.6
Burkina Faso 4.2 Others 33.3 ■ Agricultural
40 34.3
45.9
20
19.5
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................120 2.8

Market access .................................................................................................119 2.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 155
Côte d’Ivoire

Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ..................................97 .....■ .......10.0 Multiple economies ..........................0.0



155




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 156
Croatia
100 12
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................69.3
FDI inflows
80 9
Trade
60 6
40 3
20 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 60.3 EU27 64.8 80

■ Manufactures
Bosnia & Herzegovina 14.4 Russian Federation 10.1 68.1 ■ Fuels and mining
73.0
Serbia 5.4 China 6.2 60 products
40
products
20 17.5
17.8
14.0 9.1
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................39 4.4

Market access ...................................................................................................28 4.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 157
Croatia

Domestic tariff peaks .................................................................116 .....■ .......13.0 Multiple economies ..........................0.0



157




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 158
Cyprus
150 12
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................24.9
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ..........32,772.1 120 10
FDI inflows
Trade
30 4
0 2
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 56.0 EU27 68.3 80

■ Manufactures
Others 44.0 Israel 6.4 53.9
China 5.3 60 products
40
24.2 products
20 18.4
21.2 13.6
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................32 4.6

Market access ...................................................................................................74 3.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 159
Cyprus



3.02 Time for import ............................................................................n/a ..................n/a Singapore ..............................................3
3.03 Documents for import .................................................................n/a ..................n/a France ...................................................2
3.04 Cost to import .............................................................................n/a ..................n/a Singapore ..........................................439
3.05 Time for export ............................................................................n/a ..................n/a Multiple economies .............................5
3.06 Documents for export .................................................................n/a ..................n/a France ...................................................2
3.07 Cost to export..............................................................................n/a ..................n/a Malaysia ............................................450

159




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 160
Czech Republic
180 12
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................217.1
150 10
FDI inflows
120 8
Trade
90 6
60 4
Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank 30 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 85.0 EU27 70.7 80

■ Manufactures
Others 15.0 China 7.9 ■ Fuels and mining
Russian Federation 4.8 60 81.1 products
89.6
40
products
20
12.1
4.6
5.2 6.5
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................36 4.4

Market access ...................................................................................................94 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 161
Czech Republic




161




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 162
Denmark
120 25
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................342.9
100 20
FDI inflows
80 15
Trade
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008.............................5
60 10
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ................................–1.1
40 5
0 -5
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 68.8 EU27 73.6 80

■ Manufactures
United States 6.3 China 5.6 ■ Fuels and mining
65.1
Norway 6.0 Norway 4.2 60 77.0 products
40
products
11.8
20 7.2
20.4 14.4
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index................................................................................4 5.4

Market access ...................................................................................................86 3.8
Efficiency of import-export procedures ............................................................2 6.3
Availability and use of ICTs..................................................................................4 6.1
Regulatory environment .......................................................................................2 5.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 163
Denmark



3.02 Time for import...............................................................................2 .....■ ............5 Singapore ..............................................3

163
5.05 Quality of air transport infrastructure .............................................7 .....■ .........6.4 Singapore ...........................................6.9



8.02 Ethics and corruption .....................................................................2 .....■ .........6.4 Singapore ...........................................6.5
8.04 Government inefficiency ................................................................4 .....■ .........5.2 Singapore ...........................................6.1
8.06 Openness to foreign participation ..................................................9 .....■ .........5.8 Singapore ...........................................6.3

Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 164
Dominican Republic
120 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................45.6
FDI inflows
90 6
Trade
60 4
30 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

United States 40.2 United States 44.8 100 ■ Manufactures

EU27 18.8 Venezuela 13.4 80 ■ Fuels and mining
Haiti 8.8 EU27 10.9 63.6 products
60 85.5
Others 32.1 Mexico 6.7 ■ Agricultural
Others 24.3 40 products
20 24.1
5.4
9.0 12.3
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................81 3.6

Market access ...................................................................................................69 3.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 165
Dominican Republic




165




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 166
Ecuador
80 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................52.6
FDI inflows
60 6
Trade
40 4
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


7.8
■ Manufactures
EU27 12.7 Colombia 11.0 ■ Fuels and mining
60.9 67.2
Peru 10.8 Venezuela 9.7 60 products
Chile 4.8 EU27 9.2 ■ Agricultural
40
Colombia 4.7 China 8.3 products
Others 23.6 Others 41.2 20 22.2

30.8
9.5
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................103 3.4

Market access ...................................................................................................36 4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 167
Ecuador




167




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 168
Egypt
80 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................162.2
FDI inflows
Trade
40 2
30 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ..........................................37,100.0 Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2007 ..........22.9
EU27 29.1 EU27 23.0 80

India 11.3 United States 9.5 52.8 ■ Fuels and mining
United States 5.8 Saudi Arabia 8.3 60 products
Others 53.9 China 6.0 ■ Agricultural
40 54.6
Russian Federation 4.6 18.2 products
Others 48.6 20
23.1
9.4
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................75 3.7

Market access .................................................................................................117 3.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 169
Egypt

Variance of tariffs .......................................................................120 .....■ .....143.0 Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0



169




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 170
El Salvador
100 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................22.1
FDI inflows
Trade
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Guatemala 24.3 United States 31.0 80

■ Manufactures
United States 19.9 Mexico 11.3 67.1 ■ Fuels and mining
60 75.2 products
Honduras 15.9 Guatemala 9.7
EU27 9.5 EU27 7.4 ■ Agricultural
40
Nicaragua 8.8 Others 40.7 products
4.8 16.8
Others 21.6 20
19.6 15.9
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................56 4.0

Market access .....................................................................................................1 5.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 171
El Salvador

1.06 Margin of preference in target markets .........................................6 .....■ .......78.1 Nepal ................................................94.6



171




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 172
Estonia
250 25
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................23.2
FDI inflows
Trade
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ................................–3.6 100 10
50 5
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 69.9 EU27 78.5 80

■ Manufactures
Russian Federation 8.9 Russian Federation 10.2 ■ Fuels and mining
68.4 72.1
United States 4.1 Others 11.4 60 products
40
products
15.7 15.1
20
15.6 12.5
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................22 4.8

Market access ...................................................................................................71 3.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 173
Estonia




173




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 174
Ethiopia
80 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................25.7
FDI inflows
60 6
Trade
40 4
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ................................11.6
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ..........................................–5.8 WTO accession year............................................................................Observer
Total exports (rank out of 121).....................................................................101 Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 ............—; 16.8

13.3
EU27 34.6 EU27 22.3 80 2.9 ■ Manufactures
75.6
Saudi Arabia 7.0 Saudi Arabia 11.4 60 products
Japan 6.1 India 7.4 80.5
■ Agricultural
40
Somalia 5.7 Japan 7.4 products

15.9
8.5
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................95 3.5

Market access ...................................................................................................91 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 175
Ethiopia




175




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 176
Finland
100 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................274.0
FDI inflows
Trade
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 56.7 EU27 55.5 80

■ Manufactures
United States 6.4 China 7.5 60
78.1 products
40
products
20 23.4
10.2
7.1 7.9
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index................................................................................8 5.3

Market access ...................................................................................................78 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 177
Finland




177

6.04 Ability and ease of tracking ............................................................2 .....■ .........4.2 Singapore ...........................................4.3
6.06 Postal service efficiency.................................................................3 .....■ .........6.7 Switzerland.........................................6.9


Prevalence of foreign ownership ...................................................8 .....■ .........6.1 Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7

Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 178
France
80 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 .........................................2,865.7
FDI inflows
60 6
Trade
40 4
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .....................................144,679.9 Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ................................................27
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .....................................129,464.0 Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.....................................41.9
EU27 65.5 EU27 62.1 80

■ Manufactures
73.9
Others 28.2 United States 5.8 60 79.3 products
40
products
20 16.4
6.6
11.8 9.0
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................17 5.0

Market access ...................................................................................................89 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 179
France




179




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 180
Gambia, The
125 15
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................0.8
FDI inflows
Trade
25 3
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ................................................12.5 Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................42.8
Total exports (rank out of 121).....................................................................118 Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .......102.0; 19.0
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ...............................................320.9 Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008 ............0.1
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) ..............................................76.8 Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.......................................0.0

14.1
EU27 60.1 EU27 46.3 80
48.7
Senegal 25.2 United States 13.0 ■ Fuels and mining
Mauritania 7.5 China 10.6 60 products
Others 7.2 Côte d’Ivoire 6.7 85.0 18.0 ■ Agricultural
40
20
6.6 33.4
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................67 3.8

Market access .................................................................................................108 3.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 181
Gambia, The




181




Part 2 6/23/09 11:14 AM Page 182
Germany
140 12
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 .........................................3,667.5
120 10
FDI inflows
100 8
Trade
40 2
0 -2
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ....................................1,322,189.3 Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................79.7
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) .....................................1,055,849.3 Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008 ............1.0
EU27 64.7 EU27 59.5 80

■ Manufactures
73.2
Others 27.7 United States 5.9 60
86.5
products
40
products
20 16.4
5.7
5.5 8.9
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................12 5.2

Market access ...................................................................................................90 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/23/09 11:14 AM Page 183
Germany




183
5.04 Road congestion...........................................................................87 .....■ ........208 Bangladesh............................................1




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 184
Ghana
120 6
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................16.1
100 5
FDI inflows
80 4
Trade
60 3
40 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

South Africa 37.1 EU27 32.6 80

■ Manufactures
Switzerland 5.9 United States 7.6 60 20.7 products
57.3
Burkina Faso 4.6 Nigeria 6.9 2.5 ■ Agricultural
40
Others 21.2 India 4.4 products
Others 37.4 20 43.6 12.5

12.0
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................86 3.6

Market access ...................................................................................................67 3.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 185
Ghana




185
5.04 Road congestion...........................................................................13 .....■ ............9 Bangladesh............................................1




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 186
Greece
80 2.0
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................357.5
FDI inflows
60 1.5
Trade
40 1.0
20 0.5
0 0.0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 64.9 EU27 57.7 80

■ Manufactures
United States 4.2 Russian Federation 5.6 51.6 ■ Fuels and mining
67.6
Others 30.9 China 5.0 60 products
40
23.6 products
20 19.4
21.4
12.2
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................47 4.3

Market access ...................................................................................................59 4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 187
Greece




187




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 188
Guatemala
80 4
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................39.0
FDI inflows
60 3
Trade
40 2
20 1
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


■ Manufactures
49.5
El Salvador 12.2 Mexico 8.8 ■ Fuels and mining
60 63.6 products
Honduras 8.6 EU27 7.6
Mexico 6.7 China 5.7 9.0 ■ Agricultural
40
EU27 5.4 El Salvador 4.8 products
20 41.1 18.3
Others 24.6 Others 38.9
11.6
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................58 4.0

Market access .....................................................................................................8 5.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 189
Guatemala




189




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 190
Guyana
250 15
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................1.1
FDI inflows
Trade
50 3
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 29.7 United States 25.1 80

■ Manufactures
Canada 21.6 Trinidad and Tobago 25.1 12.9
60 8.2 products
United States 14.4 EU27 11.3
Barbados 5.9 China 8.5 ■ Agricultural
40
Trinidad and Tobago 5.2 Others 30.0 products
58.5
27.2
Others 23.2 20
12.8
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................115 3.1

Market access .................................................................................................114 3.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 191
Guyana




191


7.02 Mobile telephone subscribers .....................................................n/a ..................n/a United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
7.05 Telephone lines............................................................................n/a ..................n/a Switzerland.......................................65.9


Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 192
Honduras
150 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................14.1
FDI inflows
Trade
30 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


■ Manufactures
EU27 20.3 Guatemala 8.3 ■ Fuels and mining
Guatemala 9.2 EU27 6.6 60 60.0 66.5 products
El Salvador 8.1 Mexico 6.0 ■ Agricultural
40
Mexico 4.4 El Salvador 4.4 products
5.5
Others 15.2 Others 34.7 20 15.8
23.2
11.9
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................66 3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................16 4.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 193
Honduras




193




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 194
Hong Kong SAR

500 50
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................215.6
FDI inflows
Trade
100 10
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) .......................................349,386.0 Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009 .........................n/a
China 48.3 China 46.1 80

■ Manufactures
EU27 13.6 Japan 10.1 ■ Fuels and mining
United States 13.5 Taiwan, China 7.2 60 products
94.8 90.1
Japan 4.4 EU27 7.1 ■ Agricultural
40
Others 20.2 Singapore 6.9 products
Others 22.7 20
2.2 1.6 5.5 3.6
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index................................................................................2 5.6

Market access ...................................................................................................20 4.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 195
Hong Kong SAR

1.04 Share of duty-free imports .............................................................1 .....■ ........100 Hong Kong SAR ................................100



195

6.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index..................................................2 .....■ .....108.8 China ..............................................137.4



Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 196
Hungary
200 12
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................156.3
FDI inflows
150 9
Trade
100 6
50 3
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 79.2 EU27 69.9 80

■ Manufactures
Others 20.8 Russian Federation 6.9 ■ Fuels and mining
China 5.4 60 81.3 products
86.4
40
products
20
4.5 12.3
7.2 5.3
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................38 4.4

Market access ...................................................................................................81 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 197
Hungary




197




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 198
India
Population (millions), 2008 ......................................1,186.2
100 2.5
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 .........................................1,209.7
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ............1,016.2 80 2.0
FDI inflows
Trade
20 0.5
0 0.0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ........................................216,759.0 Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008..........–7.2
EU27 21.7 EU27 14.8 80

■ Manufactures
UAE 9.9 Saudi Arabia 7.6 60 46.3 products
China 6.5 United States 6.5 ■ Agricultural
40
Singapore 4.4 UAE 5.4 products
24.3 40.2
11.0 4.4
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................76 3.7

Market access .................................................................................................116 3.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 199
India

1.06 Margin of preference in target markets .....................................110 .....■ .......10.0 Nepal ................................................94.6



199




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 200
Indonesia
100 4
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................511.8
FDI inflows
75 2
Trade
50 0
25 –2
0 –4
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
Source: IMF; WDI; UNCTAD

Commercial services exports (US$ millions)................................................n/a Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................4
Total exports (rank out of 121) .....................................................................n/a Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 ...........37.1; 6.9
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) ...............................................n/a Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2007.......................................6.6
Total imports (rank out of 121) .....................................................................n/a Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2007 ...............................2.1
Japan 20.7 Singapore 13.2 80

■ Manufactures
41.2
EU27 11.7 China 11.5 61.7 ■ Fuels and mining
United States 10.2 EU27 10.3 60 products
Singapore 9.2 Japan 8.8 ■ Agricultural
40 35.0
China 8.5 Malaysia 8.6 products
26.9
19.9
11.3
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................62 3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................53 4.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 201
Indonesia




201




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 202
Ireland
250 30
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................273.3
FDI inflows
Trade
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008.............................6 150 10
50 –10
0 –20
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 63.4 EU27 60.9 80

■ Manufactures
Others 18.8 China 7.6 60 84.4 73.7 products
40
products
20
9.5
2.3
10.2 10.3
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................15 5.0

Market access ...................................................................................................96 3.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 203
Ireland




203




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 204
Israel
100 12
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................201.8
FDI inflows
75 9
Trade
50 6
25 3
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ..........................................59,038.6 Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008..........–7.0
United States 35.0 EU27 36.5 80

■ Manufactures
EU27 29.6 United States 13.9 ■ Fuels and mining
Hong Kong SAR 5.8 China 6.1 60 71.2 products
93.7
Others 29.7 Switzerland 5.1 ■ Agricultural
40
20
17.2
1.9 4.2 6.7
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................29 4.7

Market access ...................................................................................................35 4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 205
Israel




205




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 206
Italy
80 4
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 .........................................2,313.9
FDI inflows
60 3
Trade
40 2
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ................................–1.0
20 1
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 60.5 EU27 57.0 80

■ Manufactures
Others 32.9 Others 37.2 60 85.6 products
■ Agricultural
40
products
20 22.1
6.1
7.1 10.8
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................45 4.3

Market access ...................................................................................................66 3.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 207
Italy




207




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 208
Jamaica
150 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................14.4
FDI inflows
Trade
30 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ...........................................2,169.1 Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009...........................46
United States 37.2 United States 40.4 100 8.5

■ Manufactures
EU27 26.8 Trinidad and Tobago 15.7 80 ■ Fuels and mining
Canada 15.0 Venezuela 9.0 56.1 products
60
Others 21.0 EU27 6.7 73.9 ■ Agricultural
Brazil 4.5 40 products
28.4
Others 23.7 20
17.6 15.6
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................79 3.7

Market access ...................................................................................................85 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 209
Jamaica




209




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 210
Japan
80 0.8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 .........................................4,923.8
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ..........38,559.1 60 0.6
FDI inflows
Trade
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................22 40 0.4
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ................................–0.6 20 0.2
0 0.0
-20 -0.2
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) .......................................714,327.0 Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009...........................71
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .....................................127,059.9 Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................8

■ Manufactures
China 15.3 United States 11.6 50.6
■ Fuels and mining
EU27 14.8 EU27 10.5 60 products
89.9
Korea, Rep. 7.6 Saudi Arabia 5.7 ■ Agricultural
40
Taiwan, China 6.3 UAE 5.2 products
36.6
3.7 1.1 11.1
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................23 4.8

Market access .................................................................................................115 3.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 211
Japan




211




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 212
Jordan
250 25
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................20.0
FDI inflows
Trade
50 5
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


■ Manufactures
Iraq 12.7 Saudi Arabia 21.0 57.4 ■ Fuels and mining
India 8.3 China 9.7 60 78.9 products
Saudi Arabia 7.2 United States 4.7 ■ Agricultural
40
UAE 6.8 Egypt 4.4 products
24.4
13.4 16.3
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................37 4.4

Market access ...................................................................................................61 4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 213
Jordan




213




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 214
Kazakhstan
140 14
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................132.2
120 12
FDI inflows
100 10
Trade
40 4
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ............................................5.3 WTO accession year............................................................................Observer

12.8
EU27 40.7 Russian Federation 35.5 80
■ Manufactures
Switzerland 15.7 EU27 24.6 ■ Fuels and mining
60 79.7 products
China 11.8 China 10.7
Russian Federation 9.8 United States 5.0 82.8 ■ Agricultural
40
Iran, Islamic Rep. 5.1 Ukraine 4.7 products

13.7
3.4 6.5
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................93 3.5

Market access ...................................................................................................45 4.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 215
Kazakhstan

Specific tariffs.............................................................................117 .....■ .......13.6 Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Number of distinct tariffs ...........................................................118 .....■ .....1,500 Hong Kong SAR ....................................1



215




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 216
Kenya
100 2.5
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................30.2
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ...............857.4 80 2.0
FDI inflows
Trade
20 0.5
0 0.0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 26.6 EU27 20.2 80

■ Manufactures
36.8
Uganda 12.2 UAE 14.8 62.1 ■ Fuels and mining
Tanzania 8.1 India 9.4 60 7.1 products
United States 7.0 China 7.6 ■ Agricultural
40
Pakistan 4.9 United States 7.4 products
54.7
23.5
12.9
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................98 3.5

Market access ...................................................................................................34 4.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 217
Kenya




217




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 218
Korea, Rep.
100 2.5
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................947.0
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ..........19,504.6 80 2.0
FDI inflows
Trade
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................33 60 1.5
20 0.5
0 0.0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ........................................356,846.0 Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2007........–18.5
China 22.1 China 17.7 80

■ Manufactures
EU27 15.1 Japan 15.8 57.8
88.9 products
Japan 7.1 EU27 10.3 ■ Agricultural
40
Hong Kong SAR 5.0 Saudi Arabia 5.9 products
20 35.5
9.1 1.7 6.1
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................26 4.7

Market access .................................................................................................106 3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 219
Korea, Rep.




219




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 220
Kuwait
120 1.2
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................158.1
100 0.9
FDI inflows
80 0.6
Trade
60 0.3
40 0.0
Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank 20 –0.3

0 –0.6
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ..........................................21,122.5 Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008...........-0.7
Saudi Arabia 0.7 EU27 33.4 80

■ Manufactures
Others 99.3 United States 10.8 ■ Fuels and mining
Saudi Arabia 7.9 60 85.7 products
96.1
China 6.8 ■ Agricultural
40
Japan 6.4 products
Others 34.7 20
2.3
0.2 12.0
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................59 4.0

Market access ...................................................................................................76 3.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 221
Kuwait




221




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 222
Kyrgyz Republic
150 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................5.0
FDI inflows
Trade
30 0
0 -2
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Russian Federation 20.7 Russian Federation 40.5 80

■ Manufactures
49.8
Switzerland 19.9 China 14.7 ■ Fuels and mining
60 31.8 products
Kazakhstan 18.0 Kazakhstan 12.9
Afghanistan 10.4 EU27 9.4 ■ Agricultural
40
Uzbekistan 7.6 Uzbekistan 5.0 28.7 32.9 products

17.8 16.9
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................101 3.4

Market access ...................................................................................................18 4.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 223
Kyrgyz Republic




223




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 224
Latvia
150 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................34.1
FDI inflows
Trade
30 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 76.0 EU27 77.9 80

■ Manufactures
73.6
Others 14.4 Others 13.7 60 products
■ Agricultural
40
7.0 products
20 12.6
29.8
13.7
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................44 4.3

Market access ...................................................................................................73 3.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 225
Latvia




225




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 226
Lesotho
250 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................1.6
FDI inflows
Trade
50 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Total exports (rank out of 121).....................................................................114 Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 ...........78.5; 7.8
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) ..............................................88.5 Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.....................................13.1
United States 68.5 South Africa 78.2 80

■ Manufactures
South Africa 17.6 Taiwan, China 6.3 ■ Fuels and mining
EU27 9.9 Hong Kong SAR 5.7 60 products
93.0
98.6
40
Others 5.7 products
20
0.4 0.5
0 5.9
Source: WTO
Exports Imports
Source: ITC

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................90 3.5

Market access .....................................................................................................7 5.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 227
Lesotho




227




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 228
Lithuania
150 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................47.3
FDI inflows
Trade
30 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 64.7 EU27 68.4 80

■ Manufactures
70.2
Belarus 4.0 Others 13.6 60 products
40
products
15.6
20 18.0
19.9
11.6
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................40 4.4

Market access ...................................................................................................60 4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 229
Lithuania




229




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 230
Luxembourg
400 80
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................55.0
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ........113,044.0
FDI inflows
300 40
Trade
200 0
100 -40
0 -80
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 84.4 EU27 86.8 80

■ Manufactures
Others 15.6 Others 13.2 ■ Fuels and mining
60 74.0 products
87.6
■ Agricultural
40
products
20 17.0
5.9
5.4 8.9
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................13 5.1

Market access ...................................................................................................58 4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 231
Luxembourg




231




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 232
Macedonia, FYR
140 14
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................9.6
120 12
FDI inflows
100 10
Trade
40 4
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 65.1 EU27 49.5 80

■ Manufactures
Serbia 19.1 Russian Federation 12.3 62.5 ■ Fuels and mining
76.0
Croatia 4.9 Serbia 8.6 60 products
40
24.8
20 9.5
14.4 12.6
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................68 3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................62 4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 233
Macedonia, FYR




233




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 234
Madagascar
100 15
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................9.3
FDI inflows
Trade
20 3
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 62.7 EU27 23.1 80

■ Manufactures
60 63.5 products
Others 19.6 Bahrain 15.2
South Africa 5.3 ■ Agricultural
40 8.1
20 16.0
35.5
14.5
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................73 3.8

Market access .....................................................................................................4 5.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 235
Madagascar




235




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 236
Malawi
100 6
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................4.3
90 5
FDI inflows
80 4
Trade
70 3
60 2
40 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


12.8
EU27 39.0 South Africa 29.1 0.1 ■ Manufactures
80
Zimbabwe 15.2 EU27 15.8 ■ Fuels and mining
South Africa 14.8 Mozambique 12.2 60 69.2 products
United States 4.2 UAE 7.0 86.9 ■ Agricultural
40
Others 26.8 Tanzania 6.0 products
32.6
Others 29.9 20 13.8
11.0
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................69 3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................12 5.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 237
Malawi




237




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 238
Malaysia
250 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................222.2
FDI inflows
Trade
50 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Total imports (rank out of 121) ......................................................................27 Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2007 .............................15.0
United States 15.6 Japan 13.0 80

■ Manufactures
Singapore 14.6 China 12.9 ■ Fuels and mining
70.9
EU27 12.9 EU27 11.9 60 75.3 products
Japan 9.1 Singapore 11.5 ■ Agricultural
40
China 8.8 United States 10.8 products
Others 39.0 Others 40.0 20 15.8

14.1
11.6 7.2
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................28 4.7

Market access ...................................................................................................32 4.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 239
Malaysia




239




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 240
Mali
100 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................8.8
FDI inflows
Trade
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

South Africa 67.1 EU27 25.1 80

■ Manufactures
EU27 5.9 Senegal 19.8 61.7 ■ Fuels and mining
Switzerland 4.6 Côte d’Ivoire 12.7 60 products
Senegal 4.2 China 5.9 ■ Agricultural
40
Others 18.3 Benin 4.5 products
3.2 0.7 22.7
Others 32.0 20
20.8 15.3
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: ITC

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................99 3.4

Market access ...................................................................................................37 4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 241
Mali




241




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 242
Mauritania
150 50
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................3.2
125 40
FDI inflows
100 30
Trade
75 20
50 10
0 -10
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

242 Main trading partners, 2007

Exports destination Imports origin

EU27 75.9 EU27 43.0
Japan 13.8 United States 8.0
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................107 3.3

Market access ...................................................................................................44 4.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 243
Mauritania




243




Part 2 6/19/09 12:50 PM Page 244
Mauritius
200 6
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................8.7
FDI inflows
150 4
Trade
100 2
50 0
0 -2
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ...........................................2,237.9 Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009...........................62
EU27 69.9 EU27 27.0 80

■ Manufactures
United States 7.5 India 21.2 57.7 ■ Fuels and mining
61.8
Madagascar 6.0 China 11.4 60 products
Others 16.6 South Africa 7.4 ■ Agricultural
40
0.9 19.5
20
29.1 21.3
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................33 4.5

Market access ...................................................................................................10 5.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 245
Mauritius




245




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 246
Mexico
80 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 .........................................1,088.1
FDI inflows
60 6
Trade
40 4
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


■ Manufactures
Japan 5.8 ■ Agricultural
40
Korea, Rep. 4.5 products
Others 17.5 20
18.3 9.9
0 5.7 7.8
Source: WTO
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................74 3.7

Market access ...................................................................................................43 4.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 247
Mexico




247




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 248
Moldova
200 12
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................6.1
FDI inflows
150 9
Trade
100 6
50 3
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 50.6 EU27 45.6 100 ■ Manufactures

Russian Federation 17.3 Ukraine 18.6 80 ■ Fuels and mining
Ukraine 12.5 Russian Federation 13.5 55.4 products
64.2
60
Belarus 6.1 China 5.5 ■ Agricultural
Others 13.4 Turkey 4.5 40 6.0 products
Others 12.3 21.9

20 38.6
13.8
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................52 4.1

Market access .....................................................................................................6 5.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 249
Moldova




249




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 250
Mongolia
180 15
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................5.3
FDI inflows
120 10
Trade
60 5
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


4.9
China 74.2 Russian Federation 34.3 80
■ Manufactures
Canada 9.5 China 31.1 60.4 ■ Fuels and mining
EU27 5.6 EU27 9.2 60 products
70.2
Others 10.8 Korea, Rep. 5.6 ■ Agricultural
40
Japan 5.1 products
27.4
Others 14.8 20
12.4 12.1
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................113 3.2

Market access .................................................................................................110 3.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 251
Mongolia




251




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 252
Morocco
100 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................86.4
FDI inflows
Trade
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 72.4 EU27 51.9 80

■ Manufactures
Others 27.6 United States 6.1 65.9 59.0 ■ Fuels and mining
China 5.9 60 products
Saudi Arabia 5.5 ■ Agricultural
40
Russian Federation 5.0 products
14.9 22.9
Others 25.7 20
19.1 14.6
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................55 4.0

Market access ...................................................................................................51 4.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 253
Morocco




253




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 254
Mozambique
100 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................9.7
FDI inflows
Trade
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


5.4
South Africa 17.8 South Africa 31.8 80
■ Manufactures
Others 76.1 India 4.3 60 68.4 53.0 products
40
products
20 14.7
24.8
15.2
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................94 3.5

Market access ...................................................................................................17 4.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 255
Mozambique




255




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 256
Namibia
120 12
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................8.5
FDI inflows
90 9
Trade
60 6
30 3
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 44.7 South Africa 78.1 80 33.2 ■ Manufactures

South Africa 29.0 EU27 10.4 ■ Fuels and mining
Angola 6.5 Others 11.5 60 74.9 products
33.3
Canada 4.9 ■ Agricultural
40
20 33.4 3.9
16.1
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................60 3.9

Market access ...................................................................................................33 4.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 257
Namibia




257




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 258
Nepal
80 0.6
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................12.7
FDI inflows
60 0.4
Trade
40 0.2
20 0.0
0 -0.2
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

India 52.4 India 53.0 80

■ Manufactures
EU27 9.6 EU27 6.4 60 79.3 products
Others 9.0 Singapore 6.3 ■ Agricultural
40
21.0
20
20.7 14.7
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................110 3.2

Market access ...................................................................................................29 4.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 259
Nepal




259




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 260
Netherlands
200 20
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................868.9
FDI inflows
150 15
Trade
100 10
50 5
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 75.3 EU27 56.5 80

■ Manufactures
65.1
Others 19.7 United States 7.9 60 products
40
products
18.3 22.6
20
15.7 11.2
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................10 5.3

Market access ...................................................................................................87 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 261
Netherlands




261




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 262
New Zealand
100 10.0
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................128.5
FDI inflows
75 7.5
Trade
50 5.0
25 2.5
0 0.0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Australia 21.9 Australia 20.6 80 27.7 ■ Manufactures

9.0 72.9
United States 11.5 China 13.3 60 products
Japan 9.2 United States 9.8 ■ Agricultural
40
China 5.3 Japan 9.4 59.5
products
Others 38.2 Others 30.1 20 17.0
9.2
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................11 5.3

Market access ...................................................................................................39 4.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 263
New Zealand




263




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 264
Nicaragua
100 10.0
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................6.4
FDI inflows
75 7.5
Trade
50 5.0
25 2.5
0 0.0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


9.7
United States 31.2 United States 23.0 80 3.0 ■ Manufactures
El Salvador 14.1 Mexico 13.1 59.7 ■ Fuels and mining
EU27 14.0 Costa Rica 8.6 60 products
Honduras 9.3 China 7.9 81.2 ■ Agricultural
40
Costa Rica 7.3 Guatemala 6.1 products
22.7
16.3
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................77 3.7

Market access ...................................................................................................15 4.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 265
Nicaragua




265




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 266
Nigeria
120 12
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................214.4
FDI inflows
90 9
Trade
60 6
30 3
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


■ Manufactures
72.3
India 9.3 China 13.8 60 products
97.1
Brazil 4.2 India 4.8 ■ Agricultural
40
Others 20.3 Others 28.5 products
4.0
20
23.7
0 2.2
Source: WTO
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................117 3.0

Market access .................................................................................................120 2.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 267
Nigeria




267




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 268
Norway
100 5
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................456.2
FDI inflows
Trade
20 1
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


18.0
EU27 80.8 EU27 68.8 80
■ Manufactures
Others 13.0 United States 4.8 60 76.7 products
Canada 4.3 72.6 ■ Agricultural
40
20
14.3
0 5.5 8.4
Source: WTO
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index................................................................................7 5.3

Market access ...................................................................................................21 4.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 269
Norway

1.03 Complexity of tariffs ...................................................................118 .....■ .........2.8 Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0



269
5.01 Airport density ................................................................................1 .....■ .......10.6 Norway .............................................10.6




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 270
Oman
120 6
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................52.6
100 5
FDI inflows
80 4
Trade
60 3
40 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

China 26.8 UAE 26.4 80

■ Manufactures
Japan 11.8 EU27 19.5 ■ Fuels and mining
UAE 11.6 Japan 15.7 60 80.4 products
Thailand 10.4 India 6.5 95.5 ■ Agricultural
40
Korea, Rep. 9.3 United States 5.8 products

8.8
1.9 10.3
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................34 4.5

Market access ...................................................................................................23 4.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 271
Oman




271




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 272
Pakistan
80 4
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................167.6
FDI inflows
60 3
Trade
40 2
20 1
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 26.8 EU27 14.6 80

■ Manufactures
UAE 11.9 Saudi Arabia 12.3 60 80.1 products
Afghanistan 4.7 UAE 8.5 ■ Agricultural
40
Others 35.0 United States 8.0 products
29.3
Others 43.8 20 6.7
13.0 13.9
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................100 3.4

Market access .................................................................................................111 3.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 273
Pakistan




273




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 274
Panama
100 20
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................23.1
FDI inflows
75 15
Trade
50 10
25 5
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


10.3
United States 35.7 United States 30.8 80 4.3 ■ Manufactures
EU27 34.0 Netherlands Antilles 7.1 67.9 ■ Fuels and mining
Costa Rica 5.1 China 5.2 80.6 ■ Agricultural
40
Others 19.6 Japan 4.8 products
Others 45.0 20 19.2
10.9
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................53 4.1

Market access ...................................................................................................54 4.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 275
Panama




275




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 276
Paraguay
100 5
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................16.0
FDI inflows
Trade
20 1
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


13.8
Brazil 20.0 Brazil 29.0 0.9 ■ Manufactures
80
Argentina 19.8 China 27.8 ■ Fuels and mining
Uruguay 9.5 Argentina 14.4 60 products
72.7
EU27 8.4 EU27 5.5 85.4 ■ Agricultural
40
Chile 7.4 United States 5.0 products

10.4
0 6.3
Source: WTO
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................105 3.4

Market access ...................................................................................................31 4.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 277
Paraguay




277




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 278
Peru
80 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................127.6
FDI inflows
60 6
Trade
40 4
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


■ Manufactures
12.0
66.4
Switzerland 8.4 Brazil 9.2 57.4 ■ Agricultural
40
Japan 7.8 Ecuador 7.4 products
20 19.9
15.0 12.2
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................65 3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................25 4.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 279
Peru




279




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 280
Philippines
120 4
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................168.6
FDI inflows
90 3
Trade
60 2
30 1
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


■ Manufactures
EU27 17.0 Japan 12.4 ■ Fuels and mining
72.1
Japan 14.5 Singapore 11.1 60 products
86.3
Hong Kong SAR 11.5 EU27 9.6 ■ Agricultural
40
China 11.4 China 7.3 products
Others 28.6 Others 45.7 20 20.0

7.3
0 6.3 7.4
Source: WTO
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................82 3.6

Market access ...................................................................................................56 4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 281
Philippines




281




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 282
Poland
100 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................525.7
FDI inflows
Trade
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 78.8 EU27 64.1 80

■ Manufactures
40
products
20
8.4 13.9
10.7 7.9
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................57 4.0

Market access ...................................................................................................77 3.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 283
Poland




283




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 284
Portugal
80 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................244.5
FDI inflows
60 6
Trade
40 4
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 72.0 EU27 72.3 80

■ Manufactures
United States 4.5 Others 27.7 ■ Fuels and mining
67.4
Angola 4.5 60 77.2 products
40
products
20 17.4
8.0
11.0 14.0
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................30 4.6

Market access ...................................................................................................63 4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 285
Portugal




285




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 286
Qatar
100 5
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................102.3
FDI inflows
Trade
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ................................16.4 40 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


Japan 40.6 EU27 33.9 80
■ Manufactures
Korea, Rep. 17.5 United States 11.4 ■ Fuels and mining
Singapore 11.3 Japan 10.0 60 products
87.2
93.1
India 6.4 UAE 7.0 ■ Agricultural
40
Thailand 4.6 Korea, Rep. 6.1 products

3.3
0 0.1 5.5
Source: WTO
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................35 4.5

Market access .................................................................................................102 3.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 287
Qatar




287




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 288
Romania
100 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................199.7
FDI inflows
Trade
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 72.0 EU27 71.2 80

■ Manufactures
Turkey 7.0 Russian Federation 6.3 ■ Fuels and mining
Others 21.0 Turkey 5.4 60 81.1 78.7 products
40
products
20
12.8 13.8
0 5.9 7.3
Source: WTO
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................54 4.0

Market access ...................................................................................................72 3.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 289
Romania




289




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 290
Russian Federation
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers).................17,098.2
100 5
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 .........................................1,676.6
FDI inflows
Trade
20 1
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ............................................6.1 WTO accession year............................................................................Observer
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................13 Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 ............—; 11.0

19.4
EU27 47.6 EU27 43.6 80
■ Manufactures
Belarus 4.9 China 12.2 ■ Fuels and mining
Ukraine 4.5 Ukraine 6.7 60 83.1 products
China 4.3 Japan 6.4 72.5 ■ Agricultural
40
Others 38.7 United States 4.7 products
Others 26.5 20
3.7
6.6 12.0
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................109 3.3

Market access .................................................................................................113 3.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 291
Russian Federation




291




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 292
Saudi Arabia
120 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................481.6
FDI inflows
90 6
Trade
60 4
30 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


10.6
Japan 26.8 EU27 31.9 80
■ Manufactures
Taiwan, China 23.6 United States 13.6 ■ Fuels and mining
United States 17.5 China 9.7 60 80.1 products
EU27 7.1 Japan 8.7 88.2 ■ Agricultural
40
Others 25.1 Korea, Rep. 4.5 products
Others 31.6 20 4.8

1.0 13.8
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................42 4.4

Market access ...................................................................................................40 4.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 293
Saudi Arabia




293




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 294
Senegal
80 4
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................13.4
FDI inflows
60 3
Trade
40 2
20 1
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 25.7 EU27 46.6 80 40.4 ■ Manufactures

Mali 24.0 Nigeria 8.4 32.9
India 6.7 China 5.7 60 products
Gambia, The 5.4 Thailand 5.3 21.3 30.6 ■ Agricultural
40
Others 38.2 Others 33.9 products
20 36.2
29.0
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................83 3.6

Market access .................................................................................................109 3.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 295
Senegal




295




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 296
Singapore
500 25
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................181.9
FDI inflows
Trade
100 5
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Malaysia 12.9 Malaysia 13.1 80

■ Manufactures
60 71.5 products
Hong Kong SAR 10.5 EU27 12.4 75.9
Indonesia 9.8 China 12.1 ■ Agricultural
40
China 9.7 Japan 8.2 products

22.2
15.5
2.0 3.2
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index................................................................................1 6.0

Market access .....................................................................................................2 5.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 297
Singapore

1.04 Share of duty-free imports .............................................................2 .....■ ........100 Hong Kong SAR ................................100



297




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 298
Slovak Republic
200 20
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................95.4
FDI inflows
150 15
Trade
100 10
50 5
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 86.7 EU27 61.1 80

■ Manufactures
Others 13.3 Russian Federation 9.4 ■ Fuels and mining
China 5.2 60 79.2 products
86.9
Korea, Rep. 5.0 ■ Agricultural
40
20
13.8
7.5
4.6 6.4
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................46 4.3

Market access ...................................................................................................93 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 299
Slovak Republic




299




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 300
Slovenia
200 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................54.6
FDI inflows
150 6
Trade
100 4
50 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 70.7 EU27 78.9 80

■ Manufactures
Croatia 8.0 Others 21.1 ■ Fuels and mining
Others 21.3 60 74.7 products
87.0
■ Agricultural
40
products
20 15.3
7.0
5.8 9.7
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................31 4.6

Market access ...................................................................................................82 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 301
Slovenia




301




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 302
South Africa
80 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................277.2
FDI inflows
60 6
Trade
40 4
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 33.0 EU27 33.7 80

■ Manufactures
United States 11.8 China 10.7 54.6
60 70.5 products
Japan 11.0 United States 7.7
China 6.5 Japan 6.6 ■ Agricultural
40
Others 37.7 Saudi Arabia 4.5 products
36.6
Others 36.8 20 21.9
8.0 6.0
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................61 3.9

Market access ...................................................................................................92 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 303
South Africa




303




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 304
Spain
80 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 .........................................1,611.8
FDI inflows
60 6
Trade
40 4
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 70.0 EU27 60.0 80

■ Manufactures
■ Agricultural
40
products
20 8.3 19.6
14.9 10.0
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................27 4.7

Market access ...................................................................................................75 3.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 305
Spain




305




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 306
Sri Lanka
100 5
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................39.6
FDI inflows
Trade
20 1
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

United States 32.2 India 17.3 80

■ Manufactures
60 68.2 products
India 9.1 Singapore 8.9
Others 27.7 Hong Kong SAR 7.8 ■ Agricultural
40
China 7.6 products
2.1 25.6
Others 42.8 20
26.5
13.4
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................78 3.7

Market access ...................................................................................................64 4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 307
Sri Lanka




307




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 308
Sweden
100 25
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................484.6
FDI inflows
Trade
20 5
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 60.8 EU27 71.7 80

■ Manufactures
Norway 9.4 Norway 8.5 ■ Fuels and mining
75.0
United States 7.6 Others 19.7 60
82.2 products
40
products
20 15.7
9.4
7.8 9.1
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index................................................................................5 5.4

Market access ...................................................................................................88 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 309
Sweden




309




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 310
Switzerland
120 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................492.6
100 8
FDI inflows
80 6
Trade
60 4
40 2
0 -2
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 62.0 EU27 79.4 80

■ Manufactures
90.4
■ Agricultural
40
products
20
10.9
5.9 3.5 6.4
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index................................................................................3 5.4

Market access ...................................................................................................38 4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 311
Switzerland




311




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 312
Syria
100 5
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................54.8
FDI inflows
Trade
20 1
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ..........................................–4.0 WTO accession year .......................................Non-member and non-observer
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................70 Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .............—; n/a
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ..........................................14,655.1 Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods)......................n/a
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .........................................2,963.7 Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent) ................................................n/a
Total imports (rank out of 121) ......................................................................69 Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent) .........................................n/a
EU27 43.5 EU27 25.4 80

■ Manufactures
32.0
Saudi Arabia 10.6 Russian Federation 9.8 52.1 ■ Fuels and mining
Iraq 5.6 China 8.0 60 products
Turkey 5.2 Ukraine 5.8 ■ Agricultural
40 41.5
Jordan 4.6 Saudi Arabia 5.7 products
30.2
19.5 15.8
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................108 3.3

Market access .................................................................................................121 2.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 313
Syria

1.03 Complexity of tariffs ....................................................................n/a ..................n/a Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Variance of tariffs.........................................................................n/a ..................n/a Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Domestic tariff peaks ..................................................................n/a ..................n/a Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Specific tariffs..............................................................................n/a ..................n/a Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Number of distinct tariffs ............................................................n/a ..................n/a Hong Kong SAR ....................................1



313




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 314
Taiwan, China
160 4
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................392.6
FDI inflows
120 3
Trade
80 2
40 1
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) .......................................246,676.9 Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009 .........................n/a
China 25.3 Japan 20.9 80

■ Manufactures
Hong Kong SAR 15.4 China 12.8 ■ Fuels and mining
65.2
United States 13.0 United States 12.2 60 products
89.3
EU27 10.9 EU27 9.1 ■ Agricultural
40
Japan 6.5 Korea, Rep. 6.9 products
Others 28.8 Others 38.1 20 28.4

8.3 1.9
0 4.9
Source: WTO
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................25 4.7

Market access ...................................................................................................99 3.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 315
Taiwan, China




315
5.03 Paved roads .................................................................................n/a ..................n/a Multiple economies ......................100.0




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 316
Tajikistan
250 15
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................5.1
FDI inflows
Trade
50 3
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ..........................................–8.8 WTO accession year............................................................................Observer
Total exports (rank out of 121).....................................................................109 Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2006 ..............—; 7.9
Norway 15.1 Russian Federation 25.5 80

■ Manufactures
11.3
Russian Federation 14.2 China 20.6 48.9 ■ Fuels and mining
Turkey 13.4 Kazakhstan 10.6 60 products
United States 7.0 Azerbaijan 8.8 59.3 ■ Agricultural
40
Italy 5.8 Iran, Islamic Rep. 8.7 products
35.8
14.4 10.4
Source: ITC 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................114 3.1

Market access .................................................................................................104 3.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 317
Tajikistan




317
5.03 Paved roads .................................................................................n/a ..................n/a Multiple economies ......................100.0




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 318
Tanzania
80 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................20.7
FDI inflows
60 6
Trade
40 4
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Switzerland 20.5 EU27 17.7 80

■ Manufactures
EU27 19.7 UAE 13.2 21.2 55.4 ■ Fuels and mining
South Africa 9.5 South Africa 10.1 60 products
13.1
China 7.3 India 8.7 ■ Agricultural
40
Kenya 5.8 China 7.0 products
31.2
20 43.9
12.5
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................92 3.5

Market access ...................................................................................................41 4.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 319
Tanzania




319




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 320
Thailand
200 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................273.2
FDI inflows
150 6
Trade
100 4
50 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 14.0 Japan 20.9 80

■ Manufactures
Japan 11.8 EU27 8.4 60 76.1 64.7 products
China 9.7 United States 6.7 ■ Agricultural
40
Singapore 6.2 Malaysia 6.0 products
Others 45.7 Others 46.2 20 6.3 22.0

16.3
0 5.5
Source: WTO
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................50 4.2

Market access ...................................................................................................98 3.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 321
Thailand




321




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 322
Tunisia
150 15
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................40.3
120 12
FDI inflows
Trade
30 3
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ..........................................18,980.0 Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2006........–11.7
EU27 79.3 EU27 64.9 80

■ Manufactures
Libya 4.6 Russian Federation 4.3 ■ Fuels and mining
70.4 71.2
Others 16.1 Others 30.8 60 products
■ Agricultural
40
products
20 17.7 16.3
10.1 12.1
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................41 4.4

Market access ...................................................................................................70 3.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 323
Tunisia




323




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 324
Turkey
80 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................729.4
FDI inflows
60 6
Trade
40 4
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 57.2 EU27 40.4 80

■ Manufactures
United States 4.8 ■ Agricultural
40
20 22.7
10.0
9.4 5.9
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................48 4.2

Market access ...................................................................................................14 4.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 325
Turkey




325




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 326
Uganda
100 5
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................14.5
FDI inflows
Trade
20 1
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 24.3 EU27 20.6 80

■ Manufactures
UAE 13.3 Kenya 13.5 23.0 ■ Fuels and mining
63.4
Sudan 11.8 UAE 12.0 60 products
4.5
Kenya 8.8 India 9.9 ■ Agricultural
40
Congo, Dem. Rep. 7.5 China 7.9 products
50.8 20.1
13.6
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................85 3.6

Market access .....................................................................................................9 5.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 327
Uganda




327




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 328
Ukraine
150 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................179.7
FDI inflows
Trade
30 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 28.2 EU27 36.7 80

■ Manufactures
60 73.6 products
Turkey 7.4 Turkmenistan 7.8
40
20 11.4 30.0
13.8 7.6
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................71 3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................24 4.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 329
Ukraine




329




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 330
United Arab Emirates

250 12
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................260.1
FDI inflows
Trade
50 0
0 -3
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Japan 25.5 EU27 23.0 80 32.0

■ Manufactures
Taiwan, China 11.4 China 8.7 ■ Fuels and mining
Others 63.0 India 8.7 60 products
79.3
United States 6.5 ■ Agricultural
40
Japan 6.0 60.4 products
Others 47.2 20
6.9
3.6 8.6
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................18 5.0

Market access ...................................................................................................65 4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 331
United Arab Emirates




331




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 332
United Kingdom
100 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 .........................................2,674.1
FDI inflows
Trade
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 57.5 EU27 55.2 80

■ Manufactures
Norway 4.6 ■ Agricultural
40
20 13.0
14.8
6.3 10.2
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................20 4.9

Market access ...................................................................................................79 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 333
United Kingdom




333
5.02 Transshipment connectivity index ..................................................1 .....■ .....100.0 United Kingdom .............................100.0




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 334
United States
80 4
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 .......................................14,264.6
FDI inflows
60 3
Trade
40 2
20 1
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ....................................1,162,479.0 Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................85.3
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) .....................................2,020,403.0 Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008 ............1.6
Canada 21.4 EU27 18.0 80

■ Manufactures
60 69.8 products
Mexico 11.7 Canada 15.7 78.2
China 5.6 Mexico 10.6 ■ Agricultural
40
Japan 5.4 Japan 7.4 products

7.2 21.2
9.8 5.4
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................16 5.0

Market access ...................................................................................................49 4.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 335
United States




335




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 336
Uruguay
80 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................32.3
FDI inflows
60 6
Trade
40 4
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 18.5 Brazil 23.2 80

Brazil 16.2 Argentina 22.1 5.0 ■ Fuels and mining
63.5
United States 11.2 Venezuela 11.4 60 products
Argentina 9.8 EU27 10.4 ■ Agricultural
40
Mexico 4.6 China 9.7 63.7 products
20 22.9
11.2
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................51 4.2

Market access ...................................................................................................22 4.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 337
Uruguay




337




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 338
Venezuela
80 9
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................319.4
FDI inflows
60 6
Trade
40 3
20 0
0 -3
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


6.4
■ Manufactures
Netherlands Antilles 5.7 Brazil 8.0 60 87.2 products
Others 34.6 Colombia 7.9 92.1 ■ Agricultural
40
China 5.4 products
Others 43.9 20
2.1
0.3 10.7
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................119 2.8

Market access .................................................................................................105 3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 339
Venezuela




339




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 340
Vietnam
200 12
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................89.8
FDI inflows
150 9
Trade
100 6
50 3
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


■ Manufactures
EU27 17.9 Singapore 14.0 53.4
Japan 13.2 Taiwan, China 10.7 60 67.6 products
Australia 9.3 Japan 10.5 ■ Agricultural
40
China 8.1 Korea, Rep. 8.7 22.1 products
Others 31.8 Others 39.6 20 17.9

24.2
10.0
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................89 3.5

Market access .................................................................................................112 3.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 341
Vietnam




341




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 342
Zambia
100 10
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................14.3
FDI inflows
Trade
20 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007


12.5
Switzerland 41.8 South Africa 47.4 80
■ Manufactures
South Africa 12.0 EU27 16.8 ■ Fuels and mining
Thailand 5.9 UAE 6.4 60 76.1 products
EU27 5.5 China 5.9 78.2 ■ Agricultural
40
Congo, Dem. Rep. 5.3 India 4.1 products

17.1
8.6 5.6
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index..............................................................................80 3.6

Market access ...................................................................................................19 4.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 343
Zambia




343




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 344
Zimbabwe
160 8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................n/a
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ...................n/a
FDI inflows
120 6
Trade
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008 ..........................n/a
80 4
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................n/a
40 2
0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008............................................n/a WTO accession year ..................................................................................1995
Commercial services exports (US$ millions)................................................n/a Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................3
Total exports (rank out of 121) .....................................................................n/a Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .........91.6; 20.0
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ............................................2,550.0 Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2007 ..........13.2
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) ...............................................n/a Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2007.......................................6.8
Total imports (rank out of 121) .....................................................................n/a Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2007 ...............................5.9
South Africa 37.4 South Africa 42.8 80 31.5 ■ Manufactures

EU27 16.5 Botswana 11.4 54.1 ■ Fuels and mining
Mozambique 13.0 EU27 8.3 60 products
36.6
Botswana 6.1 China 5.7 ■ Agricultural
40
15.8 products
Switzerland 4.0 Mozambique 4.8
31.2 29.1
Source: WTO 0
Exports Imports
Source: WTO

(out of 121)
Score
(1–7 scale)
2009 Index............................................................................118 2.9

Market access .................................................................................................101 3.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 345
Zimbabwe




345




Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 346
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 347
Technical Notes and Sources

The data in this Report represent the best available esti- 1.02 Non-tariff barriers
mates from various national authorities, international Index of non-tariff barriers (NTBs) | 2008 or most recent
year available
agencies, and private sources at the time the Report was This index is constructed as the average of two NTB-related
prepared. It is possible that some data will have been variables. The variables included are the percentage of trade
affected by non-tariff measures (NTMs) and the average
revised or updated by the sources after publication.The number of notifications for products affected by NTMs, for
following notes provide sources for all the indicators list- products with imports larger than 0. Politically motivated NTBs,
such as embargos, have been excluded.
ed in the Country/Economy Profiles.Throughout the
Country/Economy Profiles in this publication, “n/a” Source: International Trade Centre; authors’ calculations
denotes that the value is not available, or that the avail-

able data are unreasonably outdated or do not come 1.03 Complexity of tariffs
Complexity of tariffs | 2008 or most recent year available
from a reliable source. For each indicator, the title This variable is calculated as the average of the variance of
appears on the first line, preceded by its number to tariffs, domestic tariff peaks, specific tariffs, and number of
allow for quick reference.The numbering is the same as distinct tariffs.
the one used in Appendix A of Chapter 1.1.

Variance of tariffs
Below is a description of each indicator or, in
Dispersion of tariffs | 2008 or most recent year available
the case of Executive Opinion Survey data, the full This variable reflects the dispersion of the rates of duty.
question and associated answers. If necessary, additional 347
Source: International Trade Centre
information is provided underneath.
Domestic tariff peaks
Share of tariff lines with domestic peaks (percentage) | 2008
Pillar 1: Domestic and foreign market access or most recent year available
This indicator reflects the total share of tariff lines in the
country’s most favored nation (MFN) tariff schedule for which
1.01 Tariff barriers
the value is 3 times above the simple average tariff. The score
Trade-weighted average tariff rate | 2008 or most recent is expressed as a percentage of total tariff lines.
year available
This indicator is calculated as the average of the applied tariff Source: International Trade Centre
rates, including preferential rates that a country applies to the
rest of the world. The trade pattern of the importing country’s
Specific tariffs
reference group (2007 data) is used as a weighting.
Specific tariffs | 2008 or most recent year available
Source: International Trade Centre This indicator reflects the number of Harmonized Schedule (HS)
tariff lines with at least one specific tariff as a percentage share
of the total number of HS tariff lines.
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products
Trade-weighted average tariff rate for non-agricultural Source: International Trade Centre
products | 2008 or most recent year available
This indicator is calculated as the average of the applied tariff
Number of distinct tariffs
rates, including preferential rates that a country applies to the
rest of the world for non-agricultural products. The trade pattern Number of distinct tariffs for all sectors | 2008 or most
of the importing country’s reference group (2007 data) is used recent year available
as a weighting. This indicator reflects the number of distinct tariff rates applied
by a country on imports.
Tariff barriers for agricultural products

Trade-weighted average tariff rate for agricultural products | 1.04 Share of duty-free imports
2008 or most recent year available Duty-free imports as a share of total imports | 2007, 2008
This indicator is calculated as the average of the applied tariff Share of trade, excluding petroleum, that is imported free of
rates, including preferential rates that a country applies to the tariff duties, taking into account most-favored nation tariffs and
rest of the world for agricultural products. The trade pattern of preferential agreements. Tariff data are from 2008 or most
the importing country’s reference group (2007 data) is used as a recent year available and imports data are from 2007.
weighting.
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 348
1.05 Tariffs faced 3.02 Time for import

Tariffs faced weighted by reference group | 2008 Number of days required to import | 2008
This indicator is calculated as the average of the applied tariff The time calculation for a procedure starts from the moment it
rates, including preferential rates that the rest of the world is initiated and runs until it is completed. If a procedure can be
applies to each country. accelerated for an additional cost, the fastest legal procedure is
chosen. It is assumed that neither the exporter nor the importer
Source: International Trade Centre wastes time and that each commits to completing each remain-
ing procedure without delay. Procedures that can be completed
in parallel are measured as simultaneous. The waiting time
1.06 Margin of preference in target markets
between procedures—for example, during unloading of the
Index of margin of preference in target markets | 2008 or cargo—is included in the measure.
most recent year available
This indicator is constructed as the trade-weighted average Source: The World Bank, Doing Business 2009
difference between the most favored nation (MFN) tariff and
the most advantageous preferential duty. It is calculated as
the simple average of the absolute preference margin and the 3.03 Documents for import
preference margin as share of MFN tariff rates. Number of documents required to import | 2008
This variable takes into account all documents required to
Source: International Trade Centre import goods. It is assumed that the contract has already
been agreed upon and signed by both parties. Documents
include bank documents, customs declaration and clearance
documents, port filing documents, import licenses, and other
Pillar 2: Efficiency of customs administration official documents exchanged between the concerned parties.
Documents filed simultaneously are considered different
documents but with the same time frame for completion.
2.01 Burden of customs procedures
Customs procedures (formalities regulating the entry and Source: The World Bank, Doing Business 2009
exit of merchandise) in your country are (1 = extremely
slow and cumbersome, 7 = rapid and efficient)
3.04 Cost to import
Source: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey Total official cost associated with importing, excluding
2007, 2008 tariffs and trade taxes | 2008
This variable measures the fees levied on a 20-foot container
in US dollars. All the fees associated with completing the
2.02 Customs services index
procedures to export or import the goods are included. These
Extent of services provided by customs authorities and include costs for documents, administrative fees for customs
related agencies | 2008 clearance and technical control, terminal handling charges, and
This variable is based on 15 “GEA customs barriers” survey inland transport. The cost measure does not include tariffs or
348 questions capturing different aspects of the services offered by trade taxes. Only official costs are recorded.
customs and related agencies. The services included are the
following: clearance of shipments via electronic data interchange; Source: The World Bank, Doing Business 2009
separation of physical release of goods from the fiscal control;
full-time (24 hours / 7 days a week) automated processing;
3.05 Time for export
customs working hours adapted to commercial needs; fee for
services in normal service hours; inspection and release of Number of days required to export | 2008
goods arriving by air by the operator’s facility; automated risk The time calculation for a procedure starts from the moment it
assessment as primary basis for physical examination of ship- is initiated and runs until it is completed. If a procedure can be
ments; multiple inspections (inspections by agencies other than accelerated for an additional cost, the fastest legal procedure is
customs), and the promptness of those inspections; exemptions chosen. It is assumed that neither the exporter nor the importer
from full customs formalities for shipments of minimal value; wastes time and that each commits to completing each remain-
exemptions from duties and taxes for shipments of minimal ing procedure without delay. Procedures that can be completed
value; clearance of shipments by a third party; appeal of in parallel are measured as simultaneous. The waiting time
customs decisions to a higher level or an independent tribunal; between procedures—for example, during unloading of the
and use of reference prices or arbitrary uplifts to invoice values. cargo—is included in the measure.
The maximum score an economy can obtain is 12.5.
Source: The World Bank, Doing Business 2009
Source: Global Express Association
3.06 Documents for export

Number of documents required to export | 2008
Pillar 3: Efficiency of import-export procedures This variable takes into account all documents required to
export the goods are recorded. It is assumed that the contract
has already been agreed upon and signed by both parties.
3.01 Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance Documents include bank documents, customs declaration and
Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance process by clearance documents, port filing documents, import licenses
customs and border control agencies (1 = very low, and other official documents exchanged between the concerned
5 = very high) | 2007 parties. Documents filed simultaneously are considered different
This variable assesses the effectiveness and efficiency of documents but with the same time frame for completion.
the clearance process by customs and other border control
agencies in the eight major trading partners of each country.
Respondents to the LPI survey were asked to evaluate the
effectiveness and efficiency of clearance in the country in 3.07 Cost to export
which they work, based on their experience in international
Total official cost associated with exporting | 2008
logistics, on a 1-to-5 scale compared with generally accepted
This variable measures the fees levied on a 20-foot container in
industry standards or practices.
U.S. dollars. All the fees associated with completing the proce-
Source: The World Bank, Logistics Perception Index 2007 dures to export or import the goods are included. These include
costs for documents, administrative fees for customs clearance
and technical control, terminal handling charges, and inland
transport. The cost measure does not include tariffs or trade
taxes. Only official costs are recorded.
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 349

Pillar 4: Transparency of border administration 5.04 Road congestion
Motor vehicles per kilometer of road | 2005
4.01 Irregular payments in exports and imports Source: The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2008
In your country, how frequently would you estimate that
firms make undocumented extra payments or bribes
5.05 Quality of air transport infrastructure
connected with import and export permits (1 = common,
7 = never occurs) Passenger air transport in your country is
(1 = underdeveloped, 7 = extensive and efficient by
Source: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey international standards)
2007, 2008
Source: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey
2007, 2008
4.02 Corruption Perceptions Index
A country or territory’s degree of public corruption | 2008
5.06 Quality of railroad infrastructure
The Corruption Perceptions Index score relates to perceptions
of the degree of corruption as seen by business people and Railroads in your country are (1 = underdeveloped,
country analysts, and ranges between 10 (highly clean) and 7 = extensive and efficient by international standards)
0 (highly corrupt).
Source: Transparency International 2007, 2008
5.07 Quality of roads

Pillar 5: Availability and quality of transport Roads in your country are (1 = underdeveloped,
7 = extensive and efficient by international standards)
infrastructure
2007, 2008
5.01 Airport density
Number of airports per million population | 2007
Number of airports with at least one scheduled flight in 2007 5.08 Quality of port infrastructure
per million population. Port facilities and inland waterways in your country
are (1 = underdeveloped, 7 = extensive and efficient by
Source: International Air Transport Association, SRS Analyser international standards). For landlocked countries, this
measures the ease of access to port facilities and inland
waterways (1 = impossible, 7 = easy)
5.02 Transshipment connectivity index
Type of transshipment connections available to shippers Source: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey
from each country/economy on bilateral routes | 2007 2007, 2008 349
This index aims at reflecting the geographical aspects of the
liner services supply and is based on the type of liner shipping
service connections available to shippers from each
country/economy on bilateral routes ranging from a first- to a Pillar 6: Availability and quality of transport services
fourth-order connection. In the absence of a direct liner service
between two countries, the cargo will have to be transshipped
in a port of a third or even fourth country in order to reach the 6.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index
destination country. A first-order connection is a connection Quantity of services provided by liner companies | 2008
without transshipment, a second-order connection is a connec- The Liner Shipping Connectivity Index (LSCI) is an indicator of
tion with one transshipment, and so on. First-order connections liner shipping connectivity, based on indicators of service supply
have the most positive impact on cargo movement. Therefore, per country. The index is comprised of a list of quantitative
the type of connections per country has been weighted as indicators for service parameters available in each country.
follows: first-order connections are multiplied by 1.0, second- The variables included in this index are: number of ships, liner
order connections by 0.5, third-order connections by 0.33, and companies, liner services, TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units)
fourth-order connections by 0.25. The score is the sum of the capacity, and maximum ship size.
four connection types. The indicator reflects the ship deploy-
ment in August 2008. The data were indexed by the maximum Source: UNCTAD, Transport Section, Trade Logistics Branch
value in 2008.
Source: UNCTAD, Transport Section, Trade Logistics Branch 6.02 Ease and affordability of shipment
Ease and affordability of arranging international shipments
(1 = very low, 5 = very high) | 2007
5.03 Paved roads
This variable assesses the ease and affordability associated
Paved roads as percentage of total roads | 2005 with arranging international shipments. Respondents to the
Paved roads are those surfaced with crushed stone (macadam) LPI survey were asked to evaluate the ease and affordability
and hydrocarbon binder or bituminized agents, with concrete, associated with arranging international shipments to or from
or with cobblestones. This indicator shows paved roads as a eight countries (major trading partners) with which they
percentage of all the country/economy’s roads, measured in conduct business. Performance was evaluated using a 5-point
length. scale (1 for the lowest score, 5 for the highest), based on their
experience in international logistics and in accordance with
Source: The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2008
generally accepted industry standards or practices.
Source: The World Bank, Logistics Perception Index 2007
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 350
6.03 Competence of the logistics industry Pillar 7: Availability and use of ICTs
Competence of the logistics industry (e.g., transport
operators, customs brokers) (1 = very low, 5 = very high) |
2007 7.01 Firm-level technology absorption
This variable evaluates the competence of the local logistics Companies in your country are (1 = not able to absorb new
industry. Respondents to the LPI survey were asked to evaluate technology; 7 = aggressive in absorbing new technology)
the competence of the local logistics industry in the eight
countries (major trading partners) with which they conduct Source: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey
business. Performance was evaluated using a 5-point scale 2007, 2008
(1 for the lowest score, 5 for the highest), based on their
7.02 Mobile telephone subscribers
Mobile telephone subscribers per 100 population | 2007
Source: The World Bank, Logistics Perception Index 2007 The term subscribers refers to users of mobile telephones
subscribing to an automatic public switched telephone network
using cellular technology. This can include analogue and digital
6.04 Ability and ease of tracking cellular systems but should not include noncellular systems.
Ability to track and trace international shipments Subscribers to fixed wireless, public mobile data services, or
(1 = very low, 5 = very high) | 2007 radio paging services are not included.
This variable assesses the ability to track and trace international
shipments (consignments). Respondents to the LPI survey Source: International Telecommunication Union, World
were asked to evaluate the ability to track and trace international Telecommunication Indicators 2009
shipments (consignments) when shipping to or from eight
countries (major trading partners) with which they conduct
7.03 Broadband Internet subscribers
business. Performance was evaluated using a 5-point scale
(1 for the lowest score, 5 for the highest), based on their Total broadband Internet subscribers per 100 population |
experience in international logistics and in accordance with 2007
generally accepted industry standards or practices. The International Telecommunication Union considers
broadband to be any dedicated connection to the Internet of
Source: The World Bank, Logistics Perception Index 2007 256 kilobits per second (kb/s) or faster, in both directions.
Broadband subscribers refers to the sum of DSL, cable modem,
and other broadband (for example, fiber optic, fixed wireless,
6.05 Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination apartment LANs, satellite connections) subscribers.
Frequency of shipments reaching the consignee within
the scheduled delivery (1 = very low, 5 = very high) | 2007 Source: International Telecommunication Union, World
This variable assesses how often shipments reach the Telecommunication Indicators 2009
consignee within the scheduled delivery time. Respondents
to the LPI survey were asked to evaluate the timeliness of
7.04 Internet users
350 shipments in reaching destination when arranging shipments
to eight countries (major trading partners) with which they Internet users per 100 population | 2007
conduct business. Performance was evaluated using a 5-point Internet users are people with access to the worldwide
scale (1 for the lowest score, 5 for the highest), based on their network.
Source: International Telecommunication Union, World
Telecommunication Indicators 2009
Source: The World Bank, Logistics Perception Index 2007
7.05 Telephone lines
6.06 Postal service efficiency Main telephone lines per 100 population | 2007
Do you trust your country’s postal system sufficiently to A main telephone line is a telephone line connecting the
have a friend mail a small package worth US$100 to you? subscriber’s terminal equipment to the public switched
(1 = no, not at all; 7 = yes, I trust the system entirely) telephone network and that has a dedicated port in the
telephone exchange equipment.
2007, 2008 Source: International Telecommunication Union, World
Telecommunication Indicators 2009
6.07 GATS commitments in the transport sector

Index of commitments for General Agreement on Trade in
Services in the transport sector | 2009 Pillar 8: Regulatory environment
The indicator measures the extent of commitments for trade-
related services in the transportation sector under the General
8.01 Property rights
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). It covers the following
sectors: air transport services, maritime transport services (only Composite indicator capturing the protection of property
for non-landlocked countries), rail transport services, road trans- rights from the Global Competitiveness Index 2008–2009.
port services, and services auxiliary to all modes of transport. The indicator is the average of two variables: Property rights:
Passenger transport has been excluded across all sectors. Only Property rights in your country, including over financial assets,
subsectors where commitments to opening up completely have are (1 = poorly defined and not protected by law, 7 = clearly
been taken into account and the results have been weighted by defined and well protected by law) and Intellectual property
2007 global trade data. protection: Intellectual property protection and anti-counterfeiting
measures in your country are (1 = weak and not enforced,
Source: International Trade Centre and authors’ calculations 7 = strong and enforced). This composite variable corresponds
to indicator 1.A.1 from the GCI.
Source: World Economic Forum, The Global Competitiveness

Report 2008–2009
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 351

8.02 Ethics and corruption Source: World Economic Forum, The Global Competitiveness
Composite indicator capturing ethics and corruption from Report 2008–2009
the Global Competitiveness Index 2008–2009
The indicator is the average of two variables: Diversion of public
8.06 Openness to foreign participation
funds: In your country, diversion of public funds to companies,
individuals, or groups due to corruption (1 = is common, 7 = This variable is calculated as the average of four
never occurs) and Public trust of politicians: Public trust in the variables: Ease of hiring foreign labor, Prevalence of
financial honesty of politicians in your country is (1 = very low, foreign ownership, Business impact of rules on FDI,
7 = very high). This composite variable corresponds to indicator and Capital controls.
1.A.2 from the GCI.
Source: World Economic Forum, The Global Competitiveness Ease of hiring foreign labor
Report 2008–2009 Labor regulation in your country (1 = prevents your
company from employing foreign labor, 7 = does not
prevent your company from employing foreign labor)
8.03 Undue influence
Composite indicator capturing undue influence from the Source: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey
Global Competitiveness Index 2008–2009 2007, 2008
The indicator is the average of two variables: Judicial
independence: Is the judiciary in your country independent from
Prevalence of foreign ownership
political influences of members of government, citizens, or firms?
(1 = no—heavily influenced, 7 = yes—entirely independent) and Foreign ownership of companies in your country is
Favoritism in decisions of government officials: When deciding (1 = rare and limited, 7 = prevalent and encouraged)
upon policies and contracts, government officials in your country
(1 = usually favor well-connected firms and individuals, 7 = are
2007, 2008
neutral). This composite variable corresponds to indicator 1.A.3
from the GCI.
Source: World Economic Forum, The Global Competitiveness Business impact of rules on FDI
Report 2008–2009 In your country, rules governing foreign direct investment
(1 = discourage foreign direct investment, 7 = encourage
foreign direct investment)
8.04 Government inefficiency
Composite indicator capturing the government’s Source: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey
inefficiency from the Global Competitiveness Index 2007, 2008
2008–2009
The indicator is the average of four variables:Wastefulness of Capital controls
government spending: The composition of public spending
The inflow and outflow of capital into and from your 351
in your country (1 = is wasteful, 7 = efficiently provides neces-
country is (1 = highly restricted by law, 7 = not restricted
sary goods and services not provided by the market); Burden
by law)
of government regulation: Complying with administrative
requirements (permits, regulations, reporting) issued by the Source: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey
government in your country is (1 = burdensome, 7 = not bur- 2007, 2008
densome); Efficiency of legal framework: The legal framework
in your country for private businesses to settle disputes and
challenge the legality of government actions and/or regulations
is (1 = inefficient and subject to manipulation, 7 = efficient and
Pillar 9: Physical security
follows a clear, neutral process) and Transparency of govern-
ment policymaking: Are firms in your country usually informed
clearly by the government of changes in policies and regula- 9.01 Reliability of police services
tions affecting your industry? (1 = never informed; 7 = always
Police services in your country (1 = cannot be relied
informed). This composite variable corresponds to indicator
upon to enforce law and order, 7 = can be relied upon
1.A.4 from the GCI.
to enforce law and order)
Source: World Economic Forum, The Global Competitiveness
Report 2008–2009
2007, 2008
8.05 Domestic competition

9.02 Business costs of crime and violence
Composite indicator capturing the government’s inefficien-
The incidence of common crime and violence in your
cy from the Global Competitiveness Index 2008–2009
country (1 = imposes significant costs on businesses,
The indicator is the average of eight variables:Intensity of
7 = does not impose significant costs on businesses)
local competition: Competition in the local market is (1 = limited
in most industries, 7 = intense in most industries); Extent of Source: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey
market dominance: Corporate activity in your country is (1 = 2007, 2008
dominated by a few business groups, 7 = spread among many
firms); Effectiveness of anti-monopoly policy: Anti-monopoly
policy in your country is (1 = lax and not effective at promoting 9.03 Business costs of terrorism
competition, 7 = effective and promotes competition); Extent The threat of terrorism in your country (1 = imposes
and effect of taxation: The level of taxes in your country (1 = significant costs on businesses, 7 = does not impose
significantly limits the incentives to work or invest, 7 = has significant costs to businesses)
little impact on the incentives to work or invest); Total tax rate
defined as a combination of profit tax (% of profits), labor tax Source: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey
and contribution (% of profits), and other taxes (% of profits); 2007, 2008
Number of procedures required to start a business; Time
required to start a business defined as number of days required
to start a business; and Agricultural policy costs: Agricultural
policy in your country (1 = is excessively burdensome for the
economy, 7 = balances the interests of taxpayers, consumers,
and producers). This composite variable corresponds to
indicator 6.A.1 from the GCI.
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 352
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 353
About the Authors

About the Authors
Fouad Alame Carolin Averbeck

Fouad Alame is Tender Manager Europe for Agility, based Carolin Averbeck has been working as a Market Analyst
in Basel, Switzerland, where he is responsible for provid- in the Market Analysis and Research section of the
ing leading regional and global companies with advanced International Trade Centre (ITC) since late 2006. Her focus
logistics and supply chain solutions. During his career is on market access and non-tariff measures in particular.
with Agility, he has held several positions in Business Prior to joining the ITC, she contributed to UNCTAD’s
Development and Marketing in the Middle East and research and analysis in the area of information and
Europe. Mr Alame is a Doctorate of Business communication technologies (ICTs) for development.
Administration candidate at Strathclyde University, UK. Formerly, she worked in the private sector, including
His doctoral research investigates the impact of structure Cap Gemini. Ms Averbeck holds a Master of Arts in
and culture on services innovation and the strategies that International and Development Economics and a German
companies should pursue to initiate innovation to create Diploma in Computer Science.
and reshape needs and markets. He holds an MBA in
Strategy and International Business from Bradford School Sean Doherty
of Management, UK, and a Master in Marketing and a Sean Doherty is Associate Director and Head of the
Bachelor in Business Administration from Saint Joseph Logistics and Transport industry community in the
University, Lebanon. World Economic Forum. He previously managed both
the Mining and Metals Industry Programme and the
Jean-François Arvis Chemicals Industry Programme in the Forum.
Jean-François Arvis is a Senior Transport Economist with Immediately prior to joining the Forum, he was an
353
the International Trade Department at the World Bank, independent consultant on strategic marketing for TNT
where he is in charge of the knowledge activities in the Express. His main professional background is as a
area of trade logistics. Prior to joining the Bank, he consultant for Booz & Co. and for IBM Business
worked in various positions with the French Ministry Dynamics. He began his career with short stints as a
of Economy and Industry (regulation, trade, finance, trainee engineer at BAE Systems Regional Aircraft and
and development aid). He is a graduate from the Ecole at the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. Mr
Normale Supérieure in Paris and Ecole Nationale Doherty received a Master of Aeronautical Engineering
Supérieure des Mines, and holds Doctorate degrees from Imperial College, a Master of Structural Molecular
in Physics. Biology from the University of London, and an MBA
from the Collège des Ingénieurs.
Marc Auboin
Marc Auboin is a Counsellor in the Economic Research Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz
and Statistics Division of the World Trade Organization Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz is Director and Senior
(WTO), in charge of trade and finance issues including Economist with the Global Competitiveness Network at
WTO-IMF-WB relations, WTO activities on trade finance, the World Economic Forum, where she researches and
and the WTO Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance. writes on issues of national competitiveness, in particular
He is a member of the WTO Task Force on the Finance related to the Arab world. She is lead author or editor of a
Crisis and Trade. Previously he held several positions at number of regional and topical reports and papers. Earlier
the International Monetary Fund (IMF), was Deputy- on, she oversaw the economic modeling for some of the
Secretary General of the Monetary Committee of the Forum’s scenario projects and was charged with develop-
European Union, and worked for the French Treasury. ing the economics section of the program for the World
Dr Auboin holds a PhD in Economics from Sciences-Po, Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos. Before join-
Paris, and was a Research Fellow at the London School ing the Global Competitive-ness Network, Dr Drzeniek
of Economics and Yale University. He lectures at the Hanouz worked for several years with the International
World Trade Institute in Switzerland and at CERDI in Trade Centre in Geneva, where she was in charge of rela-
France, and has published pieces of research on trade tions with Central and Eastern European countries. In this
and finance issues in the IMF’s World Economic Outlook, capacity, she advised governments and developed and
the WTO’s Discussion and Working Paper Series, the Vox implemented programs to strengthen the international
Internet-based platform, and various economic journals. competitiveness of businesses in the region. Dr Drzeniek
Hanouz received a Diploma in Economics from the
University of Münster and holds a PhD in International
Economics from the University of Bochum, both in
Germany.
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 354
About the Authors
Thierry Geiger Gerard McLinden

Thierry Geiger is an Economist with the Global Gerard Mclinden is a Senior Trade Facilitation Specialist in
Competitiveness Network and a Global Leadership Fellow the World Bank’s International Trade Department. He is
at the World Economic Forum. His responsibilities include responsible for the design, development, implementation,
the construction and computation of a range of indexes, and supervision of a range of customs, trade facilitation,
as well as data analysis for various projects and studies. and border management initiatives and projects. He also
His main areas of expertise are econometrics and interna- contributes to the Department’s learning and knowledge
tional trade. Mr Geiger holds a BA in Economics from the program and is responsible for the Bank’s WTO trade
University of Geneva with a specialization in monetary facilitation support program. Prior to joining the World
and financial economics, and an MA in Economics from Bank in 2003, he worked in the World Customs
the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver. Prior Organization (WCO) where he was responsible for a
to joining the Forum, he worked for the World Trade number of customs reform and modernization programs
Organization and Caterpillar Inc. During his studies, he as well as a range of good governance, capacity building,
was a Member of the Board of Junior Entreprise Genève. and technical assistance initiatives. He has over 20 years
He is also Co-Founder of Procab Studio S.A., an IT com- of experience in customs administration, including senior
pany based in Geneva. appointments in a variety of disciplines. During his cus-
toms career, he served as the Project Director for a num-
Qin He ber of Customs reform and modernization projects in the
Qin He is Project Manager of the Global Enabling Trade Asia/Pacific region and as the Senior Australian Customs
Report at the World Economic Forum. Immediately Representative for the Asian region, based in Tokyo,
prior to joining the Forum, Ms He completed a rotational Japan. He holds a Bachelor in Economics and Political
executive management training program at the North Science from the Australian National University, an
American headquarters of CSAV. In this capacity, she Advanced Diploma in Quality Management, and a Master
worked closely with senior executives and led in projects in Management. He has worked in over 60 countries and
to help implement “customer centric” strategies with has undertaken trade facilitation assignments on behalf of
the aim of increasing operational efficiency, improving a range of national and international organizations.
customer service quality, and driving up revenue. Prior to
CSAV, Ms He has worked as a marketing researcher at Kunio Mikuriya
Net2Phone and also managed custom research at Clickin Before taking up his position as Secretary General of the
Research. Ms He holds an MBA from the Massachusetts World Customs Organization (WCO) in 2009, Kunio
Institute of Technology-Sloan School of Management and Mikuriya spent seven years as the Organization’s Deputy
354 a Master in Advertising from the University of Texas at Secretary General. In this position, he led efforts to coor-
Austin. She graduated from Tsinghua University with dinate the work of the WCO with other international
Bachelor degrees in English and Economics. organizations and the private sector. Prior to joining the
WCO, Mr Mikuriya worked for Japan’s Ministry of
Robert Z. Lawrence Finance for 25 years. During his career with the Ministry,
Robert Z. Lawrence is the Albert L. Williams Professor of he occupied a number of senior posts that gave him
Trade and Investment at the John F. Kennedy School of broad experience in customs, trade development, and
Government at Harvard University and a Nonresident budget and financial policies. Among other things, Mr
Senior Fellow with the Peterson Institute for International Mikuriya spent time as a Counsellor at the Japanese
Economics. He was appointed by President Clinton to Mission to the World Trade Organization in Geneva. This
serve as a member of his Council of Economic Advisers experience enabled him to acquire an excellent knowl-
in 1999. He held the New Century Chair as a Nonresident edge of trade-related issues. He has a BA in Law from
Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and founded Tokyo University.
and edited the Brookings Trade Forum. Lawrence has
been a Senior Fellow in the Economic Studies Program at Mondher Mimouni
Brookings (1983–91), a professorial lecturer at the Johns Mondher Mimouni has worked as Senior Market Analyst
Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in the Market Analysis and Research section of the
(1978–81), and an instructor at Yale University (1975). He International Trade Centre since 1999. As part of his
has served as a consultant to the Federal Reserve Bank work on international trade, he has built the Web-based
of New York, the World Bank, the OECD, and UNCTAD. application Market Access Map and developed the Trade
He is the author of more than 100 papers and articles on Performance Index for assessing and monitoring the
topics in the field of international economics, particularly export performance and competitiveness of countries. Mr
on global integration, trade in the Middle East, and the Mimouni has also contributed to a variety of joint market
impact of trade on the labor market. He is also the author access analysis projects of the ITC, UNCTAD, and the
or coauthor of several books, including Blue Collar Blues: WTO, including World Tariff Profile; MDG indicators; and
Is Trade to Blame for Rising US Income Equality? (2008), the multi-agency initiative on the collection, classification,
US-Middle East Trade Agreements: A Circle of and analysis of Non-Tariff Measures. Mr Mimouni holds
Opportunity (2006), Case Studies in US Trade Negotiation an M.Phil. equivalent in Development Economics from
(2006), Anchoring Reform with a US-Egypt Free Trade the Economic University of Montpellier, and an MS in
Agreement (2005), Has Globalization Gone Far Enough? Agricultural Policy and Development Administration from
The Costs of Fragmented Markets (2004), Crimes and the International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean
Punishment? Retaliation under the WTO (2003), and Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM-Montpellier).
Globaphobia: Confronting Fears about Open Trade (1998).
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 355
About the Authors

John Moavenzadeh Goods (www.dagob.info) and LogOn Baltic deals with
John Moavenzadeh is Senior Director and Head of logistics and ICT competence (www.logonbaltic.info).
Sustainable Mobility and Strategy at the World Economic Dr Ojala is an initiator and co-author of the Logistics
Forum. He leads the team within the Forum’s Centre for Performance Index (www.worldbank.org/lpi), which was
Global Industries focused on the automotive, logistics & launched by the World Bank in November 2007.
transportation, and aviation, travel & tourism industries.
Prior to joining the Forum, Mr Moavenzadeh was a prod- Sam Sidiqi
uct design engineer with Ford Motor Company, an associ- Sam Sidiqi is Director of Strategy for Agility, based in
ate with Booz Allen Hamilton’s transportation practice, Basel, Switzerland, where he is responsible for strategy
and executive director of the MIT International Motor development and execution for Europe. At Agility, Mr
Vehicle Program, a global research consortium focused Sidiqi has held a variety of roles in both strategy and
on the automotive industry. He has spoken, lectured, and mergers and acquisitions in Europe, North America, and
published on sustainable mobility and the global automo- the Middle East and has been active with the World
tive industry for the US National Academies and several Economic Forum since 2006. Mr Sidiqi previously worked
universities. Mr Moavenzadeh holds a BS in Mechanical for Bain as an Associate Consultant. He received Palmer’s
Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University, an MS in Scholar honors while obtaining his MBA in Strategic
Mechanical Engineering from the University of Michigan, Management from Wharton and an MA in International
and an MPP from Harvard University. Studies from the Lauder Institute, both of the University
of Pennsylvania. He was a Fulbright Fellow in Egypt and
Michael Moosberger obtained degrees in Economics and Political Science from
Originally from New Zealand, Mr Moosberger undertook MIT.
postgraduate study in International Relations at the
University of Cambridge before joining the International John P. Simpson
Air Transport Association (IATA) in Geneva, where he John Simpson is Director General of the Global Express
is Manager of Economic Research Services. Alongside Association (GEA), which represents the interests of its
managing production and distribution of the ongoing avia- members (DHL, FedEx, TNT, and UPS) in removing mar-
tion economic analysis from the Chief Economist’s office, ket access barriers and improving border efficiency. He
Mr Moosberger is involved in specific research projects has held this position since October 2003. Previously, he
supporting the aviation environment and government was President of the American Association of Exporters
affairs activity of IATA. and Importers (2000–03); prior to that, he was Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Regulatory, Tariff, and Trade
Monica Alina Mustra Enforcement at the US Treasury Department 355
Monica Alina Mustra is a Trade Facilitation and Logistics (1986–2000), with responsibility for, inter alia, US
Specialist in the World Bank’s International Trade Customs; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms;
Department. Mrs Mustra joined the World Bank in 2004 and the Office of Foreign Assets Control.
and has worked on a number of the Bank’s trade and
transport-related projects and learning products, including Olga Skorobogatova
organization of policy dialogues, workshops, seminars, Olga Skorobogatova is a Market Analyst with the
and distance learning courses. Most recently she International Trade Centre. Her responsibilities include the
co-authored the report on the Logistics Performance collection and analysis of trade and market access data,
Indicators (LPI) project—a global initiative of the World as well as the creation, update, and implementation of
Bank Trade Logistics Group (www.worldbank.org/lpi) related Web-based applications from the user perspec-
launched in November 2007. She is currently acting as tive. Ms Skorobogatova holds an MSc in International
the Coordinator for the Global Facilitation Partnership Strategy and Economics from the University of St
for Transportation and Trade (GFP) (www.gfptt.org). Prior Andrews in the UK and a DEA in International Relations
to joining the World Bank, she worked for the Harvard from the Graduate School of International Studies in
Center for International Development (CID), the European Geneva.
Commission, and the Romanian Ministry of Finance. She
holds a Master in Mathematics and Information Steve Smith
Technology from University of Craiova, Romania, a 1-year Steve Smith is Director, IATA e-freight. Following service
Certificate in International Tax Policy and Administration in the Royal Navy, he joined British Airways World Cargo
from Harvard Law School, and a 2-year Master in Public in 1996, as the Head of Revenue Optimisation in Cargo
Administration from John F. Kennedy School of Revenue Management. This was followed by a three-year
Government at Harvard University. period in the change management programme at BA
World Cargo, specifically focused on the implementation
Lauri Ojala of BA’s New World Cargo Centre. In 2001, he became
Dr Lauri Ojala is a tenured Full Professor of Logistics at head of Planning and Development within the London
the Turku School of Economics, Finland. His research Heathrow cargo operation, after which he was appointed
interests include international logistics and transport General Manager for the cargo business in Africa respon-
markets. Since the mid 1990s, he has also worked as an sible for Sales and Customer Service. Mr Smith joined
expert for several international agencies (the World Bank, IATA in April 2006, as Director of Cargo Standards and
the Asian Development Bank, the European Commission, Safety in Montreal, before being appointed Director of
and the Nordic Investment Bank) in development projects IATA e-freight in May 2007, based in Geneva.
in, for example, the Baltic States, Albania, Moldova,
South Caucasus, and Central Asia. In 2006–07, he was
in charge of two EU part-funded logistics projects in the
Baltic Sea Region with a combined volume of over 4 mil-
lion euros; DaGoB deals with transport of Dangerous
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 356
About the Authors
Eva Trujillo Herrera

Eva Trujillo Herrera is a Research Analyst with the Global
Competitiveness Network at the World Economic Forum.
Her responsibilities include the computation of a range of
indexes as well as data analysis for various projects and
studies. Her main areas of expertise are Global Politics
and International Trade. Ms Trujillo Herrera holds an MA
in Applied Economics from Northern Illinois University, in
the United States. Prior joining the Forum, she worked as
a consultant for the International Trade Center (ITC / WTO
/ UNCTAD) in Geneva, Switzerland. During her studies
she was an intern at the United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD), also based in Geneva,
in the Creative Industries Program.
356
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 357
Acknowledgments
The World Economic Forum would like to thank the following organizations
for their invaluable support of this Report.
Agility is one of the world’s leading providers of integrated logistics to businesses and govern-
ments. It is a publicly traded company with $6.8 billion in annual revenue and more than 34,000
employees in over 550 offices and 120 countries. Agility brings efficiency to supply chains in
some of the globe’s most challenging environments, offering unmatched personal service, a
global footprint, and customized capabilities in developed and emerging economies alike.
Agility has three business divisions: Agility Global Integrated Logistics (GIL) is headquartered
in Switzerland and provides supply chain solutions to commercial customers large and small.
Agility Defense & Government Services (DGS), based in Washington, offers logistics services to
governments, relief agencies and international institutions worldwide. Agility Infrastructure group
companies primarily focus on opportunities in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia, providing
infrastructure support in the areas of industrial real estate, customs optimization, and airline
services.
For more information visit our website: www.agilitylogistics.com
Deutsche Post DHL is the world’s leading mail and logistics services group.
The Deutsche Post and DHL corporate brands offer a one-of-a-kind portfolio of logistics
(DHL) and communications (Deutsche Post) services. The Group provides its customers with
both easy-to-use standardized products as well as innovative and tailored solutions ranging from
357
dialog marketing to industrial supply chains. Over 500,000 employees in more than 220 coun-
tries and territories form a global network focused on service, quality and sustainability. With
programs in the areas of climate protection, disaster relief and education, the Group is committed
to social responsibility. In 2008, Deutsche Post DHL revenues exceeded €54 billion.
The postal service for Germany. The logistics company for the world.
DP World is one of the largest marine terminal operators in the world, with 49 terminals and 12
new developments across 31 countries. Its dedicated, experienced and professional team of
nearly 30,000 people serves customers in some of the most dynamic economies in the world.
In 2008, DP World handled more than 46.8 million TEU (twenty-foot equivalent container
units). With a pipeline of expansion and development projects in key growth markets, including
India, China and the Middle East, capacity is expected to rise to around 95 million TEU over the
next ten years.
FedEx Corp. (NYSE: FDX) provides customers and businesses worldwide with a broad portfolio
of transportation, e-commerce and business services. With annual revenues of $38 billion, the
company offers integrated business applications through operating companies competing collec-
tively and managed collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. Consistently ranked
among the world’s most admired and trusted employers, FedEx inspires its more than 290,000
team members to remain “absolutely, positively” focused on safety, the highest ethical and
professional standards and the needs of their customers and communities. For more information,
visit news.fedex.com.
GeoPost consolidates the Express service subsidiaries of Groupe La Poste, one of the world’s
largest operators in the transportation and services sector and a Fortune 500 company with a
history dating back more than 700 years. GeoPost is a major force in Express throughout Europe
as demonstrated by its top ranking DPD road transport network. GeoPost operates in over 230
countries on behalf of over 300,000 customers worldwide and is no.1 in France and no.2 at
European level on the express parcel market with a consolidated turnover figure of 3.292 billion
euros in 2008. GeoPost Intercontinental is the global expansion vehicle of the GeoPost group.
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 358
Acknowledgments
The Global Express Association represents international express delivery companies that serve
over 220 countries, carrying over 30 million packages each day, all of them guaranteed to be
delivered within specified time frames. Express delivery operators provide integrated, door-to-
door services, including not only transportation systems in which the location and progress of
packages is constantly tracked but also cross-border clearance and collection of payments from
customers. Express delivery operators make it possible for businesses of any size to compete
effectively in the modern global marketplace, serving their customers across a continent or
around the world.
Although the efficient transportation links provided by express delivery companies can benefit
a national economy of any nature, they are critical to knowledge-based economies, those
engaged in production of high-value goods, and those comprising primarily small and medium
size enterprises.
More information about GEA and its members is available at www.global-express.org or
from info@global-express.org.
The International Air Transport Association (IATA), founded in April 1945, is the prime vehicle for
inter-airline cooperation in promoting safe, reliable, secure, and economical air services. Today
IATA represents 250 airlines comprising 94 percent of international scheduled air traffic.
The International Trade Centre (ITC) is the joint technical cooperation agency of the United
Nations and the WTO. ITC enables small business export success in developing countries by
providing, with partners, sustainable and inclusive trade development solutions to the private
sector, trade support institutions and policy makers.
358
The Stena Sphere consists of the three parent companies, Stena AB (publ), Stena Sessan AB
and Stena Metall AB and their subsidiaries. The Stena Spere generated total revenues of SEK
55,787 million in 2008. Income before tax amounted to SEK 2,231 million. Business idea is to
use our knowledge about trade, ships, service, industry, and finance to make money in the busi-
ness areas shipping, ferry lines, offshore drilling, real estate, recycling and finance and to look
after our clients in such a way that we contribute to their development as well as the develop-
ment of society.
TNT provides businesses and consumers worldwide with an extensive range of services for their
mail and express delivery needs. Headquartered in the Netherlands, TNT offers efficient network
infrastructures in Europe and Asia and is expanding operations worldwide to maximise its net-
work performance. TNT serves more than 200 countries and employs more than 163,000 people.
Over 2008, TNT reported €11.1 billion in revenues and an operating income of €982 million. TNT
is officially quoted on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange. TNT recognises its social responsibility
and has formed partnerships with the United Nations World Food Programme and the United
Nations Environment Programme to fight hunger and pollution in the world. Our efforts are
being recognised: in 2008, TNT again reached the highest score of all companies included in the
Dow Jones Sustainability Index and in the Carbon Disclosure Project in the carbon intensive sector.
A transport and logistics company, wholly-owned by the South African government. It has
around 48,000 employees and assets in excess of ZAR 100 billion. It is investing over ZAR 80
billion during the next five years on revitalizing and extending its infrastructure by widening and
deepening ports, building a new pipeline, buying hundreds of new locomotives and addressing a
maintenance backlog, especially at its rail freight division. Its operating divisions are Freight Rail,
National Ports Authority, Port Terminals, Pipelines and Rail Engineering.
Part 2 6/19/09 12:51 PM Page 359
Acknowledgments
UNCTAD promotes the development-friendly integration of developing countries into the world
trade and economy, particularly focusing on sustainable development.
The organization carries out three key functions:

It is a forum for intergovernmental deliberations and consensus building.
It undertakes research, policy analysis and data collection.
It provides technical assistance tailored towards developing countries, in particular the least
developed countries and of economies in transition.
The UNCTAD secretariat works together with member Governments and donors and interacts
with organizations of the United Nations system, other intergovernmental and governmental
institutions, non-governmental organizations, the private sector, research institutes and
universities worldwide.
UPS is the world’s largest package delivery company and a global leader in supply chain and
freight services, offering an extensive range of options for synchronising the movement of goods,
information and funds. Headquartered in Atlanta, USA, UPS serves more than 200 countries
and territories worldwide. UPS’s stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange (UPS) and the
company can be found on the Web at www.UPS.com.
The World Bank is a vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries
around the world. We are not a bank in the common sense. We are made up of two unique
development institutions owned by 185 member countries—the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA).
Each institution plays a different but supportive role in our mission of global poverty reduction
and the improvement of living standards. The IBRD focuses on middle income and creditworthy 359
poor countries, while IDA focuses on the poorest countries in the world. Together we provide
low-interest loans, interest-free credit and grants to developing countries for education, health,
infrastructure, communications and many other purposes.
The World Customs Organization (WCO), with its 174 Members across the globe responsible for
processing approximately 98% of world trade, is the only global intergovernmental organization
uniquely focused on customs matters. Recognized as the voice of the international customs
community, the WCO is particularly noted for its competence in areas covering the development
of global standards, the simplification and harmonization of customs procedures, the security of
the trade supply chain, the facilitation of world trade, customs enforcement and compliance
programmes, coordinated border management, the international Harmonized System goods
nomenclature, customs valuation, origin, and sustainable customs capacity building initiatives.
For more information visit www.wcoomd.org or send an email to information@wcoomd.org.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the international organization dealing with the global
rules of trade between nations. Its main function is to ensure that trade flows as smoothly,
predictably and freely as possible.
The
and well-being. Further enabling trade across borders in the wake of the global financial
International tradetrade
International has has
long been
long viewed
been as an
viewed essential
asborders inelement
an essentialtheelementof of
national
of prosperity
national prosperity
The
and well-being. Further enabling trade across
cover.mech.r2.pantone280pc wake
6/24/09 3:24 PM Page 1
crisis will not only
the global financial
enhance trade and boost economic growth in the longer term, but
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009

and well-being. Further enabling trade across borders in thein wake of the
of global financial
The
and
crisis well-being.
will not only Further
enhance enabling
trade trade
and across
boost borders
economic the in
wake the global financial
will also contribute to mitigate thegrowth
effects of the
the longer
current term,
crisis but
Global
crisis will
crisis not
will only
not enhance
only trade
enhance and
trade
will also contribute to mitigatecost boost
and
theofeffects economic
boost economic growth in
growth the
in longer
the term,
longer
trade. of the current crisis by reducing the transaction but
term, but
Global
will
costalso contribute
willofalso to mitigate
contribute
trade. the effects
to mitigate of the
the effects of current crisiscrisis
the current by reducing the transaction
Global
In this context, The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 measures and analyzes institutions,

costcost
of trade.
of trade.
In this context, The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009strengths
measures andchallenges
analyzestoinstitutions,
The
TheGlobal
Report 2009 Enabling
Global EnablingTrade
Trade
Enabling
for policymakers a country’s and the be addressed. The Report
Inpolicies,
this context,
In this The
context, Global
The Enabling
Global Trade
Enabling
includes
and services enabling trade the Report
Trade 2009
Report
most current
in national measures
2009
economies and
measures
data and recent analyzes
and
analysis
around the of the institutions,
analyzes
world, institutions,
factors enabling trade in indus-
highlighting
Report 2009
policies, and
policies, services
and enabling
services trade
enabling in
trade
trialized national
and in economies
national
emerging economies
economies, around
as asthe
around
well the world,
the
latest highlighting
world,
thinkinghighlighting
and research from trade
Enabling
Report
Report2009
2009
experts and industry practitioners. Report
for policymakers a country’s strengths and the
haschallenges tofactors
be asaddressed. The
Enabling
for policymakers
includes the most a country’s
current data strengths
International
and recent and
trade the
longchallenges
analysis been viewed
of the to be addressed.
anenabling
essential The
element
trade Report
inofindus-
national prosperity
The
includes the
includes most
the current
most data
current and
and
data
trialized and emerging economies, recent
well-being.
and analysis
Further
recent
as well of
analysis
as the the
enablingof factors
trade
the acrossenabling
factors
latest thinking
borders intrade
enabling
and Enabling
research in
the wake
trade
from indus-
ofinthe global financial
indus-
trade
The Report presents the rankings of the updated Trade Index (ETI), developed
crisis will not only enhance trade and boost economic growth in the longer term, but
Trade
trialized
experts and
trialized emerging
andand
industry economies,
emerging by theas
economies,
practitioners. well as the
asEconomic
World well latest
as Forum inthinking
the latest andwith
thinking
collaboration research
and from
research
international trade
from
trade tradeand leaders
experts
will also contribute to mitigate the effects of the current crisis by reducing the transaction
experts and and
experts industry from
practitioners.
industry the
practitioners. logistics and transport industry. It is a comprehensive index intended to capture
Global
cost of trade.
factors that facilitate the free flow of goods across national borders and to destination.
Trade
The Report
The presents
Report the
presents rankings
the In thisofcontext,
rankings the
of updated
the GlobalEnabling
Theupdated Enabling Trade
Trade
Enabling Index
Report
Trade (ETI),
2009
tradeIndex developed
measures
(ETI), and analyzes institutions,
developed
Report
by the World Economic Forum in collaboration with international experts and leaders
Trade
byfrom
the
by World
the Economic
the logistics
World and Forum
Economic in collaboration
Forum
introducing
transport industry.the It iswith
in collaboration
export international
with
a dimension. The last trade
international
comprehensive section
index experts
trade
of and
experts
the Report
intended leaders
and leaders
tocontains
capture detailed profiles
Report 2009
Enabling
from the
thefrom logistics
full range of and
the logistics transport
and
issues that industry.
transport
for the 121
contribute It isimpeding
industry.
economies
to Ita is
comprehensive
a comprehensive
covered by the index
ETI.
trade, ranking intended
index
nations to capture
intended to capture
according to
includes the most current data and recent analysis of the factors enabling trade in indus-
the full
the range
factors full
that of issues
range
facilitate thatfree
of issues
the contribute
that
trialized andto
contribute impeding
to impeding
emerging trade, ranking
trade,
economies, asnations
ranking
as well according
nations
the and
latest andto
according
thinking to from trade
research
Inflow of
addition, goods across
the Report national
includes borders
insightful contributions to destination.
from a number of trade experts.
2009
Report
factors that
factors facilitate
the that the
facilitateoffree
the flow
experts
thefree
Report ofand
flow goods
inof across
industry
goods
2008, the national
across has borders
practitioners.
national and and
borders to destination.
to destination.
Since publication Among these essays areIndex
explorations been enhanced
of different aspectsby of explicitly
trade facilitation, such
Report
Since the publication
Since thethe
introducing publication
export of Report
of dimension.
the the in
as Report
theThe 2008,
availability
last the
in 2008, Index
of trade
section hasin
thefinance
ofIndex
the been
has
Report enhanced
the been
currentenhanced
financial
contains by explicitly
by explicitly
climate,
detailed analysis of non-tariff
profiles
introducing the
forintroducing export dimension.
the export The
barriers,
dimension. lastETI.
and
The section
global
last section of Report
of the
efforts in the area of
the Report contains
trade detailed
facilitation.
contains A profiles
particular
detailed focus this year is
profiles
Trade
the 121 economies covered byWorld
by the the Economic Forum in collaboration with international trade experts and leaders
on customs, a key area of the Doha negotiations.
for the
for 121 economies
the 121 covered
economies bythe
covered
from the ETI.
bylogistics
the ETI.and transport industry. It is a comprehensive index intended to capture
In addition, the Report includes insightful contributions from a number of trade
appealsexperts.
2009
Written in a nontechnical language and style, the Report to a broad audience
Report factors that facilitate the free flow of goods across of
national borders and to destination.
InAmong
addition, the
In addition, the includes
Report insightful
includes contributions
insightful contributions from a
from number
a number trade
of experts.
trade experts.
2009
that includes policymakers, business leaders, and members of the academic community.
Report 2009
these essays are explorations of different aspects of trade facilitation, such
Amongthe these
as Among essays
these
availability of are
essays
tradeexplorations
are It providesof
explorations
finance in the different
a yardstick to aspects
measure
of different of extent
the
aspects trade facilitation,
to
of tradewhich suchhave
countries
facilitation, suchin place the nec-
introducing the current financial
export dimension. climate,
The analysis
last section of non-tariff
of the Report contains detailed profiles
essary attributes for facilitating the free flow of goods, and aims to provoke dialogue
asbarriers,
the
as availability
the and of trade
availability
global finance
of trade
efforts finance
infor
the inarea
the the
121 current
ineconomies
the
of trade financial
current byclimate,
financial
covered
facilitation. analysis
Aclimate,
the ETI.
particular of non-tariff
analysis
focus of non-tariff
this year is
barriers, and and
onbarriers,
customs, global efforts
global
a key ofinthe
efforts
area the area
inDoha
the of trade
area facilitation.
of trade
negotiations. A particular
facilitation. focus
A particular this this
focus yearyear
is is
In addition, the Report includes insightful contributions from a number of trade experts.
on customs, a key
on customs, areaarea
a key of the
of Doha
the Dohanegotiations.
negotiations.
Among these essays are explorations of different aspects of trade facilitation, such
Written in a nontechnical language and style,
as the availability Reportinappeals
the finance
of trade the currenttofinancial
a broad audience
climate, analysis of non-tariff
Written in
Writtena nontechnical
in a language
nontechnical languageand
barriers, style,
and
and global the
style, Report
the
efforts in the appeals
Report
area of to
appeals
trade a broad
to a
facilitation.
that includes policymakers, business leaders, and members of the academic community. audience
broad
A audience
particular focus this year is
that includes
that
It provides apolicymakers,
includesyardstick business
policymakers, leaders,
onbusiness
customs,
to measure the
key and
aleaders,
extent members
to and
area of of the
themembers
which of academic
countries the
haveacademic
Doha negotiations. community.
in place community.
the nec- Lawrence
It essary
provides a
It provides yardstick
a to
yardstick measure
to the
measure extent
the to
extent which
to countries
which have
countries in
have place
in the
place nec-
the nec- Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University
attributes for facilitating the free flow of goods, and aims to provoke dialogue
Written in a nontechnical language and style, the Report appeals to a broad audience Drzeniek
essary attributes for facilitating thebest
free flow of goods, and and
aimsto to provoke Hanouz Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, World Economic Forum
essary
among attributes
stakeholders for facilitating
about how the to
that includes
free flow
improve ofthe
policymakers,
goods,
situation
business
aims
leaders, offset the dialogue
to provoke
and members
dialogue
present crisis community.
of the academic
among stakeholders
among about
stakeholders how
about It best
how to
best
provides a improve
to the
improve
yardstick to situation
the
measure to
situation
the offset
extentto
to the
offset
which present
the crisis
present
countries have incrisis
place the nec- Moavenzadeh John Moavenzadeh, World Economic Forum
and and
ultimately raiseraise
ultimately the prosperity
essaryof theof world’s
attributes
the prosperity citizens.
theforworld’s
facilitating the free flow of goods, and aims to provoke dialogue
citizens.
ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-22-7
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University
Drzeniek
Lawrence Robert
RobertZ. Lawrence,
Z. Lawrence,Harvard
HarvardUniversity
University
Drzeniek
Drzeniek
Hanouz
Drzeniek
Margareta
Robert Drzeniek
Z. Lawrence, Hanouz, World Economic Forum
Harvard University
HanouzHanouz Margareta
Margareta
Margareta Drzeniek
Drzeniek Hanouz,Hanouz,
Drzeniek Hanouz, World Economic
World Forum
Economic Forum
Hanouz
Moavenzadeh John Moavenzadeh, World
Economic Forum
Moavenzadeh
Moavenzadeh
Moavenzadeh John
John Moavenzadeh,
John Moavenzadeh,
Moavenzadeh, World
World Economic Economic
WorldForum Forum
Economic Forum
ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-22-7
ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-22-7
ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-22-7
ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-22-7

Global Enabling Trade Report 2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Enabling Trade Report 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International trade has long been viewed as an essential element of national prosperity

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009

The Global Enabling Trade

The Global Enabling Trade

World Economic Forum

The Global Enabling Trade

Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 is World Economic Forum

Professor Klaus Schwab All rights reserved. No part of this publication

At the World Economic Forum:

LOGISTICS AND TRANSPORT TEAM

Sean Doherty, Head of Logistics and Transport Industry

GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS NETWORK

Jennifer Blanke, Director, Senior Economist,

A special thank you to Hope Steele for her

The terms country and nation as used in this

Partner Institutes v 1.8 Implementing Trade Facilitation 83

Executive Summary xiii

1.1 Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis 3

1.2 Finance for Trade: Efforts to Restart the Engine 37

1.3 Managing Borders in the 21st Century 45

1.4 IATA e-Freight: Taking the Paper Out of Air Cargo 53

1.5 A Tour of the Ongoing Work of the World Trade 59

1.6 Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the 69

1.7 Enabling Trade: Relationship to Clusters and Setting 77

The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Belgium

Taiwan, China Vietnam

Table 1: The Enabling Trade Index 2009

Singapore 1 5.97 2 5.63 1 6.49 3 5.64 3 6.13

Honduras 66 3.80 16 4.87 82 3.42 82 3.01 84 3.91

Table 2: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Market access

El Salvador 1 5.64 1 5.64

Burundi 68 3.92 68 3.92

Table 3: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Border administration

Singapore 1 6.49 1 6.43 1 6.46 4 6.57

Sri Lanka 67 3.75 71 3.31 55 4.78 75 3.15

Germany 1 5.77 8 5.28 3 5.85 3 6.20

Argentina 67 3.33 91 2.99 66 3.44 47 3.57

Table 5: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Business environment

Finland 1 6.29 3 5.88 1 6.70

Mali 68 4.23 72 3.72 69 4.73

regional facilitation and transit systems, the improvement

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Figure 1: The volume of world trade: Now vs. then

Period beginning April 2008

Source: Eichengreen and O’Rourke, 2009.

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Policy priorities Trade provides potential gains for countries to

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Figure 2: Composition of the four subindexes of the ETI

Domestic and foreign Efficiency of customs Availability and quality of

Efficiency of import- Availability and quality of

Transparency of Availability and

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Box 1: ETI findings by stages of development

Box 1: ETI findings by stages of development (cont’d.)

Figure 1: Enabling Trade Index results vs. GDP per capita

GDP per capita, US$ (log)

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Figure 2: Performance of factor-driven economies (stage 1) by ETI pillar

Source: World Economic Forum.