Global enabling-trade-report-2010

The Global Enabling Trade Re-
Report 2010
port 2010

Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University
Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, World Economic Forum
Sean Doherty, World Economic Forum
John Moavenzadeh, World Economic Forum

World Economic Forum
Geneva, Switzerland 2010

The Global Enabling Trade
Report 2010

Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University
Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, World Economic Forum
Sean Doherty, World Economic Forum
John Moavenzadeh, World Economic Forum
Editors


The Global Enabling Trade Report 2010 is World Economic Forum
published by the World Economic Forum Geneva
within the framework of the Global
Competitiveness Network and the Industry Copyright © 2010
Partnership Programme for Logistics and by the World Economic Forum
Transport.
Published by World Economic Forum
www.weforum.org

Professor Klaus Schwab All rights reserved. No part of this publication
Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, 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: 978-92-95044-84-5
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: The full version of the Report with Profiles
Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, Director, Senior Economist of all 125 economies is available at
Sean Doherty, Associate Director, Head of www.weforum.org/getr.
Logistics and Transport Industry
John Moavenzadeh, Senior Director, Head
of Mobility Industries

LOGISTICS AND TRANSPORT TEAM

Katerina Soulounia, Team Coordinator,
Mobility Industries

GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS NETWORK

Jennifer Blanke, Director, Senior Economist,
Head of Global Competitiveness Network
Ciara Browne, Associate Director
Thierry Geiger, Associate Director,
Economist, Global Leadership Fellow
Irene Mia, Director, Senior Economist
Carissa Sahli, Team Coordinator
Pearl Samandari, Community Manager
Eva Trujillo Herrera, Research Assistant

A special thank you to Hope Steele for her
excellent editing work and Neil Weinberg for
his superb 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.


Contents

Partner Institutes v

Preface xi
by Robert Greenhill, World Economic Forum

Part 1: The Enabling Trade Index Results 1

1.1 Fostering Recovery by Facilitating Trade: The Enabling 3
Trade Index 2010
by Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University; and Sean Doherty,
Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, Thierry Geiger, and Eva Trujillo
Herrera, World Economic Forum

iii

Part 2: Country/Economy Profiles 33
How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles ...............................35
List of Countries/Economies ........................................................39
Country/Economy Profiles............................................................40

Technical Notes and Sources 291

About the Authors 297

Acknowledgments 301


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
lowing organizations as its valued Partner Institutes, and Chairman, Competence Centre Entrepreneurship,
without which the realization of The Global Enabling Governance and Strategy
Trade Report 2010 would not have been possible: 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
Artan Hoxha, President (MIMAP) Benin
Elira Jorgoni, Senior Expert and Project Manager Epiphane Adjovi, Business Coordinator
Denalada Kuzumi, Researcher Maria-Odile Attanasso, Deputy Coordinator
Fructueux Deguenonvo, Researcher
Algeria
Centre de Recherche en Economie Appliquée Bosnia and Herzegovina
pour le Développement (CREAD) MIT Center, School of Economics and Business in Sarajevo,
Youcef Benabdallah, Assistant Professor University of Sarajevo
Yassine Ferfera, Director Zlatko Lagumdzija, Professor
Zeljko Sain, Executive Director
Argentina
Jasmina Selimovic, Assistant Director
IAE- Universidad Austral
María Elina Gigaglia, Project Manager Botswana
v
Eduardo Luis Fracchia, Professor Botswana National Productivity Centre
Joseph Jonazi, Research Consultant and Statistician
Armenia
Dabilani Buthali, Manager, Information and
Economy and Values Research Center
Research Services Department
Manuk Hergnyan, Chairman
Thembo Lebang, Executive Director
Sevak Hovhannisyan, Board Member and Senior Associate
Gohar Malumyan, Research Associate Brazil
Fundação Dom Cabral
Australia
Carlos Arruda, Executive Director, International Board
Australian Industry Group
and Professor and Coordinator of the Competitiveness
Nicholas James, Economist
and Innovation Center
Tony Pensabene, Associate Director, Economics & Research
Marina Araújo, Economist and Researcher of the
Heather Ridout, Chief Executive
Competitiveness and Innovation Center
Austria
Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO) Movimento Brasil Competitivo (MBC)
Karl Aiginger, Director Cláudio Leite Gastal, Director President
Gerhard Schwarz, Coordinator, Survey Department Denise Alves, Projects Coordinator
Elisa de Araújo, Projects Assistant
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan Marketing Society Bulgaria
Fuad Aliyev, Executive Director Center for Economic Development
Ashraf Hajiyev, Project Coordinator Anelia Damianova, Senior Expert
Saida Talibova, Consultant
Burkina Faso
Bahrain lnstitut Supérieure des Sciences de la Population (ISSP),
Bahrain Competitiveness Council, Bahrain Economic University of Ouagadougou
Development Board Samuel Kabore, Economist and Head of Development Strategy
Nada Azmi, Business Intelligence Specialist, Economic and Population Research
Planning & Development
Burundi
Jawad Habib, Senior Partner, BDO Jawad Habib
University Research Centre for Economic and Social
Rima Al Kilani, Director, International Marketing
Development (CURDES), National University of Burundi
Bangladesh Richard Ndereyahaga, Head of CURDES
Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) Gilbert Niyongabo, Dean, Faculty of Economics
Khondaker Golam Moazzem, Senior Research Fellow & Management
Kazi Mahmudur Rahman, Senior Research Associate
Cambodia
Mustafizur Rahman, Executive Director
Economic Institute of Cambodia
Sok Hach, President
Chan Vuthy, Senior Researcher
Poch Kongchheng, Junior Researcher


Partner Institutes

Cameroon Denmark
Comité de Compétitivité (Competitiveness Committee) Copenhagen Business School, Department of
Lucien Sanzouango, Permanent Secretary International Economics and Management
Lise Peitersen, Administrative Director
Canada
Casper Rose, Professor
Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity
Tamer Azer, Researcher Ecuador
Roger Martin, Chairman and Dean of the Rotman ESPAE Graduate School of Management,
School of Management, University of Toronto Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL)
James Milway, Executive Director Elizabeth Arteaga, Project Assistant
Virginia Lasio, Acting Director
Chad
Sara Wong, Professor
Groupe de Recherches Alternatives et de Monitoring
du Projet Pétrole-Tchad-Cameroun (GRAMP-TC) Egypt
Antoine Doudjidingao, Researcher The Egyptian Center for Economic Studies
Gilbert Maoundonodji, Director Hanaa Kheir-El-Din, Executive Director and Director of Research
Celine Nénodji Mbaipeur, Programme Officer Naglaa El Ehwany, Deputy Director and Lead Economist
Malak Reda, Senior Economist
Chile
Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez Estonia
Ignacio Briones, Associate Professor of Economics, Estonian Institute of Economic Research
School of Government Evelin Ahermaa, Head of Economic Research Sector
Leonidas Montes, Dean, School of Government Marje Josing, Director
Camila Chadwick, Project Coordinator
Estonian Development Fund
China
Kitty Kubo, Head of Foresight
Institute of Economic System and Management
Ott Pärna, Chief Executive Officer
National Development and Reform Commission
Zhou Haichun, Deputy Director and Professor Ethiopia
Chen Wei, Research Fellow African Institute of Management, Development and Governance
Dong Ying, Professor Tegegne Teka, General Manager

Finland
China Center for Economic Statistics Research,
ETLA—The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy
Tianjin University of Finance and Economics
Petri Rouvinen, Research Director
Lu Dong, Professor
Pasi Sorjonen, Head of the Forecasting Group
Jian Wang, Associate Professor
vi Hongye Xiao, Professor
Pekka Ylä-Anttila, Managing Director
Bojuan Zhao, Professor France
Huazhang Zheng, Associate Professor HEC School of Management, Paris
Bertrand Moingeon, Professor and Deputy Dean
Colombia
Bernard Ramanantsoa, Professor and Dean
National Planning Department
Alvaro Edgar Balcazar, Entrepreneurial Development Director Gambia, The
Carolina Rentería Rodríguez, General Director Gambia Economic and Social Development Research
Mauricio Torres Velásquez, Advisor Institute (GESDRI)
Makaireh A. Njie, Director
Colombian Council of Competitiveness
Hernando José Gomez, President Georgia
Business Initiative for Reforms in Georgia
Côte d’Ivoire Giga Makharadze, Founding Member of the Board of Directors
Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie de Côte d’Ivoire Tamar Tchintcharauli, Executive Director
Jean-Louis Billon, President Mamuka Tsereteli, Founding Member of the Board of Directors
Jean-Louis Giacometti, Technical Advisor to the President
Mamadou Sarr, Director General Germany
WHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management, Vallendar
Croatia Ralf Fendel, Professor of Monetary Economics
National Competitiveness Council Michael Frenkel, Professor, Chair of Macroeconomics
Martina Hatlak, Research Assistant and International Economics
Kresimir Jurlin, Research Fellow
Mira Lenardic, General Secretary Ghana
Association of Ghana Industries (AGI)
Cyprus Carlo Hey, Project Manager
Cyprus College Research Center Cletus Kosiba, Executive Director
Bambos Papageorgiou, Head of Socioeconomic Tony Oteng-Gyasi, President
and Academic Research
Greece
The Cyprus Development Bank SEV Hellenic Federation of Enterprises
Maria Markidou-Georgiadou, Manager, International Michael Mitsopoulos, Coordinator, Research and Analysis
Banking Services Unit and Business Development Thanasis Printsipas, Economist, Research and Analysis

Czech Republic Guatemala
CMC Graduate School of Business FUNDESA
Tomas Janca, Executive Director Edgar A. Heinemann, President of the Board of Directors
Pablo Schneider, Economic Director
Juan Carlos Zapata, General Manager


Partner Institutes
Guyana Jordan
Institute of Development Studies, University of Guyana Ministry of Planning & International Cooperation
Karen Pratt, Research Associate Jordan National Competitiveness Team
Clive Thomas, Director Hiba Abu Taleb, Primary Researcher
Hussein Abwini, Primary Researcher
Hong Kong SAR
Kawthar Al-Zou’bi, Primary Researcher
Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce
David O’Rear, Chief Economist Kazakhstan
JSC “National Analytical Centre of the Government and the
Federation of Hong Kong Industries National Bank of the Republic of Kazakhstan”
Alexandra Poon, Director Ayana Manasova, Chairperson
Aibek Baisakalov, Expert Analyst
The Chinese General Chamber of Commerce
Kenya
Hungary Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi
KOPINT-TÁRKI Economic Research Ltd. Mohamud Jama, Director and Associate Professor
Ágnes Nagy, Project Manager Paul Kamau, Research Fellow
Éva Palócz, Chief Executive Officer Dorothy McCormick, Associate Professor

Iceland Korea, Republic of
Innovation Center Iceland College of Business School, Korea Advanced Institute of
Karl Fridriksson, Managing Director of Human Resources Science and Technology – KAIST
and Services Ingoo Han, Senior Associate Dean and Professor
Rosa Signy Gisladottir, Manager, Marketing and Media Relations Ravi Kumar, Dean and Professor
Thorsteinn I. Sigfusson, Director Youjin Sung, Manager, Exchange Programme

India Kuwait
Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) Economics Department, Kuwait University
Chandrajit Banerjee, Director General Abdullah Alsalman, Assistant Professor
Tarun Das, Chief Mentor Mohammed El-Sakka, Professor
Virendra Gupta, Head, International and Trade Fairs Reyadh Faras, Assistant Professor

Indonesia Kyrgyz Republic
Center for Industry, SME & Business Competition Studies, Economic Policy Institute “Bishkek Consensus”
University of Trisakti Lola Abduhametova, Program Coordinator
Tulus Tambunan, Professor and Director Marat Tazabekov, Chairman
vii
Ireland Latvia
Competitiveness Survey Group, Department of Economics, Institute of Economics, Latvian Academy of Sciences
University College Cork Helma Jirgena, Director
Eleanor Doyle, Professor, Department of Economics Irina Curkina, Researcher
Niall O’Sullivan
Lesotho
Bernadette Power
Mohloli Chamber of Business
Semethe Raleche, Chief Executive Officer
National Competitiveness Council
Adrian Devitt, Manager Libya
Caoimhe Gavin, Policy Advisor National Economic Development Board
Gráinne Greehy, Graduate Trainee Entisar Elbahi, Director, Relations and Supported Services
Israel Lithuania
Manufacturers’ Association of Israel (MAI) Statistics Lithuania
Shraga Brosh, President Ona Grigiene, Head, Economical Survey Division
Dan Catarivas, Director ˘
Algirdas Semeta, Director General
Yehuda Segev, Managing Director
Luxembourg
Italy Chamber of Commerce of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
SDA Bocconi School of Management François-Xavier Borsi, Attaché, Economic Department
Secchi Carlo, Full Professor of Economic Policy, Bocconi University Marc Wagener, Attaché, Economic Department
Paola Dubini, Associate Professor, Bocconi University Carlo Thelen, Chief Economist, Member of the Managing Board
Francesco A. Saviozzi, SDA Assistant Professor,
Strategic and Entrepreneurial Management Department Macedonia, FYR
National Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness Council (NECC)
Jamaica Dejan Janevski, Project Coordinator
Mona School of Business (MSB), The University of the Zoran Stavreski, President of the Managing Board
West Indies (UWI) Saso Trajkoski, Executive Director
Patricia Douce, Project Administrator
William Lawrence, Director, Professional Services Unit Madagascar
Evan Duggan, Executive Director and Professor Centre of Economic Studies, University of Antananarivo
Pépé Andrianomanana, Director
Japan Razato Raharijaona Simo, Executive Secretary
Hitotsubashi University, Graduate School of International
Corporate Strategy (ICS) Malawi
in cooperation with Keizai Doyukai Keizai (Japan Association Malawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry
of Corporate Executives) Chancellor L. Kaferapanjira, Chief Executive Officer
Yoko Ishikura, Professor
Kiyohiko Ito, Vice-President and General Manager for Policy
Studies, Keizai Doyukai


Partner Institutes

Malaysia Nepal
Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Centre for Economic Development and Administration (CEDA)
Tan Sri Mohamed Jawhar Hassan, Chairman and Ramesh Chandra Chitrakar, Professor and Director of Research
Chief Executive Officer Menaka Rajbhandari Shrestha, Researcher
Mahani Zainal Abidin, Director-General Santosh Kumar Upadhyaya, Researcher
Steven C.M. Wong, Assistant Director-General
Netherlands
Erasmus Strategic Renewal Center,
Malaysia Productivity Corporation (MPC)
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Dato’ Nik Zainiah Nik Abd. Rahman, Director General
Frans A. J. Van den Bosch, Professor
Lee Saw Hoon, Senior Director
Henk W. Volberda, Professor
Mali
New Zealand
Groupe de Recherche en Economie Appliquée et
Business New Zealand
Théorique (GREAT)
Marcia Dunnett, Manager, Sector Groups
Massa Coulibaly, Coordinator
Phil O’Reilly, Chief Executive
Mauritania
Centre d’Information Mauritanien pour le Développement The New Zealand Institute
Economique et Technique (CIMDET/CCIAM) Rick Boven, Director
Khira Mint Cheikhnani, Director Benedikte Jensen, Research Director
Lô Abdoul, Consultant and Analyst
Nigeria
Habib Sy, Analyst
Nigerian Economic Summit Group (NESG)
Mauritius Felix Ogbera, Associate Director, Research
Joint Economic Council of Mauritius Sam Ohuabunwa, Chairman
Raj Makoond, Director Chris Okpoko, Senior Consultant, Research

Norway
Board of Investment
BI Norwegian School of Management
Dev Chamroo, Director, Planning & Policy
Eskil Goldeng, Researcher
Manisha Dookhony, Manager, Planning & Policy
Torger Reve, Professor
Raju Jaddoo, Managing Director
Oman
Mexico
The International Research Foundation
Center for Intellectual Capital and Competitiveness
Salem Ben Nasser Al-Ismaily, Chairman
Erika Ruiz Manzur, Executive Director
Mehdi Bin Ali Bin Juma, Expert for
René Villarreal Arrambide, President and Chief Executive Officer
viii Jesús Zurita González, General Director
Economic Research, the Omani Centre for Investment
Promotion & Export Development (OCIPED)
Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad (IMCO) Pakistan
Gabriela Alarcon Esteva, Economist Competitiveness Support Fund
Manuel J. Molano Ruiz, Deputy General Director Arthur Bayhan, Chief Executive Officer
Roberto Newell Garcia, General Director Stephen Manuel, Manager Media & Communication
Imran Naeem Ahmad, Communication Specialist
Ministry of the Economy
Felipe Duarte Olvera, Undersecretary for Competitiveness Paraguay
and Standardization Centro de Análisis y Difusión de Economia Paraguaya (CADEP)
Gerardo de la Peña, Technical Secretary for Competitiveness Dionisio Borda, Research Member
Jose Antonio Torre, Chief of Staff, ProMéxico Trade & Investment Fernando Masi, Director
Paulo Esteban Alcaraz, Research Director, ProMéxico María Belén Servín, Research Member
Trade & Investment
Peru
Mongolia Centro de Desarrollo Industrial (CDI), Sociedad Nacional
Open Society Forum (OSF) de Industrias
Munkhsoyol Baatarjav, Manager of Economic Policy Néstor Asto, Project Director
Erdenejargal Perenlei, Executive Director Luis Tenorio, Executive Director

Montenegro Philippines
Institute for Strategic Studies and Prognoses (ISSP) Makati Business Club
Maja Drakic, Project Manager Alberto A. Lim, Executive Director
Petar Ivanovic, Chief Executive Officer Michael B. Mundo, Chief Economist
Veselin Vukotic, President Mark P. Opulencia, Deputy Director

Morocco Poland
Université Hassan II, LASAARE The Economic Institute, The National Bank of Poland
Fouzi Mourji, Professor of Economics Mateusz Pipien, Director
Zbigniew Zólkiewski, Deputy Director
Mozambique Piotr Boguszewski, Advisor
EconPolicy Research Group, Lda.
Peter Coughlin, Director Management Observatory
Donaldo Miguel Soares, Researcher Monika Nowacka, Projects Director
Ema Marta Soares, Assistant Ireneusz Tomczak, Chairman of the Board
Namibia
Warsaw School of Economics
Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit (NEPRU)
Bogdan Radomski, Associate Professor
Lameck Odada, Consultant
Klaus Schade, Principal Researcher


Partner Institutes
Portugal Sri Lanka
PROFORUM, Associação para o Desenvolvimento da Engenharia Institute of Policy Studies
Ilídio António de Ayala Serôdio, Vice President of the Manoj Thibbotuwawa, Research Officer
Board of Directors Ruwan Jayathilaka, Research Officer

Forum de Administradores de Empresas (FAE) The Ceylon Chamber of Commerce
Pedro do Carmo Costa, Member of the Board of Directors Harin Malwatte, Secretary General
Adilia Lisboa, General Director
Sweden
Qatar Center for Strategy and Competitiveness,
Qatari Businessmen Association (QBA) Stockholm School of Economics
Issa Abdul Salam Abu Issa, Secretary-General Christian Ketels, Senior Research Fellow
Ahmed El-Shaffee, Economist Örjan Sölvell, Professor

Romania Switzerland
Group of Applied Economics (GEA) University of St. Gallen, Executive School of Management,
Anca Rusu, Program Coordinator Technology and Law (ES-HSG)
Liviu Voinea, Executive Director Franz Jaeger, Professor
Beat Bechtold, Project Manager
Russian Federation
Bauman Innovation Syria
Alexei Prazdnitchnykh, Principal, Associate Professor Ministry of Economy and Trade
Katerina Marandi, Consultant Amer Housni Louitfi, Minister of Economy and Trade

Stockholm School of Economics, Russia State Planning Commission
Igor Dukeov, Area Principal Tayseer Al-Ridawi, Head of State Planning Commission
Carl F. Fey, Associate Dean of Research
Syrian Enterprise Business Center (SEBC)
Saudi Arabia
Tamer Abadi, Director
National Competitiveness Center (NCC)
Awwad Al-Awwad, Deputy Governor for Investment Taiwan, China
Khaldon Mahasen, Manager, Investment Performance Assessment Council for Economic Planning and Development, Executive Yuan
Tain-Jy Chen, Chairman
Senegal
J. B. Hung, Director, Economic Research Department
Centre de Recherches Economiques Appliquées (CREA),
Chung Chung Shieh, Researcher, Economic Research Department
University of Dakar
Diop Ibrahima Thione, Director Tajikistan ix
The Center for Sociological Research “Zerkalo”
Serbia
Qahramon Baqoev, Director
Center for Advanced Economic Studies (CEVES)
Ol’ga Es’kina, Researcher
Jasna Atanasijevic, Member of the CEVES Council
Alikul Isoev, Sociologist and Economist
of Directors
Dus ko Vasiljevic, Member of the CEVES Council
˘ Tanzania
of Directors Research on Poverty Alleviation (REPOA)
Joseph Semboja, Professor and Executive Director
Singapore
Lucas Katera, Director, Commissioned Research
Economic Development Board
Cornel Jahari, Researcher, Commissioned Research Department
Lim Hong Khiang, Director Planning 2
Chua Kia Chee, Head, Research and Statistics Unit Thailand
Cheng Wai San, Head, Planning Sasin Graduate Institute of Business Administration,
Chulalongkorn University
Slovak Republic
Pongsak Hoontrakul, Senior Research Fellow
Business Alliance of Slovakia (PAS)
Toemsakdi Krishnamra, Director of Sasin
Robert Kicina, Executive Director
Piyachart Phiromswad, Faculty of Economics
Martin Toth, Researcher

Slovenia Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI)
Institute for Economic Research Somchai Jitsuchon, Research Director
Peter Stanovnik, Senior Researcher Chalongphob Sussangkarn, Distinguished Fellow
Yos Vajragupta, Senior Researcher
University of Ljubljana
Tunisia
Mateja Drnovs ˘ek, Professor, Faculty of Economics
Institut Arabe des Chefs d’Entreprises
Ales Vahc ˘, Professor, Faculty of Economics
˘ ˘ic
Majdi Hassen, Executive Counsellor
Art Kovac ˘, Senior Researcher, Faculty of Business Sciences
˘ic
Chekib Nouira, President
South Africa
Turkey
Business Leadership South Africa
TUSIAD Sabanci University Competitiveness Forum
Friede Dowie, Director
Dilek Cetindamar, Director and Professor
Michael Spicer, Chief Executive Officer
Funda Kalemci, Project Specialist

Business Unity South Africa Uganda
Jerry Vilakazi, Chief Executive Officer Makerere Institute of Social Research, Makerere University
Vic Van Vuuren, Chief Operating Officer Robert Apunyo, Research Associate
Delius Asiimwe, Senior Research Fellow
Spain
Catherine Ssekimpi, Research Associate
IESE Business School, International Center for Competitiveness
María Luisa Blázquez, Research Associate
Alessandro Cembalo, Research Assistant
Antoni Subirà, Professor


Partner Institutes

Ukraine
CASE Ukraine, Center for Social and Economic Research
Dmytro Boyarchuk, Executive Director
Vladimir Dubrovskiy, Leading Economist

United Arab Emirates
Economic & Policy Research Unit (EPRU), Zayed University
Nico Vellinga, Professor

Dubai Competitiveness Council
Adel Alfalasi, Executive Director
Khawla Belqazi, Special Projects Manager

United Kingdom
LSE Enterprise Ltd, London School of Economics
and Political Science
Adam Austerfield, Project Director
Jane Lac, Project Coordinator
Robyn Klingler, Graduate Researcher

Uruguay
Universidad ORT
Isidoro Hodara, Professor

Venezuela
CONAPRI - Venezuelan Council for Investment Promotion
Gladis Genua, Executive Director
Litsay Guerrero, Manager, Economic Affairs

Vietnam
Central Institute for Economic Management (CIEM)
Dinh Van An, President
Phan Thanh Ha, Deputy Director, Department of
Macroeconomic Management
Pham Hoang Ha, Senior Researcher, Department of
Macroeconomic Management
x
Institute for Development Studies in HCMC (HIDS)
Nguyen Trong Hoa, Professor and President
Du Phuoc Tan, Head of Department
Trieu Thanh Son, Researcher

Zambia
Institute of Economic and Social Research (INESOR),
University of Zambia
Mutumba M. Bull, Director
Patricia Funjika, Staff Development Fellow
Jolly Kamwanga, Coordinator

Zimbabwe
Graduate School of Management, University of Zimbabwe
A.M. Hawkins, Professor

Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,
Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama
INCAE Business School, Latin American Center for
Competitiveness and Sustainable Development (CLACDS)
Arturo Condo, Rector
Lawrence Pratt, Director, CLACDS
Luis Reyes, Project Manager, CLACDS
Marlene de Estrella, Director of External Relations

Latvia, Lithuania
Stockholm School of Economics in Riga
Karlis Kreslins, Executive MBA Programme Director
Anders Paalzow, Rector


Preface
Preface
ROBERT GREENHILL
Chief Business Officer, World Economic Forum

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2010 is being released Partnership Programme for the Logistics and Transport
at a time when global trade is recovering from the Industry. Over the past two years, the Forum has engaged
deepest slump it has experienced since World War II. key industry leaders, academics, and international organ-
Events over the past half decade have tested the interna- izations active in the trade arena to identify the main
tional trading system in many ways. Trade flows reached obstacles to trading across borders and to develop the
historic highs in April 2008, only to see their sharpest Enabling Trade Index. Following refinements to the Index
drop in generations a few months later.Yet, despite initial in last years edition, this year’s focus lies in analyzing the
concerns, determined not to repeat the mistakes of the evolution in country-level performance over time.
Great Depression, governments for the most part resisted The Report is downloadable from
protectionist pressures. As a result, the turnaround has www.weforum.org/getr and contains detailed profiles
been remarkable. Following a decline of 12.2 percent in for all 125 economies covered by the study, of which 23
2009, the World Trade Organization (WTO) estimates are included in the printed edition. The profiles provide
that trade will rebound by 10 percent in 2010. an overview of the results on all indicators included in
The sharp contraction in trade volumes during the the Enabling Trade Index.
economic crisis served as a reminder of the crucial role The Global Enabling Trade Report would not have
trade plays for economic growth and poverty reduction. been possible without the distinguished academics and
There is no doubt that, in the same way trade has con- practitioners who have shared with us their knowledge xi
tributed to spreading the downturn across the globe, it and experience. We thank our Data Partners—the
can foster the nascent recovery. Policymakers can support Global Express Association (GEA), the International Air
this process by reducing domestic barriers to trade. By Transport Association (IATA), the International Trade
doing so, governments will benefit not only their own Centre (ITC), the United Nations Conference on Trade
economies, but also those of their trading partners, and Development (UNCTAD), The World Bank, and
thereby contributing to a virtuous cycle of recovery. In the World Trade Organization (WTO) for making trade-
recent years, market uncertainties have also highlighted related data available. We are grateful to the Industry
the importance of smoothing the path between buyers Partners supporting this Report—Agility, Brightstar
and sellers and reducing the cost and uncertainty of the Corp., Deutsche Post DHL, FedEx, GeoPost, Stena,
transaction itself. TNT, Transnet, UPS, and Volkswagen.
The Global Enabling Trade Report’s assessment of We also wish to thank the lead authors of this
obstacles to trade continues to provide a timely volume, Robert Z. Lawrence of Harvard University and
reminder of the fundamental attributes that govern a Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz from the World Economic
nation’s ability to fully benefit from trade. These are Forum for their commitment and leadership, and Sean
captured in the Enabling Trade Index, which stands at Doherty, Thierry Geiger, and Eva Trujillo Herrera for
the core of this Report and includes four broad categories: their contributions. And we would like to express our
market access, border administration, transport and gratitude to John Moavenzadeh for his strategic guidance
telecommunications infrastructure, and the business on the project. Appreciation goes also to Jennifer Blanke
environment. and other team members of the Global Competitiveness
The Report offers a foundation for stimulating Network and Logistics and Transport teams: Ciara
dialogue, providing a yardstick of the extent to which Browne, Irene Mia, Carissa Sahli, Pearl Samandari, and
countries enjoy the factors facilitating the free flow of Katerina Soulounia. Last but not least, this Report would
goods and identifying areas where improvements are have not been possible without the hard work and
most needed. By ranking countries according to the enthusiasm of our network of 150 Partner Institutes
barriers to trade they have in place, the Report continues worldwide, who carry out the Executive Opinion
to serve as a reminder of the widespread prosperity Survey, which is at the basis of this work.
increase and poverty reduction associated with the
expansion of international trade in the recent past.
The Report is a result of work undertaken within
the context of the World Economic Forum’s Industry


Part 1
The Enabling Trade Index Results


1.1: Fostering Recovery by Facilitating Trade
CHAPTER 1.1 World trade is recovering from the deepest recession
seen since World War II—indeed, declines in trade have
been greater than for similar periods during the Great
Fostering Recovery by Depression.1 Although the World Trade Organization
(WTO) still forecasts that it could take several years for
Facilitating Trade: The Enabling trade volumes to recover and surpass their 2008 peaks,
the process of recovery has clearly accelerated. In fact,
Trade Index 2010 according to the WTO, in 2010 the volume of world
trade is expected to grow at a rate of 9.5 percent.2
ROBERT Z. LAWRENCE, Harvard University
Many studies have confirmed that the dominant
SEAN DOHERTY, MARGARETA DRZENIEK HANOUZ, reason for the decline in trade values was not increased
THIERRY GEIGER, and EVA TRUJILLO HERRERA, protectionism but rather the drop in demand that result-
World Economic Forum ed from simultaneous and interactive reactions around
the world to the failure of Lehman Brothers.3 This pre-
cipitous drop in demand had adverse effects both on the
prices of widely traded primary commodities and on
the volume of trade, which the WTO reports fell by
12.2 percent in 2009. Trade is double and treble counted
as products pass from country to country along global
supply chains. As a result of these chains, a decline in
orders for imports in one country can reduce exports
and imports in several others. It is also striking that the
drop in services trade has typically been much smaller
than the drop in goods trade. Goods are generally stor-
able. The particularly large drops in the volume of fin-
ished and intermediate manufactured goods trade reflect
the fact that purchases of these products can be post- 3
poned or cancelled when demand dries up. As a result, a
drop in demand leaves sellers with unwanted inventories
that have to be worked off before new orders are
placed. This is not the case for services. In 2009, orders
for goods picked up and the recovery is now evident
both in higher commodity prices and increased trade
volumes; full recovery, however, will require a renewal in
durable goods purchases.
As a result of these changes in trade flows, traders
around the world have seen a rollercoaster ride of trans-
port costs over the last few years. Prices mounted and
bottlenecks sprung up as strong trade flows tested capac-
ity limits. This was followed by a dramatic drop as the
entry of new capacity coincided with savage cuts in trade
volumes. More recently, the restocking of inventories,
the adoption of slow-steaming by carriers, and general
economic brightening have led to rising transport rates.
The deep drop in global trade between 2008 and
2009 represented a real-world stress test for the global
trading system. It also provides an opportunity to exam-
ine whether the progress toward a more open global
trading system made in previous decades is likely to be
permanent. The evidence is not all yet in, and a final
judgment can be given only when the recovery is com-
plete, but overall the evidence justifies a tentative answer
in the affirmative.

The authors would like to thank Xavier Pichot from the International
Trade Centre for compiling data used in the preparation of this chapter.



Restraint in protectionist measures most part, the tariff changes were remarkably small.
There are of course many examples of countries taking Indeed, average tariffs in the sample as a whole were
measures that discriminate against foreign firms and basically unchanged, and there were actually small
products. Pressures from high unemployment do raise declines on average in agriculture. There were some
demands for protection, and government stabilization exceptions, however. In particular, average tariffs in both
measures such as stimulus packages and bailouts have Brazil and Argentina rose by three percentage points
created opportunities to supply it. In addition, there are primarily because of increases in industrial tariffs. On
various legal forms of administered protection that can the other hand, there were noteworthy declines in
be applied through procedures such as anti-dumping average tariffs—in the order of one to two percentage
duties, countervailing duties, and safeguards. points—in Mauritius, Nigeria, Mexico, Iceland, and
The most extensive monitoring of such actions is Ukraine. These countries were able to reduce their
being undertaken by the Global Trade Alert (GTA), a tariffs in both agriculture and industry—a particularly
group of independent analysts located in many coun- impressive performance in the current environment.
tries. In their report, issued in December 2009, they To some extent, the absence of tariff hikes indicates
document almost 300 measures that they classify as the power of the multilateral trading system based on
being of a “beggar-thy-neighbor” nature that had been rules. This argument can be made in the case of indus-
implemented in the first post-crisis year.4 Of these trial countries. However, many developing countries
measures, 32 percent involved the discriminatory use are actually not constrained by these rules since the rates
of bailouts and state aids. Another 20 percent took the they apply are far lower than the rates they are legally
form of administered protection through anti-dumping obliged not to exceed. In 2009, for example, the average
and countervailing duties. Support for this latter finding MFN rate at which tariffs are bound for the countries
of increases in administered protection is provided by in our sample was 31.3 percent—almost four times
other data: the 2009 total number of industry requests higher than the average rates actually applied. Apparently
for trade barriers (140 product-level requests) was 20 most developing countries have chosen not to raise their
percent higher than the total requests filed for 2008 tariffs, not because of legal obligations but rather
(115), which itself was 35 percent higher than the total because they consider their current applied rates to be
4 requests filed in 2007 (81). In all these cases, an impor- appropriate even in the current circumstances.
tant question is the appropriate benchmark against Credit should also be given to the prevalence of a
which these actions should be judged. For example, global norm of not raising tariffs. A virtuous cycle has
although there has obviously been an increase in both emerged. Discipline in avoiding protectionist tariff
requests and implementations of anti-dumping, these measures by some has led to more restrained behavior
had actually fallen quite considerably through 2007 and, by others. The pledges of the Group of Twenty (G-20)
even with the recent increases, still remain considerably countries reflect and underscore the widespread intellec-
below levels typical in the period around 2000. All told, tual acceptance of the importance of avoiding protection
therefore, even in this area, the response is quite in line and have helped to reinforce this behavior. In addition,
with the historic norms for recessions—which is actually political forces for open trade are at work. Increased
heartening given the depth and pervasiveness of the interdependence helps offset protectionist pressures. The
current recession.5 dependence of many domestic firms on imported inputs
The most impressive restraint, however, has come in creates domestic constituents that have much to lose
the area of market access. The international response has from higher barriers.
been remarkable and suggests a widespread and politically This outcome is a remarkable contrast with the
durable consensus on the desirability of maintaining open behavior exhibited in the 1930s, when countries
trade in most countries. Only a seventh of all the meas- responded to the higher tariffs of their trading partners
ures detected by the GTA have involved higher tariffs, by raising tariffs at home. In the 1930s, widespread
and there are numerous examples of both unilateral and use of specific tariffs with set monetary values also
regional trade liberalization. For example, despite the exacerbated the situation because these became more
recession, the WTO was notified by its members that 14 restrictive when commodity prices fell. The promotion
new regional agreements came into force in 2009. This of ad-valorem tariffs through the WTO has helped
was quite in line with the average of 13 additional limit this impact in the current situation.
regional agreements that have been concluded annually
since 2000.
The underlying tariff data used for this Report Factors that enable trade
confirm this impression. We were able to isolate 73 The Global Enabling Trade Report is motivated by the
countries in our sample for which we had complete view that, in addition to trade policy, trade is enabled
tariff data for both 2008 and 2009; we weighted these by a broader set of factors captured by our three other
using 2007 trade weights to explore changes over this pillars. Besides trade policy, the Enabling Trade Index
period in both agricultural and industrial tariffs. For the (ETI), as discussed in depth below, assesses border


administration, transportation and communications, and this suggests the importance of increasing Aid for Trade,
the general business environment. There are examples as set forth in the Doha Round.
this year of some remarkable improvements in these Just as trade was a key force spreading the growth
other pillars. While most countries did not experience slowdown internationally, so can trade be an important
large changes in their rankings, the greatest improve- driver in diffusing the benefits of recovery internationally.
ments in border administration, for example, were When individual countries enable trade, they provide
recorded by Cyprus (up 18 places, from 47th to 29th) benefits not only to themselves but also to other nations
because of an improvement in the efficiency of its with which they trade. Improved market access, more
import-export procedures and Ecuador (up 15 places, efficient customs, and better infrastructure and business
from 107th to 92nd) because of more efficient customs environments offer enhanced opportunities for both
administration. In the area of transportation and com- importers and exporters. Thus granting Aid for Trade to
munication, the greatest improvements in rankings took help nations implement such measures reflects enlightened
place in Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Madagascar. And self-interest because it enhances welfare in recipient
there have been notable improvements in the business countries and their trading partners.
environment in Poland, Macedonia, and Lesotho.
While the aggregate data, especially for tariffs, look
good, in each of our categories we also find countries The Enabling Trade Index
that are slipping. As indicated earlier, tariffs have been The Enabling Trade Index (ETI) was developed within
raised by some countries. Not all countries improved the context of the World Economic Forum’s Industry
their border administration. The largest declines in rank- Partnership Programme for the Logistics and Transport
ings in this subindex are found in Syria and Tunisia, sector and was first published in The Global Enabling
both reflecting declines in customs efficiency. Some Trade Report 2008. A number of Data Partners have
countries have fallen behind in transportation and com- collaborated in this effort: the Global Express
munications, with the largest declines for Burkina Faso, Association (GEA), the International Air Transport
Uganda, India, and Sri Lanka, mainly caused by deterio- Association (IATA), the International Trade Centre
rating perceptions regarding the quality of transport (ITC), the United Nations Conference on Trade and
infrastructure. And business environments generally have Development (UNCTAD), the World Bank, and the 5
declined relatively, reflecting poor physical security in WTO. We have also received significant input from
Greece,6 Honduras, and Madagascar. Lagging in business companies that are part of the World Economic Forum’s
environment were Korea and Malaysia. Industry Partnership Programme for the Logistics and
The ETI tracks actions that governments can take Transportation sector, namely Agility, Brightstar Corp.,
to enable trade, and considerable room remains for addi- Deutsche Post DHL, FedEx, GeoPost, Stena, TNT,
tional measures that could stimulate trade. In the short Transnet, UPS, and Volkswagen.
run, these would contribute to the recovery; over the The ETI measures the extent to which individual
long run, they would enhance economic growth and economies have developed institutions, policies, and services
welfare. The Doha Round remains at an impasse. A suc- facilitating the free flow of goods over borders and to destina-
cessful conclusion would be the single most important tion.7 The structure of the Index reflects the main
step that could be taken in the current circumstances to enablers of trade, breaking them into four overall issue
ensure a more open global trading system that would areas, captured in the subindexes:
provide benefits to all WTO members. In addition to the 1. The market access subindex measures the extent to
Round, there are many other actions beyond reducing which the policy framework of the country
border barriers that can be taken to help spur trade. welcomes foreign goods into the economy and
Particularly for developing countries, these merit signifi- enables access to foreign markets for its
cant attention. Market access is insufficient for stimulat- exporters.
ing exports by the least developed countries. Indeed, the 2. The border administration subindex assesses the
ETI indicates that these countries already benefit from extent to which the administration at the border
relatively low trade barriers for their exports. Instead, facilitates the entry and exit of goods.
their supply-side capacity needs to be enhanced. This 3. The transport and communications infrastructure
requires improvements both in infrastructure and in subindex takes into account whether the country
institutions. In some cases, countries can act with respect has in place the transport and communications
to their tariffs and regulations through government infrastructure necessary to facilitate the move-
action without incurring major expenses. But in other ment of goods within the economy and across
cases—such as improving the operation of the informa- the border.
tion systems available for customs, the quality of roads 4. The business environment subindex looks at
and communications, or the capacity and skills of public the quality of governance as well as at the over-
officials—additional financial resources are required. And arching regulatory and security environment



Box 1: Incorporating trade agreements and trade preferences in the Enabling Trade Index

Over the past 20 years, preferential trading agreements (PTAs) Notes
have become a key feature of the global trading system. Over 1 However, such tariff reduction may not lead to higher welfare
this period the number of agreements notified to the World because trade may be diverted from the most-efficient producer in
a third country to a less-efficient one in the PTA.
Trade Organization (WTO) increased more than sixfold and
account for about two-thirds of world trade today. Some 462 2 This type of agreement provides access to markets that are
protected by another country, so that domestic businesses obtain
agreements had been notified to the WTO by February 2010, an advantage vis-à-vis third-country exporters. An additional advan-
and all WTO member countries bar one, Mongolia, belong to at tage comes from the fact that the cost of protection is borne by
least one PTA. In addition, as trade is an important instrument the consumers of the other country.

for fostering economic development, many developing countries 3 See WTO "Understanding the WTO."
benefit from unilaterally granted trade preferences, such as the 4 See WTO "Understanding the WTO." From a dynamic perspective,
Generalized System of Preference (GSP) programs operated by PTAs can contribute to advancing multilateral liberalization because
the European Union and the United States. they can prepare the ground for it if successful restructuring
toward a more open economy takes place. This restructuring can
Many aspects of trade liberalization are more feasible in alter the balance of political interests within the country toward
smaller country groupings that share common interests than at free trade. In some cases, however, PTAs can make multilateral
the multilateral level. PTAs therefore foster deeper integration liberalization less attractive, if their aims are not economic. And
in some cases PTAs can be economically more beneficial than
among the concerned countries. In general, the reduction or multilateral agreements, as partners can be chosen to maximize
abolition of tariffs between two countries expands trade welfare.
between the parties.1 From an individual country perspective,
therefore, PTAs tend to enable trade. In fact, the only trade
regime that is economically more beneficial to a country than
Reference
multilateral liberalization is full liberalization of domestic barri-
WTO (World Trade Organization). “Understanding the WTO: Cross-
ers with preferential access to markets abroad.2 Cutting and New Issues. Regionalism: Friends or Rivals?” Available
At the same time, however, preferential agreements have at http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/bey1_e.htm
(accessed April 14, 2010).
a number of downsides. They make it more difficult for busi-
nesses to navigate the trade regime and may disadvantage
6 third countries, which can make them undesirable from a global
perspective. They may also induce countries that confer prefer-
ences to import from less-efficient preference beneficiaries at
the expense of more-efficient producers from non-recipient
countries. The WTO, which is concerned with multilateral liber-
alization, recognizes that, although PTAs contradict the principle
of equal treatment of all trading partners, these agreements can
support the multilateral trading system by deepening integration
and paving the way for further liberalization.3 For this reason,
the WTO framework allows these preferential agreements, but
only if they facilitate trade within the group—they are required
to cover “substantially all trade” and must not raise tariffs
toward the outside world.4
All things considered—because the Enabling Trade
Index (ETI) measures how far countries enable trade from their
individual perspectives, and given the importance of trade pref-
erences for many developing countries in providing access to
foreign markets—a measure assessing the preferential margin
in target markets (indicator 1.06, margin of preference in desti-
nation markets) was included in the foreign market access
component of the ETI.


impacting the business of importers and quality of all types of transport infrastructure, including
exporters active in the country. air, rail, roads, and ports.9
The availability and quality of transport services
Each of these four subindexes is composed in turn pillar complements the assessment of infrastructure by
of a number of pillars of enabling trade, of which there taking into account the amount and the quality of serv-
are nine in all. These are: ices available for shipment, including the quantity of
services provided by liner companies, the ability to track
1. Domestic and foreign market access
and trace international shipments, the timeliness of ship-
2. Efficiency of customs administration
ments in reaching destination, general postal efficiency,
3. Efficiency of import-export procedures
and the overall competence of the local logistics indus-
4. Transparency of border administration
try (e.g., transport operators, customs brokers). This pillar
5. Availability and quality of transport
also takes into account the degree of openness of the
infrastructure
transport-related sectors as measured by countries’ com-
6. Availability and quality of transport services
mitments made under the General Agreement on Trade
7. Availability and use of ICTs
in Services (GATS).
8. Regulatory environment
Given the increasing importance of information
9. Physical security
and communication technologies (ICTs) for the man-
agement of shipments, as well as the central role these
The domestic and foreign market access pillar meas-
technologies play in facilitating customs clearance and
ures the level of protection of an economy’s markets, the
communication, the availability and use of ICTs pillar
quality of its trade regime, and the level of protection
includes the penetration rates of these tools, such as
that a country’s exporters face in their target markets.
mobile phones and the Internet, in each country. We
The measures taken into account include not only tariffs
add measures of the perceived use of Internet by busi-
and non-tariff measures imposed by a country on all
ness for buying and selling goods and an index of the
imported goods,8 but also the share of goods imported
availability of government online services.
duty-free, the variance of tariffs, the frequency of tariff
The regulatory environment pillar captures the extent
peaks, the number of distinct tariffs, and the share of
to which the economy’s regulatory environment is con- 7
specific tariffs. Protection in foreign markets is captured
ducive to trade. Included are indicators that capture the
by tariffs faced, but also by the margin of preference in
general quality of governance, but also the openness to
target markets negotiated through bilateral or regional
foreign participation, which covers the ease of hiring
agreements. Box 1 discusses in more detail the rationale
foreign labor in the country (important for companies
for including the preference margin in the Index.
moving goods across borders), the extent to which the
The efficiency of customs administration pillar meas-
policy environment encourages foreign direct invest-
ures the efficiency of customs procedures as perceived
ment, the restrictiveness of capital controls, and an index
by the private sector, as well as the extent of services
of multilateral treaties pertaining to trade signed by the
provided by customs authorities and related agencies.
country.
The efficiency of import-export procedures pillar
The security environment is of great importance
extends beyond the customs administration and assesses
for ensuring the delivery of goods to destination with-
the effectiveness and efficiency of clearance processes by
out major frictions. In this context, the physical security
customs as well as related border control agencies, the
pillar specifically gauges the country’s level of violence
number of days and documents required to import and
(both in terms of general crime and violence as well as
export goods, and the total official cost associated with
the threat of terrorism), as well as the reliability of the
importing as well as exporting, excluding tariffs and
police services in their ability to enforce law and order.
trade taxes.
Each of these pillars is made up of a number of
Given the significant hindrance that corruption can
individual variables. The dataset includes both hard data
provide in trade, the transparency of border administration
and survey data from the World Economic Forum’s
pillar assesses the pervasiveness of undocumented extra
Executive Opinion Survey (Survey). The hard data were
payments or bribes connected with imports and exports,
obtained from publicly available sources and interna-
as well as overall perceived degree of corruption in each
tional organizations (for example, the ITC, UNCTAD,
country.
the World Bank, and the WTO). The Survey is carried
The availability and quality of transport infrastructure
out annually by the World Economic Forum among top
pillar measures the state of transport infrastructure across
business executives in all economies covered by our
all modes of transport in each economy, as demonstrated
research. It captures their views on the business environ-
by the density of airports, the percentage of paved roads,
ment and provides unique data on many qualitative
as well as the extent of transshipment connections avail-
aspects of the broader business environment, including a
able to shippers from each country. Also captured is the
number of specific issues related to trade. For detailed



Figure 1: 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

8

descriptions of all the indicators included, please see the in turn, these figures are then averaged to calculate the
“Technical Notes and Sources” at the end of this Report. pillar score. This does not affect the results except for
The nine pillars are grouped into the four those countries for which data for some of the indica-
subindexes described above,10 as shown in Figure 1, and tors were not available. In the 5th pillar, the indicator
the overall score for each country is derived as an measuring road congestion was dropped because it was
unweighted average of the subindexes. The details of the too strongly correlated with the land area of countries.
composition of the ETI are shown in the Appendix. In the 7th pillar, the firm-level technology absorption
As econometric tests of the ETI 2009 demonstrat- variable was replaced by an indicator capturing the busi-
ed, the Index has explanatory power with respect to an ness usage of the Internet, and an index of government
economy’s trade performance.11 The analysis has shown online services was added to proxy the extent to which
that a 1 percent increase in the ETI score in the export- governments use ICTs in their delivery of trade-related
ing country is associated with an increase of 1.7 percent services. Finally, in the 8th pillar, an index assessing
in its exports. This effect is even higher with respect to financial-sector performance was added,12 and we also
the importing country: the model predicts that a 1 per- reintroduced the Index of Multilateral Treaties, based on
cent improvement in the ETI score would lead to a 2.3 the International Trade Centre’s LegaCarta Database,
percent rise in imports. Taken together, these two effects previously included in the 2008 edition of the ETI.
predict that a 1 percent increase in the average ETI score
of any given country pair would be associated with a 4
percent increase in bilateral trade, all else being equal. Country coverage
The overall country coverage has increased from 121 to
125 economies in this year’s ETI. Five new countries
Changes to the Index methodology were added to the Index, as relevant data became avail-
The Index methodology has undergone only minor able: Botswana, Georgia, Iceland, Montenegro, and
changes this year, which do not inhibit the ability to Serbia. Unfortunately, Moldova could not be covered
compare these results with those of the 2009 edition of this year, as data from the Survey were not available.
the Report. In the first pillar, the weighting was adjusted
from averaging across the six indicators to a hierarchical
approach. This means that first the averages for domestic The Enabling Trade Index 2010 rankings
market access and for foreign market access are calculated; The detailed rankings from this year’s ETI are shown
in Tables 1 through 6. Table 1 shows the rankings in


Global enabling-trade-report-2010

Global enabling-trade-report-2010

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Global enabling-trade-report-2010

Similar to Global enabling-trade-report-2010 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Global enabling-trade-report-2010