Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
Faculty of Economics, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
Traditional trade theories and/or “Trade-in-Goods” predict that exports can generate 100% value-added which has recently been debated by Trade-in-Tasks theories. The root of these debates are referred to the existing conventional macro-economic accounting, which is expressed that expenditure components of final goods including gross exports (GE) equals to total value is consumed in each country. It means that a country’s GDP is the sum of its domestic final demand including GE. Generating 100% value added in domestic final demand may hold true but GE due to double counting may not generated 100% value added for the domestic economy. In addition to that domestic value added (DVA) has a nice property with Vertical Specialization (VS) in such a way that the sum of their shares are equal to one and therefore, can measure the degree of VS in trade. In this article, we take this issue as a starting point and for the first time try to analyze it with the following questions: What amount of DVA should be attributed to GE from Iran? What is the relationship between DVA and VS? We apply two methods of Hypothetical Extraction (HEM) and VS. Using the latest Input-Output Tables (IOTs) of 2011 and 2001 in Iran. The overall findings are as follows: One- the share of DVA in GE in 2001 is 95.02%, downs to 93.33% in 2011 and the shares of residual as an overestimation of GE are 4.98% and 6.67% for each year respectively. Second there is an inverse relationship between DVA and VS shares for both years. Third- the considerable large shares of DVA followed by small shares of VS suggest that Iranian economy is at the beginning of production chains with non-symmetric trade pattern.
Keywords
- " Trade-in-Goods" Trade-in-Tasks" Hypothetical Extraction Method" Vertical Specialization"
- " Input-Output Table"
Main Subjects
Article Title [Persian]
برآورد ارزش افزوده داخلی در صادرات ناخالص و ارتباط آن با تخصص گرایی عمودی، مطالعه موردی ایران
Authors [Persian]
- پریسا مهاجری
- علی اصغر بانویی
دانشکده اقتصاد، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.
Abstract [Persian]
نظریه‌های سنتی تجارت و یا نظریه‌های «تجارت در کالا» معتقدند که صادرات می‌تواند 100 درصد ارزش‌افزوده ایجاد کند که اخیراً توسط نظریه‌های «تجارت در کارکرد» مورد بحث قرار گرفته‌اند. این موضوع ریشه در یکی از مباحث اصلی حسابداری اقتصاد کلان مرسوم دارد که بیان می‌کند مخارج انجام شده روی اجزای هزینه نهایی از جمله صادرات ناخالص (GE) دقیقاً معادل با ارزش‌افزوده کل مصرف شده در هر کشوری است. این بدین معناست که GDP کشور با مجموع تقاضای داخلی‌نهایی مشتمل بر GE معادل است. ایجاد 100 درصد ارزش‌افزوده در تقاضای نهایی داخلی ممکن است درست باشد اما به دلیل احتساب مضاعف، امکان ندارد که GE بتواند 100 درصد ارزش‌افزوده ایجاد کند. علاوه بر این، ارزش‌افزوده داخلی (DVA) با تخصص‌گرایی عمودی (VS) مرتبط است به نحوی که مجموع سهم آن‌ها برابر یک است لذا می‌تواند درجه VS را در تجارت اندازه‌گیری کند. در این مقاله، این مسئله به عنوان نقطه شروع در نظر گرفته شده و برای اولین بار تلاش می‌شود تا به سوألات زیر پاسخ داده شود: مقدار DVA موجود در GE ایران چقدر است؟ چه ارتباطی بین DVA و VS وجود دارد. در این مقاله دو رویکرد حذف فرضی (HEM) و VS مورد استفاده قرار می‌گیرند. با استفاده از جداول داده-ستانده سال‌های 2011 و 2001 در ایران، یافته‌های کلی به شرح زیر است: یک- سهم DVA در GE در سال 2001 برابر 02/95% است که به 33/93% در سال 2011 کاهش می‌یابد و مقادیر پسماند که منعکس‌کننده بیش‌برآوردی GE است به ترتیب معادل 98/4% و 67/6% است. دو- رابطه معکوس بین سهم DVA و VS برای هر دو سال وجود دارد. سه- سهم قابل‌توجه DVA و سهم بسیار اندک VS حاکی از آن است که اقتصاد ایران در زنجیره‌های اولیه تولید با الگوی تجارت نامتقارن قرار دارد.
Keywords [Persian]
- تجارت در کالا- تجارت در کارکرد- روش حذف فرضی- تخصص‌گرایی عمودی
- جدول داده-ستانده
integrating frameworks. Journal of International Economics, 99(3), 51-62.
Baldwin, R., & Lopez-Gonzelez, J. (2013). Supply chain trade: A portrait of
global patterns and several testable hypotheses. NBER Working Paper,
19857.
Bem, R., Johnson, R. C., & Yi, K. M. (2011). Vertical linkages and the collapse
of global value. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings,
101(3), 308-312.
Brecher, R. A., & Choudhri, E. U. (1982). Leontief paradox, continued. Journal
of Political Economy, 90(4), 250-254.
Casas, F. R., & Choei, E. K. (1985). The leontief paradox: Continued of
resolved? Journal of Political Economy, 93(31), 610-615.
Costinot, A., & Rodríguez-Clare, A. (2013). Trade theory with numbers:
Quantifying the consequences of globalization. NBER Working Paper,
18896.
Dean, J. M., Fung, K. C., & Wang, Z. (2011). Measuring vertical specialization:
The case of China. Review of International Economics, 19(4), 609-625.
De Backer, K., & Miroudot, S. (2013). Mapping global value chains. OECD
Trade Policy Papers, 159.
Dietzenbacher, E., & Mukhopadhyay, K. (2007). An empirical examination of
the pollution heaven hypothesis for India: Towards a green leontief
paradox? Environment and Resource Economics, 36(4), 427-449.
Dietzenbacher, E., Los, B., Stehrer, R., Timmer, M., & de Vries, G. (2013). The
construction of world input-output tables in WDIO project. Economic
Systems Research, 25(1), 71-98.
Dietzenbacher, E., Burken, B. V., & Kondo, Y. (2019). Hypothetical extraction
from a global perspective. Economic Systems Research, 31(4), 505-515.
Feenstra, R. C., & Taylor, A. M. (2017). International trade. Worth Publishers,
New York, Chapter 4.
Foster-McGregor, N., & Stehrer, R. (2013). Value-added contents of trade: A
comprehensive approach. Economic Letter, 2, 354-357.
Grossman, G. M., & Rossi-Hansberg, E. (2008). Trading tasks: A simple theory
of offshoring. American Economic Review, 98(5), 1978-1997.
Guerra, A. I., & Sancho, F. (2010). Measuring energy linkage with the
hypothetical extraction method: An application to Spain. Energy
Economics, 32, 831-837.
Hummels, D., Ishii, J., Yi, K. M. (2001). The nature of growth of vertical
specialization in world trade. Journal of International Economics, 54(3),
75-96.
Johnson, R. C. (2014). Five facts about value-added exports and implications for
macroeconomics and trade research. Journal of Economic Perspectives,
28(2), 119-142.
26 Mohajeri et al., Iranian Journal of Economic Studies, 10(1) 2021, 7-29
Johnson, R. C., & Noguera, G. (2012a). Production sharing and trade in value
added. Journal of International Economics, 86, 224-236.
Johnson, R. C., & Noguera, G. (2012b). Proximity and production
fragmentation. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 102(3),
407-411.
Koopman, R., Wang, Z., & Wei, S. H. (2014). Tracing value-added and double
counting in gross exports. American Economic Review, 104(2), 459-494.
Koopman, R., Wang, Z., & Wei, S. J. (2012). Estimating domestic content in
exports when processing trade is pervasive. Journal of Development
Economics, 99(2), 178-189.
Leamer, E. E. (1980). The leontief paradox reconsidered. Journal of Political
Economy, 88(3), 495-503.
Lee, C., Wills, D., & Schluter, G. (1988). Examining leontief paradox in U.S.
agricultural trade. Agricultural Economics, 38(2), 259-272.
Leontief, W. (1953). Domestic production and foreign trade: The American
capital position re-examined. Reprinted in W. Leontief (1966) Input-Output
Economics, Oxford University Press, New York, Chapter 5.
Leontief, W. (1956). Factor proportions and the structure of American trade:
Further theoretical and empirical analysis. Reprinted in W. Leontief
(1966) Input-Output Economics, Oxford University Press, New York,
Chapter 6.
Los, B., Timmer, M. P., Vries, D., & Goaitzen, J. (2016). Tracing value-added
and double counting in gross exports. American Economic Review, 106(7),
1958-1966.
Miller, R. E., & Lahr, M. L. (2001). A taxonomy of extraction. In M.L. Lahr and
R.E. Miller (eds.), Regional Science Perspectives in Economic Analysis,
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 407-411.
Miroudot, S., & Ye, M. (2021). Decomposing value-added in gross exports.
Economic Systems Research, 33(1), 67-87.
Miroudot, S., & Ye, M. (2020). Multinational production in value-added terms.
Economic Systems Research. 32(3), 395-412.
Miroudot, S., & Ye, M. (2017). Decomposing value-added in gross exports,
unresolved issues and possible solution. MPRA Paper, 8373.
Puzzello, L. (2012). A proportionality assumption and measurement biases in
the factor content of trade. Journal of International Economics, 87(1), 105-
111.
Timmer, M. P., Dietzenbacher, E., Los, B., Stehrer, R., & de Veries, G. J.
(2015). An illustrated user guide to the world input-output database. Review
of International Economics, 32(2), 575-605.
Timmer, M. P., Erumban, A. Z., Los, B., Stehrer, R., & de Vries, G. J. (2014).
Slicing up global value chain. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(1), 99-
118.
Timmer, M. P., Erumban, A. Z., Los, B., Stehrer, R., & de Vries, G. J. (2012).
Slicing up global value chain. 32nd General Conference of the International
Mohajeri et al., Iranian Journal of Economic Studies, 10(1) 2021, 7-29 27
Association for Research in Income and Wealth, Boston, USA, August 5-11,
Retrieved in: http://www.wiod.org/publications/papers/wiod12.pdf.
Trefler, D. (1993). International factor price differences: Leontief was right.
Journal of Political Economy, 101(6), 261-287.
Trefler, D., & Zhu, S. C. (2010). The structure of factor content predictions.
Journal of International Economics, 82(3), 195-207.
Tukker, A., & Dietzenbacher, E. (2013). Global multiregional input-output
frameworks: An introduction and outlook. Economic Systems Research,
25(1), 1-19.
United Nations. (2018). Handbook on supply, use and input-output tables with
extensions and applications, studies in methods. Series F, No. 74, Rev.1,
New York.
Wang, Y., Wang, W., Mao, G., Cai, H., & Zuo, J. (2013). Industrial CO2
emission in China, based on the hypothetical extraction method: Linkage
analysis. Energy Policy, 62, 1238-1244.
World Bank. (2020). Trading for development in the age of global value chains,
Washington, D.C.
Zhao, Y., Zhang, Z., Wang, S., Zhang, Y., & Liu, Y. (2015). Linkage analysis of
sectoral emissions based on the hypothetical extraction method in South
Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production, 103, 916-924.
)