ENEFA Proceedings año 2011 Proceedings del XXVII Encuentro

Transcripción

din
gs
Proceedings del XXVII Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA
Proceedings – Vol. 4, año 2011
ASFAE
er
es
AUTOR:
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
1.06 DETERMINANTS OF COMPETITIVENESS OF AGRIBUSINESS COMPANIES OF
ASPARAGUS
rR
JORGE HEREDIA PÉREZ
to
[email protected]
Au
Profesor de la Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales, Universidad Católica Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
s-
De
re
ch
os
de
Av. Panamericana Norte # 855 Chiclayo - Perú
185
ASFAE
din
gs
ABSTRACT
This research analyzes the competitiveness of Peruvian asparagus from 2000 to 2007.
ee
Initially, we calculate the revealed comparative advantage index, finding a growing comparative
oc
advantage and with a model based on a gravity equation; we verified that comparative advantage
NE
FA
Pr
and GDP per capita of trading partners are key factors that explain trade flows of Peruvian asparagus.
On the other hand, we surveyed Peruvian exporters and applied factorial analysis to identify
-E
the main factors that affect competitiveness of Peruvian exports of asparagus. Finally, we conclude
os
that exports of Peruvian asparagus are based on comparative advantage, but not in competitive
er
va
d
advantages.
es
There are two key conclusions around this research. First of all, the growth of Peruvian
rR
exports of asparagus is explained by comparative advantages, sustained by factor endowment, soil
Au
to
and weather. Finally, the analysis made about the main factors that create competitive advantage,
de
showed that exchange rate and tariffs do not generate any advantage.
os
Key words: Exports of Peruvian asparagus, competitive advantage, comparative advantage, gravity
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
s-
De
re
ch
equation.
186
ASFAE
din
gs
1. The Peruvian Asparagus
Asparagus
ee
Product description and variety
oc
The asparagus is a natural product, with a fleshy and firm texture, an intense fragrance and a
Pr
slightly sweet taste that requires a greater exposure to sunlight to obtain a green color. It is
NE
FA
considered a gourmet food due to the exclusiveness of its consumption and its dietary properties. Its
high fiber content facilitates the process of digestion.
-E
The presentations in which is produced are: fresh, processed (preserved or frozen), or ullage.
os
There are seven varieties of asparagus that can be grouped in two categories: Light-green or
er
va
d
white color varieties (2 varieties) and dark-green color varieties (5 varieties).
es
Asparagus in Peru
rR
It is commercialized mainly as fresh asparagus. It is grown largely in La Libertad and Ica
to
regions and has two “campaigns”: from January to May/June and the main campaign, from
Au
September to December.
de
Peru has a comparative advantage relative to the rest of the world; our yields exceed 100%
os
more than our closest competitor such as China. This advantage has allowed us to be competitive
ch
against other countries, but, if we do not work on improve our competitive advantages, that breach
De
re
will decrease in the medium term.
FIGURE N° 1
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
s-
YIELDS OF MAIN PRODUCERS AND EXPORTERS OF ASPARAGUS (Tn/Ha)
Source: Tecnoserve
Elaboration: AGROBANCO
187
ASFAE
Asparagus exports have experienced a clear growing tendency as stated before. In the last
din
gs
five years, total income has grown more than 2.6 times from 160 million to 420 million dollars FOB.
This is explained not just by the increase in demand but also by the increase of international prices.
ee
FIGURE N° 2
Au
to
rR
es
er
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ASPARAGUS: TOTAL EXPORTS IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOB
Source: INFORMACCIÓN
de
ch
os
The evolution of Peruvian fresh asparagus has kept a clear rising tendency. In our country,
re
most of the production came in the second semester of the year. This is because during this time of
De
year the demand of fresh asparagus increases in international markets due to a shortage produced
s-
by the crop phenological period that does not allow all the producing countries to supply all the
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
markets.
188
ASFAE
er
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
din
gs
FIGURE N° 3
FRESH ASPARAGUS EXPORTS 2005, 2006 AND 2007 (Kg) AND REFERENCE PRICE
rR
es
Source: ADEX - ADUANAS - INFORMACCIÓN
to
For fresh asparagus, there is a high market concentration, because just one country, United
Au
States of America, gathers 72% of our exports. We should try to diminish this concentration so a
de
possible negative shock won’t decrease our national production of asparagus.
os
If we diversify our supply to more countries, we can reduce the risk of a possible fall of our
De
re
ch
production.
If we look just the processed asparagus, Spain is our main client, buying 33% of our
ing
s-
production.
ce
ed
Our second trading partner is United States of America with an 18% of our production. In this
Pr
o
case, our supply is more diversified and there is a lower risk of negative shocks due to a recession
EF
A
because there is not a significant market concentration.
EN
If we compare the first semester of 2007 with similar periods in 2005 and 2006, we can
appreciate an important growth, so we can expect that that tendency will remain while there is no
other negative externality (climate risk, crisis in North American consumption, among others). Also,
189
ASFAE
the international price of fresh asparagus has experienced an increase, probably because of a higher
din
gs
demand, which have grown faster than the supply of it.
FIGURE N° 4
to
rR
es
er
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
PRESERVED ASPARAGUS EXPORTS 2005, 2006 AND 2007 (kg) AND REFERECE PRICES IN DOLLARS
Au
Source: ADEX - ADUANAS - INFORMACCIÓN
de
os
Frozen asparagus exports have grown 11% during 2007 (from 9’9128,585.93 kg in 2006 to
re
ch
11’022,012.78 kg in 2007) and prices have risen almost all year (except in January, May, June and
De
August) with an all-time record of US$ 2.77 per kg during October (this is the month that has an even
s-
higher price compared to the previous two years even though it is also a month with high total
ing
exports; this induces us to believe that this is the month in which international markets are stocked
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
out.
190
ASFAE
FIGURE N° 5
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
din
gs
FROZEN ASPARAGUS EXPORTS 2005, 2006 AND 2007 (kg) AND REFERENCE PRICES IN DOLLARS
es
er
Source: ADEX - ADUANAS – INFORMACCIÓN
rR
Frozen asparagus exports have shown an important growth during 2008 (13.88% more than
to
the previous year). This growth has been generated mainly by the increase in demand for this crop.
Au
Although Peru is the largest exporter of asparagus, on the other hand, there are categories in
de
which we do not stand out, like canned and frozen asparagus. That show us that we possess
os
comparative advantages against other countries but we lack the competitive advantages like
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
s-
De
re
ch
technological or agro industrial development.
191
ASFAE
FIGURE N° 6
rR
es
er
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
din
gs
TOTAL EXPORTS BY VOLUME (thousands of net tons) AND VALUE (millions of FOB dollars) 1993-2005
Au
to
Source: IPEH.
Elaboration: ADEX-Aduanas
de
In figure N° 6, it is shown clearly how the value and exports volume of asparagus have risen
os
heavily, especially since 2000 until 2005, when it reached maximum levels. On the other hand,
ch
volumes and value exported of asparagus have been stable their last important fall between 1994
De
re
and 1995. Finally, frozen asparagus have not had much participation in Peruvian exports because
they have been at very low levels, around 20 million dollars for many years, without showing much
ing
s-
growth in volume or total value.
Over time, asparagus exports have increased exponentially in our country, making a clear
ce
ed
turning point since 2000, year in which the Free Trade Agreement started, with the government of
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
Alejandro Toledo.
192
ASFAE
FIGURE N° 7
er
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
din
gs
TOTAL EXPORTS (Tn)
rR
es
Source: FAO STAT
to
Similar to what we observed before, Peru is the first exporter of fresh asparagus in the world,
Au
although we have not been favored in other categories, China leads exports of canned asparagus.
de
This is explained by a great development of agroindustry in the eastern country, while Peru has taken
os
a significant advantage in fresh asparagus, but we have not developed any competitive advantage.
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
s-
De
re
ch
FIGURE N° 8
MAJOR EXPORTERS OF ASPARAGUS 2005-2007
EN
EF
Source: Trade Map
193
ASFAE
FIGURE N° 9
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
din
gs
% OF NON-TRADITIONAL EXPORTS AND ASPARAGUS
er
Source: FAOSTAT
es
In the same way as the volume of Asparagus exports in Peru, the percentage of exports
rR
compared to non-traditional exports is growing exponentially, without falls or structural breaks. Due
Au
to
to this situation, we expect this same growing pattern in exports of asparagus compared to non-
os
Farm prices vs. International prices
de
traditional exports.
ch
Farm prices are presented as more unstable, being higher in 2005, compared to 2006 or
De
re
2007, with an unfavorable balance to the producer. If we compare both farm and international prices
in different periods, we can state that there is a clear gap that is stable over time, but if we look
ing
s-
further in those results, we realize that this gap was widening until march, 2007; which was
ed
detrimental to the producer, however, this gap has been narrowing in May and June, but finally, in
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
the last months of 2007, it has increased again.
194
ASFAE
FIGURE N° 10
rR
es
er
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
din
gs
COMPARISON: FARM PRICES VS INTERNATIONAL PRICES FOR FRESH ASPARAGUS
Au
to
Source: MINAG - INFORMACCIÓN
de
If we analyze the possible causes of this phenomenon, it might be explained by a rise in
os
National supply (this caused the domestic price to fall), but with world demand rising at a much
ch
faster pace than global production (international prices have risen), prices have increased more than
De
re
95%.
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
s-
FIGURE N° 11
INTERNATIONAL PRICES FOR FRESH AND PRESERVED ASPARAGUS
195
ASFAE
din
gs
Source: MINAG - INFORMACCIÓN
Comparing between different presentations of asparagus, we can realize that canned
ee
asparagus has a much higher price than the other kind of asparagus sold worldwide, this is because
oc
of the added value that possess. If we compare the gaps between the prices of fresh and canned
Pr
asparagus from 2006 to 2007, we observe that this gap increased S/. 0.80 PEN (Peruvian currency),
NE
FA
which indicates that even though prices of both canned and fresh asparagus have risen, the price of
-E
canned asparagus have increased in a bigger proportion.
os
Destination of exports of Peruvian asparagus
va
d
As stated before, in the case of fresh asparagus, we find that there is a high market
concentration (in United States of America). We should try to alleviate this situation so we lower the
es
er
risk of a great shock in our production of this crop if there is a fall in demand for it. The most feasible
rR
solution is try to diversify our supply to other countries. If we are able to do this, we have a better
to
position in international markets because we are offering our products to more countries, which
de
Au
could lower the risk of negative shocks.
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
s-
De
re
ch
os
FIGURE N° 12
DESTINATION OF OUR EXPORTS OF FRESH ASPARAGUS – 2006
Source: ADEX - ADUANAS – INFORMACCIÓN
196
ASFAE
din
gs
Spain is our bigger trading partner of preserved asparagus, but its lead is not important
because we are trading to more countries. United States of America, France, Germany, Denmark,
ee
Netherlands and Italy are our most important clients of preserved asparagus. As we can see, having
oc
more trading partners could benefit us not only because of a higher demand for our products but
Pr
because of a “protection” of our production in international markets.
Au
to
rR
es
er
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
FIGURE N° 13
MAIN DESTINATIONS OF EXPORTS OF CANNED ASPARAGUS – 2007
de
Source: INFORMACCIÓN
ch
os
In the case of frozen asparagus, we do not see as much fragmentation as the case of exports
re
of canned asparagus, but we there are significant clients with some leverage internationally
De
(observed as market share). United States is our main client in this category (42%) and doubles our
s-
second most important client (Spain with 21%). Other important clients here include Italy, United
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
Kingdom, Japan and Netherlands.
197
ASFAE
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
din
gs
FIGURE N° 14
MAIN DESTINATIONS OF EXPORTS OF FROZEN ASPARAGUS – 2007
er
va
d
Source: Información
to
rR
es
2. Methodology and logistical performance index
de
Au
Performance of Peruvian exports of asparagus to United States subject to external variables
os
In the following figures presented, we show the total volume of Peruvian exports of
ch
asparagus to United States of America as a function of tariffs, real exchange rate and American GDP
re
per capita. The data was analyzed under a linear fit so we could see more clearly the effects of
s-
De
international markets in our exports.
ing
The hypothesis was that the relationship between total volume of exports and tariffs is an
ed
inverse one, or with higher tariffs, the exports of asparagus should fall, and in this case the initial
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
hypothesis was confirmed.
198
ASFAE
FIGURE N° 15
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
din
gs
LINEAR FIT: EXPORTS VS TARIFFS FROM 1992 TO 2008
es
er
Source: FAOSTAT
rR
On the other hand, we can a see a direct relationship between real exchange rate and
to
exports (Figure N° 16). In fact, if there is an increase in real exchange rate (higher value of foreign
Au
currency, USD and lower value of domestic currency, PEN) the total volume of Peruvian exports will
os
de
increase as well.
ch
Although we have a direct relationship between exports and Exchange rate, we later
re
conclude that the real Exchange rate is not a factor of competitiveness, but a result of policies
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
s-
De
applied by governments to induce a rise in exports.
199
ASFAE
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
din
gs
FIGURE N° 16
LINEAR FIT: EXPORTS VS REAL EXCHANGE RATE
es
er
Source: FAOSTAT
rR
Another observed relationship is the one between Peruvian exports and GDP per capita of
Au
higher income, a higher volume of exports.
to
USA (Figure N° 17). In this case, we also see a direct relationship between both variables, with a
de
FIGURE N° 17
ce
ed
ing
s-
De
re
ch
os
LINEAR FIT: EXPORTS VS GDP USA
A
Pr
o
Source: FAOSTAT
EF
We looked at the relationship between GDP per capita of United States and Peruvian exports
EN
because this is one of the most important destinations of our exports and that relationship is
positive.
Analyzing the relationship between our exports and real exchange rate and according the
work of Mario Tello (2004), it is showed that, in the last 50 years, the real exchange rate has not had
200
ASFAE
a significant effect in our exports. This is confirmed by an econometric model analyzed later. We are
din
gs
trying to find the right variables that should be considered in a posterior analysis about the factors
that influence trade flows. As a conclusion, we can state that the exchange rate is not a factor of
oc
ee
competitiveness but just an effect produced by government policies.
Pr
Agro industrial Competitiveness
NE
FA
The concept of competitiveness is explained as a function the analyzed object, therefore, the
concept of national competitiveness if different from the concept of agro industrial competitiveness.
-E
The latter can be defined as the ability to create profit and deliver value through product
os
differentiation and cost leadership.
va
d
Cost leadership is related with commodities or product with little or no differentiation, where
er
the only benefit to a costumer is a lower price. Some sources of cost leadership are: optimization of
es
variable costs, optimization of inventory, economies of scale and lower transaction costs.
rR
On the other hand, to analyze product differentiation, we do it in terms of perceived value by
os
de
Au
to
costumers. As follows:
ch
In the case of agricultural products, the greatest source of perceived benefit is biotechnology,
De
re
which could help create differential benefits for undifferentiated products, such as products with a
higher quality.
ing
s-
Agro industry covers a wide range of goods and services, from generic products to Ready-toeat (RTE) products. Abbott and Bredahl (1994) have identified the undifferentiated generic products,
ce
ed
undifferentiated commodities, semi-processed products and RTE products as the four economies in
Pr
o
agriculture.
This great diversity requires that a competitive analysis takes into account not just the factors
EF
A
that affect production costs but also those factors that affect product differentiation.
EN
Those studies that focus on generic products should emphasize more on the importance of
developing strategies to decrease costs. On the contrary, studies interested in competitiveness of
highly processed RTE products, should incorporate the effects of strategies that affect product
differentiation.
201
ASFAE
din
gs
Peru’s export capacity and its implications for the asparagus (Tello, 2004)
According to professor Mario Tello in his book titled “Capacidad exportable del Perú” (Peru’s
ee
export capacity), in the first years of the XXI century, the value of Peruvian exports represented
oc
approximately, 0.1% of global exports and 2% of exports of developing countries in America.
Pr
Peruvian exports were, and still are, lower than Chilean exports (0.3% of global exports), South Korea
NE
FA
(3%), Taiwan (2%) and Singapore (2%) according to information provided by the World Trade
Organization in 2002.
-E
In international markets, Peru is considered world-class producer of fishmeal and cochineal,
os
second in production of silver and zinc concentrates, third in production of lead concentrates and
va
d
fifth in copper. Peru is also considered the largest producer of coca leaf.
er
According to Mario Tello (2004), the analysis of Peruvian exports for the period from 1950 to 2000 is

es
as follows:
rR
The performance of Peruvian exports and exportable capacity has been poor compared with
to
developed countries, in particular southeastern countries. While the value of Peruvian
os
de
grown 21 times in the same period.
Au
exports has doubled from 1970 to 2000, the value of exports of developed countries has

ch
The system of tax incentives usually applied to exports since 1950 until 2000, has not been a
re
real part of a program aimed to develop exports. On the other side, the effects of these
De
incentives along with the effects of real exchange rate and terms of trade have not been
ing
s-
important enough to boost exports.

ed
The barriers to enter international markets, in particular in developed countries, although
ce
they exist, are greater in developing countries with a high exportable capacity in textiles and
Pr
o
agricultural sectors. The concentration of Peruvian exports in primary products and the
EF
A
implementation of trade agreements have not limited the development of Peru’s exportable
EN

capacity.
Many studies came to the conclusion that the main factor that explains the differences in
growth of GDP per capita between countries is total factor productitivity (TFP). Gross
estimations of this TFP in Peru are consistent and are able to explain the differences in
growth rates of exports between countries.
202
ASFAE
din
gs
Our exportable capacity does not have great performance indicators. According to a report from
GATT (2000), it is pointed that although Peru is participating in the whole process of regional
ee
integration in Latin America, reciprocal preferential trade is still relatively small. In 1998, less than a
oc
third of total imports of Peru were from countries in ALADI (Latin American Association for
Pr
Integration) including Andean Community and less than 20% of that total received preferential
NE
FA
treatment. The part of Peruvian exports that would benefit from preferential agreements in 1998
was around 0.6%.
-E
The low utilization of these preferential agreements and the facility of demand in international
os
markets show that the low performance of Peruvian exports in the last half century is explained by
va
d
other factors.
er
We can state that, in the last 50 years, Peru has been a primary exporter (mainly mining and
es
agricultural products) and the main destination of its exports are developed countries such as United
rR
States of America and European countries, followed by Asian countries and some Latin American
to
countries.
Au
The analysis made to factors such as access to markets and international agreements, or the
de
evolution of terms of trade, suggest that variables such as demand or prices (although important for
os
development) do not seem to explain the poor performance of our exports in the analysis period.
ch
It is crucial then to analyze and evaluate the importance of trade policies and export promotion
De
re
and other factors that can serve to explain the current dynamics of Peruvian exports.
Continuing with the analysis of Mario Tello, he stated that the poor performance in international
s-
markets of Peruvian exports is associated to “traditional” trade policies that tried to promote
ing
incentives over prices or restrictions in quantities that the government used to promote specific
ed
sectors.
Pr
o
ce
Internal and external analysis for exports of asparagus
This study will try to confirm the degree of incidence of these factors in the competitiveness of
EN
EF
A
asparagus.
203
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
s-
De
re
ch
os
de
Au
to
rR
es
er
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
din
gs
ASFAE
204
re
ch
os
de
Au
to
rR
es
er
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
din
gs
ASFAE
De
Analysis of competitiveness factors in Peru (Tello, 2005)
s-
Professor Mario Tello states that the poor economic performance of Peru and its exports in
ing
the last 50 years is because of the poor growth of Total Factorial Productivity (TFP) and the main
ed
production factors in the production process of export products. On the other hand, for Peruvian
ce
exports concentrated in natural resource intensive products, competitive factors external to the
Pr
o
business are the most important.
A
Below, it is presented a table with the ranking of the top 10 factors that affects
EN
EF
competitiveness comparing five countries (including Peru) of a sample of 80 countries.
205
ASFAE
TABLE N° 4
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
s-
De
re
ch
os
de
Au
to
rR
es
er
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
din
gs
TOP 10 RANKING OF FACTORS OF COMPETITIVENESS
206
ASFAE
din
gs
Allocation and quality of infrastructure services
With regard to the infrastructure factor, a report made by the Inter-American Development
oc
ee
Bank (2001) points out that this is a crucial determinant of productivity and growth because it helps
Pr
to reduce transportation costs, expand the market and facilitates the transmission of information
NE
FA
and knowledge.
Lora (2002) on the other hand acknowledges the advances made in privatizations but
-E
emphasizes the need to increase the participation of the private sector and to improve market
os
regulations of good and services resulting from infrastructure.
va
d
Melo points out that, in Peru, the degree of development and current state of phisical
infrastructure are significant obstacles to competitiveness of companies in our country. The most
es
er
serious issue is in roads, following ports and electric sector. Telecommunications is the sector that is
rR
closing the breach more rapidly comparing it with developed countries although it is still far behind
to
of some Latin American countries.
Au
In the next tables, we will present a comparison based on the infrastructure index for some
de
countries and we will be able to identify some of the main problems including logistics, among
os
others, in Peru:
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
s-
De
re
ch
TABLE N° 5
INFRAESTRUCTURE INDEX SELECTED COUNTRIES (2002)
207
ASFAE
s-
De
re
ch
os
de
Au
to
rR
es
er
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
din
gs
TABLE N° 6
MAIN LOGISTICAL PROBLEMS
ed
ing
Innovation and technology in business (CIES & FINCYT, 2010)
ce
In a book published by CIES and FINCYT (2010), Innovación empresarial y comportamiento
Pr
o
tecnológico sectorial (Business innovation and sectorial technological behavior) they indicate that the
process of technological innovation is still poor, that the exports are based mainly in primary
EF
A
products (in the case of asparagus, the most exported product is fresh asparagus) but the degree of
EN
innovation is not the same in all companies.
Only big exporters have laboratories and innovation processes included in distribution and
marketing channels, with an accepted level of management and diversified production. It is worth
noting that 80% of exports land on only 20 companies in a concentrated market.
208
ASFAE
Small business does not have those facilities and use intermediary services (brokers) to send their
din
gs
products.
One proposed solution is the promotion of innovation in a regional level, as well as support
oc
ee
from public and private institutions (Peruvian Institute of Asparagus and Vegetables).
NE
FA
Pr
Peruvian logistical performance index (Heredia & Huarachi, 2009)
de
Au
to
rR
es
er
va
d
os
-E
FIGURE N° 19
COMPARISON: PERUVIAN LOGISTICAL PERFORMANCE INDEX AGAINST OTHER COUNTRIES – RADIAL DIAGRAM
re
ch
os
Source: World Bank.
ing
s-
De
3. Description of Balassa Model
ed
Revealed comparative advantage index
ce
In order to measure the level of competitiveness of crops in the region and Peru, we used the
Pr
o
Revealed Competitiveness Index made by V. Balassa. This index is accepted by the European
Community unlike other mathematical methods. The great advantage of the application of this
EF
A
method lays on the basis that it uses information of international trade to determine the level of
EN
competitiveness of a product in a given country. Balassa (1965) coined the term “Revealed
Comparative Advantage” to show that the comparative advantages between nations could be
revealed with the information about trade flows, because real exchange of goods represents relative
costs and also shows existing differences between countries.
209
ASFAE
Model 1
ee
din
gs
The Revealed Comparative Advantage Index proposed by Balassa for this model is as follows:
oc
Where:
Pr
X: represents exports
NE
FA
i: a specific product identified by its tariff code
a: analyzed country
-E
t: total number of products exported by a country
os
w: a set of countries, generally used all world
va
d
Therefore:
er
: exports of a product (i) by a given country (a)
rR
: total exports (t) by a given country (a)
es
: exports of a product (i) by the “world” (w) 30
Au
to
: total exports (t) by the “world” (w)
The following figure represents the RCA for production of asparagus in Peru, obtained with the first
de
model:
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
s-
De
re
ch
os
FIGURE N° 20
REVEALED COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE – MODEL 1 (1980-2007)
We can see that the RCA for Peru in this model is increasing from 1980 to 2007.
210
ASFAE
Model 2
ee
din
gs
The Revealed Comparative Advantage Index (RCA) is as follows:
oc
Where RCE is Revealed Comparative Advantage for Exports and RCI is the Revealed Comparative
er
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
Advantage for Imports:
es
Where X and M are exports and imports respectively, “r” is the world minus the analyzed country
Au
to
rR
and “n” is referred to trade in all goods minus the analyzed product “a”.
The following figure represents the RCA for production of asparagus in Peru, obtained with the
os
de
second model:
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
s-
De
re
ch
FIGURE N° 21
REVEALED COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE – MODEL 2 (1980-2007)
As we can see, the RCA for Peru has grown steadily since 1980 to 2007.
211
ASFAE
din
gs
4. Econometric model for trade flows between Peru and trade partner, using a
gravity equation
ee
Tinbergen (1962), Poyhonen (1963), and Linneman (1966) began the studies that estimate
Pr
(1973) was one of the pioneers applying it in specific areas of international trade.
oc
the impacts of factors that determine trade flows in countries using a gravity equation, and Atike
NE
FA
The work of Anderson (1979), Bergstrand (1990, 1989, 1985), Helpman (1998), Helpman y Krugman
(1985), Deardorff (1998) and Evenett y Keller (2002) among others, provided the theoretical models
os
-E
based on comparative and competitive advantages that supports the use of gravity equation.
to
rR
es
er
va
d
The estimated specification is a modified version used by Adams et al. (2003). This is:
Au
Where L= neperian logarithm applied to the following variables: Yijt and Xkijt; Yijt is the value
de
in dollars of the two dependent variables used: value of exports of goods of a country “i” (Mexico,
Chile or Brazil), destined to (trading partner) “j” in a yer “t” and the value of import from a country “i”
ch
os
of goods from the country “j” in a year “t”; Xkijt is an economic variable and cuantitative Xk, where
re
“i” is the country exporter/importer and “j” is a country importer/exporter in a year “t”. The
De
economic variables included are related with: i) the size of the domestic market represented by GDP
s-
of the country in dollars “i” (Yit); ii) the comparative advantages based on differences of resource
ing
endowment per capita (natural, physical and human), which are approximated by the difference
ed
between GDP’s of the countries that are trading partners (DIFYijt) (this variable could also be
ce
interpreted as the difference in the level of development between countries); iii) competitive
Pr
o
advantages are based on the degree of similarity of countries, approximated by the variable
SIMILARijt (also considered by Adams et al. 2003); iv) the bilateral real exchange rate of the trading
EF
A
countries (TCRijt), which can also pick the effect of terms of trade of trading countries (i, j); v) trading
EN
barriers represented by tariffs of trading countries (ARANijt is the tariff of the importer country j in
the export equation and from the importer country “i” in the import equation) and transportation
costs associated with a distance variable in kilometers of the capital of the country “i” and “j” (DISTij).
The theoretical expected sign of the coefficient (βkijt) of the variable that measures the size of the
212
ASFAE
domestic market is positive when there is an increase in trading volume (exports and imports) and
din
gs
negative when there is an increase in the size of the domestic market induce it to a lower trading
volume (associated with a higher domestic production).
ee
The variable that measures comparative advantages from trading countries (i, j) has three
oc
possible interpretations. The first one corresponds to a comparative advantage in resource
Pr
endowment from one country to another. In this interpretation, a rise (fall) in the difference in this
NE
FA
endowment increases (reduces) the trading volume and as a consequence the theoretical expected
sign of the coefficient (βkijt) is positive.
-E
The difference between GDP per capita between trading countries can also be interpreted as
os
a difference in the levels of economic development between these countries. As a consequence, with
va
d
a higher difference between the development of trading countries, due to differences in resource
er
endowment per capita, is generated a greater trading flow between these countries.
es
The second interpretation is that the advantage of these countries is not based on relative
rR
resource endowment per capita but in the competitive advantages of similar products (or
to
differentiated) associated to processed or manufactured products. In this interpretation a rise (fall) in
de
the expected theoretical sign is negative.
Au
the difference between the endowments, reduces (increases) trade volume and, as a consequence,
os
The third possible explanation is that this variable represents the difference between
ch
external and internal size market. With a rise (fall) of that difference, it increases (reduces) trading
De
re
volume and the expected theoretical sign is positive.
The variable that measures competitive advantages from trading countries (SIMILARijt) has
s-
two possible interpretations. In the first one, the more similar the countries are (the variable
ed
positive.
ing
SIMILARijt increases), the trading volume increases. In this case the theoretical sign would be
Pr
o
ce
In the second possible interpretation, the variable measures the comparative advantage and
a more similarity between trading countries, the trade volume falls. In this case, the expected
EF
A
theoretical sign would be negative.
EN
According to the explained gravity equation, we built a database that had the dependent
variable as a natural logarithm of Peruvian exports and trading partners, destinations of our exports
from 1999 to 2007. The subscript “i” was considered as the exporter country (Peru) and the subscript
“j” was the trading partners, which are: USA, Spain, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium and
France and considering this information it was built a database in the form of panel data.
213
ASFAE
din
gs
In results table N° 1, are presented the first results obtained in the simulation:
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
s-
De
re
ch
os
de
Au
to
rR
es
er
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
RESULTS TABLE N° 1
214
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
s-
De
re
ch
os
de
Au
to
rR
es
er
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
din
gs
ASFAE
215
rR
es
er
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
din
gs
ASFAE
to
In the following table, we present the chosen model with a higher statistical significance,
Au
with a P-value lower than 0.05 in most of the variables.
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
s-
De
re
ch
os
de
RESULTS TABLE N° 2
216
es
rR
We worked with 54 observations divided in 6 groups.
er
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
din
gs
ASFAE
Au
to
The natural logarithm variable of exports (lyjt) in the chosen model is explained by a 64%
(R2=0.6392) by the variables. The coefficient lyit has a negative sign, meaning that the growth of
de
domestic demand diminishes trade flow of asparagus exports. The coefficient lyit has a high value of
os
51.18, positive, meaning that the trade flow has a direct relationship with the GDP of trading
ch
partners.
De
re
The coefficient lsimilarijt, according to the interpretation made by Mario Tello (2010),
s-
indicates that this represents a competitive advantage. In this case is negative, which means that the
ing
rise of trade flow is negatively related with competitive advantage. That means that our product,
ed
asparagus, does not have a competitive advantage, with a relatively low value (-1.45).
ce
The coefficient ldifijt represents comparative advantage. The obtained value, negative, it was
Pr
o
not obtained as expected. One possible reason is because the low quantity of observations. If we
increase the observations with more years, it is likely that the result would the as expected.
EF
A
To sum up, it was demonstrated that the volume of exports from Peru to trading partners is
EN
influenced positively basically by demand of these partners and diminished by domestic consumption
and lack of competitive advantage.
217
ASFAE
Factors of Competitiveness
din
gs
Methodology
This research has two parts, with two differentiated aspects to develop; a quantitative and a
ee
qualitative analysis.
oc
As a part of the quantitative analysis, we did a factorial, exploratory analysis to a sample of
Pr
people to identify the main factors that affects competitiveness, with 25 variables and at least 5
NE
FA
observations per factor and a statistical power of 80% and a minimum load value of 0.5.
The size of the population of study was established at 150 businesses. It was decided not to
-E
work with a sample, because for the design of the methodology, we needed at least 100 observations
os
to assure a wanted significance with 25 variables.
va
d
We calculated the productivity with the methodology provided by OECD.
er
Canonical correlation analysis Multivariate for independent variables (factors) and global variables
es
(dependent), because we try to find any interactions between factors and constructs applying a
rR
system of structural equations in multivariate analysis.
to
The second aspect inside the proposed methodology is the qualitative analysis, which
Au
included interviews, with questions as a questionnaire applied to a sample of 8 to 10 companies per
de
sector. By Pareto we know that 20% of the companies export nearly 80% of total volume.
os
On the other side, we also used Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) and correspondence analysis
ch
to find the positioning of Peruvian companies against their main competitors, such as China, Mexico
De
re
and Spain.
TABLE N° 7
FACTORS THAT AFFECT COMPETITIVENESS
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
ing
s-
Factorial Model
218
rR
es
er
va
d
os
-E
NE
FA
Pr
oc
ee
din
gs
ASFAE
Au
to
5. Conclusions
de
Peruvian asparagus has a sustained comparative advantage due to factor endowments,
os
mainly soil and climate.
ch
The growth of asparagus exports is explained by a comparative advantage.
re
Economic variables such as Exchange rate and tariffs do not generate any competitive
De
advantage; therefore they are no significant variables in the proposed econometric model.
s-
It is very important to design action plans, and they are pending, to attack and restrict factors
ing
that are limiting competitiveness; especially improve innovation to resist pests or climate changes
EN
EF
A
Pr
o
ce
ed
and work to improve logistics, among others.
219
ASFAE
din
gs
6. References
AA., V. (2010). Innovación empresarial y comportamiento tecnológico sectorial. Lima: CIES y FINCYT.
ee
Ali, A. How to manage for international competitive. International Business Press.
oc
Antoine, P. (1992). Modeling international competitiveness: An econometric approach. University of
NE
FA
Aquino, N. (1991). Constant Improvement: A Strategic Imperative. 37.
Pr
Florida.
Bowman, C. (1992). Charting Competitive Strategy. (D. Faulker, & G. Johnson, Edits.)
-E
Burgelman, R., & Maidique, M. (1988). Strategic Management of Technolog and Innovation.
os
Homewood: Irwin.
va
d
Buzzel, R., & Gale, T. (1987). The PIMS Principles Linking Strategy to Performance. New York: The Free
er
Press.
rR
Distribution. Working Paper Banco Central de Chile.
es
Calderon, C., & Serven, L. (2004). The effects of Infrastructure Developments on Growth and Income
to
Casas, C. (2005). Indicadores Regionales de competitividad regionales. Lima: Consejo Nacional de
Au
Competitividad.
de
Castiglione, E. (1999). The European agro-food system and the challenge of global competition.
os
International Food and Agribusiness Management Association.
De
re
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
ch
Egan, D. (2003). A Competitiveness Survey of the British Columbia Salmon Farming Industry. Canada:
Esterhuizen, D. (2006). An Evaluation of the competitiveness of the South African agribusiness sector.
ing
s-
PhD Tesis University of Pretoria.
Feurer, R., & Chaharbaghi, K. (1994). Defining Competitiveness: A Holistic Approach: Management
ce
ed
Decision. MCB University Press Limited.
Ltd.
Pr
o
Grant, R. (1991). Contemporary Strategic Analysis: Concepts Techniques, Applications. Basil Blackwell
EF
A
Hair, J. (2007). Hair, J. (2007). Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall.
EN
Hedley, B. Strategy and the Business Portfolio. Long Range Planning , 10.
Hitchens, R., & Wade, P. (1978). The Directional Policy Matrix Tool for Strategy Plannin. Long Range
Planning , 11.
Johnson, G., & Scholes, K. (1993). Exploring Corporate Strategy. New York: Prentice Hall.
220
ASFAE
Joy Way, R. (2004). Como establecer prioridades en las regiones del Perú: Una propuesta de índice de
din
gs
competitividad regional sostenible. CIES y CIPCA.
Kennedy, L., Harrison, W., Kalaitzandonakes, N., & Pete, C. (1997). Perspectives on Evaluating
ee
Competitiveness in Agribusiness Industries. Agribusiness.
oc
Ketels, C. (2007). Cluster and Competitiveness in the Global Economy. Institute for Strategy and
Pr
Competitiveness. Harvard Business School.
NE
FA
Klother, P. (1988). Marketing Management. Prentice-Hall.
Marian, F., & Morrison, M. (2005). Infrastructure in Latin America and Caribbean: Recent
-E
Developments and Key Challenges. The World Banck.
os
Musik, G., & Romo, D. (2004). Sobre el concepto de Competitividad. Universidad Autónoma
va
d
Metropolitana de México.
er
Piedra, M. (2005). Hacia un Marco Conceptual para Evaluar la Competitividad de la Pequeña y
es
Mediana Agroindustria. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y enseñanza (CATIE).
rR
Piercy, N. (1991). Market-led Strategic Change. London: Thorsons.
to
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive Advantage. New York: The Free Press.
Au
Porter, M. (1985). Competitive Advantage. New York: The Free Press.
de
Porter, M. (1983). The Technological Dimension of Competitive Strategy. Research on Technological
os
Innovation, Management and Policy , 1.
ch
Rappaport, A. (1987). Creating Shareholder Value: The New Standard for Business Performance. New
De
re
York: The Free Press.
Slack, N. (1991). The Manufacturing Advantage. London: Mercury Books.
s-
Stalk, G. (1992). Timed Based Competition and Beyond: Competing on Capabilities. Planning Review ,
ing
20.
ed
Tello, M. (2010). Arreglos preferenciales, flujos comerciales y crecimiento económico en América
Pr
o
ce
Latina y el Caribe. Lima: Centrum Catolica.
Tello, M. (2005). Los factores de competitividad en el Perú. Lima: Centrum Católica.
EF
A
Tello, M. (2009). Micro y pequeñas empresas bajo el enfoque de competitividad: el caso de la región
EN
Ica. Lima.
Van Rooyen, C., Esterhuizen, D., & Doyer, O. (2000). How competitive is agribusiness in the South
African food commodity chain. (P. Zuurbier, & J. Trienekens, Edits.)
Vollrath, T. (1990). A theoretical evaluation of alternative trade intensity measures of
revealed comparative advantage.
221

ENEFA Proceedings año 2011 Proceedings del XXVII Encuentro

Transcripción

Documentos relacionados

World Economy

puerto banus - Estepona Charter

Mexico, Federal District, ,20____. INSTITUTO NACIONAL