1 / 7

Mark de Haan

11 th National Accounts Advisory Expert Group Meeting New York, 5-7 December 2017. 9. SNA & BOP: CIF & FOB. Mark de Haan. Setting the scene: Netherlands is a very open economy!. As percentages of GDP: (gross re-) exports ≈ 80% gross property in/outflows ≈ 30% IIP ≈ 70%

hargravea
Download Presentation

Mark de Haan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 11th National Accounts Advisory Expert Group Meeting New York, 5-7 December 2017 9. SNA & BOP: CIF & FOB Mark de Haan

  2. Setting the scene: Netherlands is a very open economy! • As percentages of GDP: • (gross re-) exports ≈80% • gross property in/outflows ≈ 30% • IIP ≈ 70% • Globalisation is a prominent issue in the Netherlands • Trade balance • Property income • Financial accounts** What do to with passing through?

  3. Goods and services account • Compiled first in the SUT (submitted to the BoP); • Goods and services distinction increasingly murky (goods sent for processing, merchanting, FGP type contracting, IP, bundling, etc.) • Bridging conceptual difference is also complex • merchandise trade: cross border registration • trade in services: transfer of ownership recording • → the required CIF/FOB recording of imports/exports increase measurement challenges

  4. CIF-FOB recording • Conceptual concerns (Walter, Harrison); • This paper is more practical: We tried hard but we don’t know how to do it!

  5. What are the problems? In case of the Netherlands the quality of data items bridging the actual transaction price (based on the agreed terms of delivery) and the reported (import) CIF price is of low quality. This is shown in Table 1 of the paper. In order to maintain consistency with the trade services (transport, insurance etc.) the required adjustments can only be made based on information on the nationality of the service provider (e.g. carrier). We do not have this information (as shown in the remaining tables)!

  6. Our conclusions are: CIF/FOB adjustments easily lead to additional mismatches between goods and services trade flows (concerns both import and export); Recording trade in goods based on the actual transaction value overcomes these problems. It may even avoid further bilateral asymmetries. This recording may also be more be in line with general SNA recording principles (avoiding trade services imputations/adjustments).

  7. Thank you!

More Related