Global Enabling Trade Report 2008

ET.part.A.
r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page i
World Economic Forum

Geneva, Switzerland 2008
Sean Doherty
Project Leader
Qin He
Project Manager
The Global Enabling Trade

Report 2008
Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University

Jennifer Blanke, World Economic Forum
Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, World Economic Forum
John Moavenzadeh, World Economic Forum
Editors
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2008 © 2008 World Economic Forum
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page ii
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2008 is World Economic Forum

published by the World Economic Forum Geneva
within the framework of the Global
Competitiveness Network and the Industry Copyright © 2008
Partnership Programme for Logistics & 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 sys-
tem, or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
or otherwise without the prior permission of
EDITORS
the World Economic Forum.
At the John F. Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University: ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-06-7
Robert Z. Lawrence, Albert L. Williams
Professor of Trade and Investment
At the World Economic Forum:

Jennifer Blanke, Senior Economist
Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, Senior Economist
John Moavenzadeh, Senior Director,
Sustainable Mobility and Strategy
LOGISTICS & TRANSPORT TEAM
Sean Doherty, Head of Logistics and Transport Industry

Qin He, Project Manager, Logistics and Transportation
Yasmina Makar, Team Coordinator, Mobility Industries
GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS NETWORK TEAM
Fiona Paua, Senior Director, Head of Strategic Insight Teams

Ciara Browne, Senior Community Manager
Agustina Ciocia, Coordinator
Thierry Geiger, Economist
Irene Mia, Senior Economist
Pearl Samandari, Research Assistant
Eva Trujillo Herrera, Research Assistant
A special thank you to Hope Steele for her

superb editing work and Ha Nguyen for her
excellent graphic design and layout.
The terms country and nation as used in this

report do not in all cases refer to a territorial
entity that is a state as understood by inter-
national law and practice. The terms cover
well-defined, geographically self-contained
economic areas that may not be states but
for which statistical data are maintained on a
separate and independent basis.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page iii
Contents
Partner Institutes v Part 2: Country/Economy Profiles and Data 85

Presentation
Preface xi
by Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum 2.1 Country/Economy Profiles 87
How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles ...............................89
by Eva Trujillo Herrera, World Economic Forum
Executive Summary xiii List of Countries/Economies ........................................................91
by Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University, and Country/Economy Profiles............................................................92
Jennifer Blanke, Sean Doherty, and
Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, World Economic Forum
2.2 Data Tables 329
How to Read the Data Tables ....................................................331
Index of Data Tables...................................................................333
Data Tables.................................................................................335
Part 1: Selected Issues on Enabling Trade 1
1.1 The Enabling Trade Index: Assessing the 3 Technical Notes and Sources 393
Factors Impeding International Trade
by Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University, and iii
Jennifer Blanke, Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, Thierry Geiger, About the Authors 397
and Qin He, World Economic Forum
Acknowledgments 401
1.2 The Doha Round Negotiations on Trade Facilitation 35
by Richard Eglin, World Trade Organization (WTO)
1.3 Additional Taxes and the Indirect Evidence 41

on Trade Protection
by Mondher Mimouni, Xavier Pichot, and Lionel Fontagné,
International Trade Centre (ITC)
1.4 Connecting to Compete: 53

Trade Logistics in the Global Economy
by Jean-François Arvis, Monica Alina Mustra, and John Panzer,
The World Bank, and Lauri Ojala and Tapio Naula,
Turku School of Economics, Finland
1.5 Facilitating Cross-Border Movement of Goods: 67

A Sustainable Approach
by Poul Hansen and Liliana Annovazzi-Jakab, United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
1.6 Countdown to 2015: Improving Access 77

and Openness to Help Achieve the Millennium
Development Goals
by Gene Huang, FedEx Corporation
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page iv
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page v
Partner Institutes
Partner Institutes
Albania Benin
Institute for Contemporary Studies (ISB) Micro Impacts of Macroeconomic Adjustment Policies (MIMAP)
Artan Hoxha, President Benin
Elira Jorgoni, Senior Expert and Project Manager Epiphane Adjovi, Business Coordinator
Denalada Kuzumi, Researcher Maria-Odile Attanasso, Deputy Coordinator
Fructueux Deguenonvo, Researcher
Algeria
Centre de Recherche en Economie Appliquée pour le Bosnia and Herzegovina
Développement (CREAD) MIT Center, School of Economics and Business in Sarajevo,
Youcef Benabdallah, Assistant Professor University of Sarajevo
Yassine Ferfera, Director Zlatko LagumdÏija, Professor
Z̆eljko S̆ain, Executive Director
Argentina
Jasmina Selimovic, Assistant Director
IAE—Universidad Austral
Marcelo Paladino, Vice Dean Brazil
Fundação Dom Cabral
Armenia
Marina Araújo, Research Assistant
Economy and Values Research Center
Carlos Arruda, International Relations Director and Coordinator
Manuk Hergnyan, Chairman
of the Innovation Center
Sevak Hovhannisyan, Senior Research Associate
Anna Makaryan, Research Associate Movimento Brasil Competitivo (MBC)
Jorge H. S. Lima, Project Coordinator
Australia José Fernando Mattos, President
Australian Industry Group Claudio Leite Gastal, Director v
Nicholas James, Economist
Tony Pensabene, Associate Director, Economics & Research Bulgaria
Heather Ridout, Chief Executive Center for Economic Development
Anelia Damianova, Senior Expert
Austria
Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO) Burkina Faso
Karl Aiginger, Director Société d’Etudes et de Recherche Formation pour le
Gerhard Schwarz, Coordinator, Survey Department Développement (SERF)
Abdoulaye Tarnagda, Director General
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan Marketing Society Burundi
Fuad Aliyev, Executive Director Center of Scientific Research in Economics (CURDES),
Ashraf Hajiyev, Project Coordinator National University of Burundi
Saida Talibova, Consultant Ferdinand Bararuzunza, Professor of Economics and Dean of
the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences
Bahrain
Bahrain Competitiveness Council Cambodia
Jawad Habib, Member Economic Institute of Cambodia
Sok Hach, Director
Bahrain Economic Development Board
Tuy Chak Riya, Research Associate
Rima Al Kilani, Director, International Marketing
Hang Sambopisith, Researcher
Bangladesh
Cameroon
Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD)
Comité de Compétitivité (Competitiveness Committee)
Debapriya Bhattacharya, Executive Director
Lucien Sanzouango, Permanent Secretary
Khondaker Golam Moazzem, Research Fellow
Mustafizur Rahman, Research Director Canada
Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity
Belgium
Roger Martin, Chairman and Dean of the Rotman School of
Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School
Management, University of Toronto
Lutgart Van den Berghe, Professor, Executive Director and
James Milway, Executive Director
Chairman, Competence Centre Entrepreneurship,
Governance and Strategy Chad
Harry P. Bowen, Professor of Economics and International Groupe de Recherches Alternatives et de Monitoring du Projet
Business Pétrole-Tchad-Cameroun (GRAMP-TC)
Bieke Dewulf, Associate, Competence Centre Entrepreneurship, Antoine Doudjidingao, Researcher
Governance and Strategy Gilbert Maoundonodji, Director
Celine Nénodji Mbaipeur, Programme Officer
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page vi
Partner Institutes
Chile Germany
Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez WHU—Otto Beisheim School of Management
Andres Allamand, Dean, School of Government Michael Frenkel, Chair, Macroeconomics and International
Catalina Mertz, Director, Institute of Political Economy Economics
Sergio Selman, Project Coordinator
Greece
China Federation of Greek Industries
Institute of Economic System and Management Thanasis Printsipas, Economist, Research and Analysis
National Development and Reform Commission Antonis Tortopidis, Coordinator, Research and Analysis
Zhou Haichun, Deputy Director and Professor
Guatemala
Chen Wei, Research Fellow
FUNDESA
Dong Ying, Professor
Edgar A. Heinemann, President of the Board of Directors
Colombia Humberto Olavarría, Treasurer of the Board of Directors
National Planning Department Pablo Schneider, Director of the Development Initiative Centre
Orlando Gracia Fajardo, Entrepreneurial Development Director (CIDES)
Víctor Manuel Nieto, Advisor
Guyana
Carolina Rentería Rodríguez, General Director
Institute of Development Studies, University of Guyana
Croatia Karen Pratt, Research Associate
National Competitiveness Council Clive Thomas, Director
Martina Hatlak, Research Assistant
Hong Kong SAR
Mira Lenardic, Secretary General
The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce
Cyprus David O’Rear, Chief Economist
Cyprus College Research Center
Federation of Hong Kong Industries
Bambos Papageorgiou, Head of Socioeconomic and Academic
Alexandra Poon, Director
Research
Hungary
The Cyprus Development Bank
Kopint-Datorg, Economic Research
Maria Markidou-Georgiadou, Manager, International Banking
Ágnes Nagy, Project Manager
Services Unit and Business Development
Éva Palócz, Deputy General Director
Czech Republic
India
CMC Graduate School of Business
Confederation of Indian Industry
Dagmar Glueckaufova, Interim President and Academic Dean
Tarun Das, Chief Mentor
Daniela Sedlackova, Executive Assistant to the President
vi Veronika Stejskalova, Coordinator and Graphic Designer
Ajay Khanna, Deputy Director General
Shamsher S Mehta, Director General
Denmark
Indonesia
Copenhagen Business School
Kadin Indonesia
Department of International Economics and Management
M.S. Hidayat, Chairman
Lars Håkanson, Head of Department
Tulus Tambunan, Director
Anne Sluhan, Administrative Director
Ireland
Ecuador
Competitiveness Survey Group, Department of Economics,
Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL)
University College Cork
Escuela de Postgrado en Administración de Empresas (ESPAE)
Eleanor Doyle
Virginia Lasio, Acting Director
Niall O’Sullivan
Juan Tinoco, Project Assistant
Bernadette Power
Sara Wong, Professor
National Competitiveness Council
Egypt
Jason Cleary, Researcher
The Egyptian Center for Economic Studies
Adrian Devitt, Manager
Hanaa Kheir-El-Din, Executive Director and Director of Research
Ronan Lyons, Economist
Estonia
Israel
Estonian Institute of Economic Research
Manufacturers’ Association of Israel (MAI)
Evelin Ahermaa, Head of Economic Research Sector
Shraga Brosh, President
Marje Josing, Director
Dan Catarivas, Director, Foreign Trade and International
Ethiopia Relations Division
African Institute of Management, Development and Governance Yehuda Segev, Managing Director
Tegegne Teka, General Manager
Italy
Finland SDA Bocconi School of Management
ETLA—The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy Olga E. Annushkina, SDA Professor, Strategic and Entrepreneurial
Petri Rouvinen, Research Director Management Department, SDA Bocconi School of Management
Pasi Sorjonen, Head of the Forecasting Group Secchi Carlo, Full Professor of Economic Policy, Bocconi University
Pekka Ylä-Anttila, Managing Director Paola Dubini, Associate Professor, Bocconi University
France Jamaica
HEC School of Management, Paris Mona School of Business (MSB), University of the West Indies
Bertrand Moingeon, Professor, Associate Dean for Executive Patricia Douce, Survey Coordinator
Education Michelle Tomlinson, Survey Coordinator
Bernard Ramanantsoa, Professor, Dean of HEC School of Neville Ying, Executive Director and Professor
Management
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page vii
Partner Institutes
Japan Mali
Hitotsubashi University, Graduate School of International Groupe de Recherche en Economie Appliquée et Théorique
Corporate Strategy (ICS) (GREAT)
in cooperation with Keizai Doyukai Massa Coulibaly, Coordinator
Yoko Ishikura, Professor
Mauritania
Jordan Centre d’Information Mauritanien pour le Développement
Ministry of Planning & International Cooperation Economique et Technique (CIMDET/CCIAM)
Jordan National Competitiveness Team Chekroud Ould Bouhake
Amjad Attar, Director Aminata Niang
Kazakhstan Mauritius
Center for Marketing and Analytical Research (CMAR) Joint Economic Council of Mauritius
Dias Iskakov, Director of the Competitiveness Analysis Raj Makoond, Director
Department
Board of Investment, Investmauritius
Kenya Dev Chamroo, Director, Investment Promotion
Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi Kevin Ramkaloan, Manager, Investment Promotion
Paul Kamau, Research Fellow
Mexico
Dorothy McCormick, Director and Professor
Center for Intellectual Capital and Competitiveness
Walter Odhiambo, Research Fellow
René Villarreal Arrambide, President
Korea, Republic of René Alejandro Villarreal Ramos, General Director
Graduate Institute of Management, Seoul School of Integrated Instituto Mexicano Para la Competitividad (IMCO)
Science and Technologies (aSSIST) Roberto Newell Garcia, General Director
Dean Cheol Ho Shin, Professor of Strategy and International Juan Carlos Gonzalez Ibarguen, Analyst
Business Manuel J. Molano Ruiz, Consultant
Shin Hyo Kim, Senior Researcher
Ministry of the Economy
So Young Lee, Researcher
Veronica Orendain De Los Santos, Director of Promotion,
Kuwait Office for Investment Promotion
Economics Department, Kuwait University Eduardo J. Solis Sanchez, Chief of the Office for Investment
Mohammad Ali Alomar, Assistant Professor promotion
Reyadh Faras, Assistant Professor
Moldova
Mohammed El-Sakka, Professor
Center for Strategic Territorial Development
Kyrgyz Republic Ruslan Codreanu, Executive Director
vii
Economic Policy Institute “Bishkek Consensus” Andrei Smic, Program Coordinator
Lola Abduhametova, Program Coordinator
Mongolia
Marat Tazabekov, Chairman
Open Society Forum (OSF)
Latvia Munkhsoyol Baatarjav, Manager of Economic Policy
Institute of Economics, Latvian Academy of Sciences, Riga Erdenejargal Perenlei, Executive Director
Raita Karnite, Director
Morocco
Lesotho Université Hassan II
Mohloli Chamber of Business Fouzi Mourji, Professor of Economics
Refiloe Kepa, General Manager
Mozambique
Lithuania EconPolicy Research Group, Lda.
Statistics Lithuania Peter Coughlin, Director
Ona Grigiene, Head, Economical Survey Division
Namibia
Algirdas Šemeta, Director General
Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit (NEPRU)
Luxembourg Jonathan Adongo, Researcher
Chamber of Commerce of Luxembourg Mariama Deen-Swarray, Researcher
Jean-Christophe Burkel, Attaché, Economic Department Klaus Schade, Acting Director
Carlo Thelen, Member of the Managing Board
Nepal
Macedonia, FYR Centre for Economic Development and Administration (CEDA)
National Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness Council (NECC) Ramesh Chandra Chitrakar, Executive Director
Dejan Janevski, Project Coordinator Menaka Rajbhandari Shrestha, Researcher
Zoran Stavreski, President of the Managing Board Santosh Kumar Upadhyaya, Researcher
Saso Trajkoski, Executive Director
Netherlands
Madagascar Erasmus Strategic Renewal Center, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Centre of Economic Studies, University of Antananarivo Frans A. J. Van den Bosch, Professor
Pépé Andrianomanana, Director Henk W. Volberda, Professor
Razato Raharijaona Simo, Executive Secretary
New Zealand
Malaysia Business New Zealand
Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Marcia Dunnett, Manager, Business Services
Mahani Zainal Abidin, Director-General Phil O’Reilly, Chief Executive
Dato’ Mohamed Jawhar Hassan, Chairman and Chief Executive
The New Zealand Institute
Officer
David Skilling, Chief Executive
Steven C.M. Wong, Assistant Director-General
Nigeria
National Productivity Corporation (NPC)
Nigerian Economic Summit Group (NESG)
Dato’ Nik Zainiah Nik Abdul Rahman, Director General
Felix Ogbera, Associate Director, Research
Chan Kum Siew, Senior Manager
Chris Okpoko, Senior Consultant, Research
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page viii
Partner Institutes
Norway Slovenia
BI Norwegian School of Management Institute for Economic Research, Faculty of Economics
Eskil Goldeng, Researcher Mateja Drnovs̆ek
Torger Reve, Professor Art Kovacic
Peter Stanovnik
Oman
The International Research Foundation South Africa
Azzan Al Busaidi, Chief Executive Officer Business Leadership South Africa
Salem Ben Nasser Al-Ismaily, Chairman Michael Spicer, Chief Executive Officer
Pakistan Business Unity South Africa

Competitiveness Support Fund Jerry Vilakazi, Chief Executive Officer
Arthur Bayhan, Chief Executive Officer Vic Van Vuuren, Chief Operating Officer
Amir Jahangir, Manager, Communications
Spain
Paraguay IESE Business School, International Center for Competitiveness,
Centro de Análisis y Difusión de Economia Paraguaya (CADEP) Anselmo Rubiralta Center for Globalization and Strategy
Dionisio Borda, Director Eduardo Ballarín, Professor
Jaime Escobar, Research Member María Luisa Blázquez, Research Associate
Fernando Masi, Research Member
Sri Lanka
Peru Institute of Policy Studies
Centro de Desarrollo Industrial (CDI), Sociedad Nacional de Indika Siriwardena, Database Manager
Industrias The Ceylon Chamber of Commerce
Néstor Asto, Project Director Prema Cooray, Secretary General
Luis Tenorio, Executive Director
Sweden
Philippines Center for Strategy and Competitiveness, Stockholm School
Makati Business Club of Economics
Alberto A. Lim, Executive Director Christian Ketels, Senior Research Fellow
Michael B. Mundo, Chief Economist Örjan Sölvell, Professor
Mark P. Opulencia, Deputy Director
Switzerland
Poland University of St. Gallen
Warsaw School of Economics Monika Buetler, Director, Economic Department
Bogdan Radomski, Associate Professor
Syria
viii Portugal Ministry of Economy and Trade
PROFORUM, Associação para o Desenvolvimento da Engenharia Amer Housni Louitfi, Minister of Economy and Trade
Ilídio António de Ayala Serôdio, Vice President of the Board of
State Planning Commission
Directors
Talal Bakfaloni, Deputy Head of State Planning Commission
Qatar
UNDP Damascus
Qatari Businessmen Association (QBA)
Nuhad Dimashkiyyah, National Project Director “Towards
Issa Abdul Salam Abu Issa, Secretary-General
Changing the Mindset for Competitiveness”
Bassam Ramzi Massouh, General Manager
Ahmed El-Shaffee, Economist Taiwan, China
Council for Economic Planning and Development, Executive Yuan
Romania
Mei Yueh Ho, Chairman
Group of Applied Economics (GEA)
J. B. Hung, Director, Economic Research Department
Anca Rusu, Program Coordinator
Chung Chung Shieh, Researcher, Economic Research Department
Liviu Voinea, Executive Director
Tajikistan
Russian Federation
The Center for Sociological Research “Zerkalo”
Bauman Innovation, Academy of National Economy under the
Qahramon Baqozoda, Director and Sociologist
Government of the Russian Federation
Ol’ga Es’kina, Researcher
Alexei Prazdnitchnykh, Principal, Associate Professor
Alikul Isoev, Sociologist and Economist
Stockholm School of Economics, Russia
Tanzania
Igor Dukeov, Research Fellow
Economic and Social Research Foundation
Carl F. Fey, Associate Dean of Research
Irene Alenga, Commissioned Studies Department
Saudi Arabia Haidari Amani, Executive Director and Professor
National Competitiveness Center (NCC) Dennis Rweyemamu, Commissioned Studies Department
Awwad Al-Awwad, Deputy Governor for Investment
Thailand
Khaldon Mahasen, Manager, Investment Performance Assessment
National Economic and Social Development Board
Senegal Ampon Kittiampon, Secretary-General
Centre de Recherches Economiques Appliquées (CREA), Arkhom Termpittayapaisith, Deputy Secretary-General
University of Dakar
Tunisia
Aly Mbaye, Director
Institut Arabe des Chefs d’Entreprises
Singapore Majdi Hassen, Executive Counsellor
Economic Development Board Chekib Nouira, President
Chua Kia Chee, Head, Research and Statistics Unit
Turkey
Bernard Nee, Director, Planning
TUSIAD Sabanci University Competitiveness Forum
Slovak Republic A. Gunduz Ulusoy, Director and Professor
Business Alliance of Slovakia (PAS) Hande Yegenoglu, Project Specialist
Robert Kicina, Executive Director
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page ix
Partner Institutes
Uganda
Makerere Institute of Social Research, Makerere University
Robert Apunyo, Research Associate
Delius Asiimwe, Senior Research Fellow
Wilson Asiimwe, Graduate Fellow
Ukraine
CASE Ukraine, Center for Social and Economic Research
Dmytro Boyarchuk, Executive Director
Vladimir Dubrovskiy, Leading Economist
United Arab Emirates

Economic and Policy Research Unit, Zayed University
Kenneth Wilson, Director
United States
US Chamber of Commerce
Jana Cary, Senior Director, Marketing Communications
David Hirschmann, Senior Vice President
Susan Reardon, Executive Director, National Chamber Foundation
Uruguay
Universidad ORT
Isidoro Hodara, Professor
Uzbekistan
ABN-TASMI INFORM
Venera Khayrulina, Director
Venezuela
CONAPRI—National Council for Investment Promotion
Silvia Castillo, Consulting Manager
Giuseppe Rionero, Research Manager
Vietnam
Central Institute for Economic Management (CIEM)
Dinh Van An, President
Phan Thanh Ha, Deputy Director, Department of Macroeconomic ix
Management
Pham Hoang Ha, Senior Researcher, Department of
Macroeconomic Management
Institute for Economic Research of HCMC
Tran Du Lich, Director
Doan Nguyen Ngoc Quynh, Researcher of the Research
Management and International Cooperation Department
Du Phuoc Tan, Head of the Research Management and
International Cooperation Department
Zambia
Institute of Economic and Social Research (INESOR),
University of Zambia
Mutumba M. Bull, Director
Patricia Funjika, Staff Development Fellow, Economics and
Business Research
Inyambo Mwanawina, Assistant Director and Coordinator,
Economics and Business Research
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
Roberto Artavia, Rector
Arturo Condo, Dean
Marlene de Estrella, Director of External Relations
Latvia, Lithuania
Stockholm School of Economics in Riga
Karlis Kreslins, Associate Professor
Anders Paalzow, Rector
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page x
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xi
Preface
Preface
KLAUS SCHWAB,
Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum
The benefits of free trade are well known: trade opens of enabling trade, exploring issues such as the role of
new markets and allows countries to gain from special- logistics and transport efficiency in facilitating trade and
izing in producing those goods and services they do global efforts being made in the area of trade facilita-
best, it provides greater choice for consumers at a lower tion.
cost, and it improves global efficiency in resource alloca- The Global Enabling Trade Report could not have
tion.The past half century has seen a significant opening been put together without the distinguished thinkers
to international trade around the world, contributing who have shared with us their knowledge and experi-
substantially to global economic welfare and reducing ence.We are grateful to our data partners—the Global
poverty.Yet, despite the key role that international trade Express Association (GEA), the International Air
plays in economic development, many obstacles remain Transport Association (IATA), the International Trade
to realizing its full potential. Given the importance of Centre (ITC), the United Nations Conference on Trade
trade for industrialized and developing countries alike, and Development (UNCTAD),The World Bank, and
the fundamental objective of The Global Enabling Trade the World Trade Organization (WTO)—for helping us
Report (GETR) is to explore the factors enabling trade to design and develop the ETI and for providing many
in individual economies. of the trade-related data used in its calculation.We thank
Trade barriers extend beyond the tariffs and quotas our industry partners in this Report—ABX LOGISTICS
traditionally considered to factors such as border admin- Worldwide, Agility, Deutsche Post World Net, DP xi
istration, infrastructure, and the domestic business envi- World, FedEx Corporation, Stena,TNT N.V., and
ronment. Over the past year, the World Economic UPS—for their support in this important venture.We
Forum has engaged key industry and thought leaders also wish to thank the editors of the Report, Robert Z.
through its Logistics & Transport Industry Partnership Lawrence of Harvard University and Jennifer Blanke,
Programme to carry out an in-depth analysis and assess- Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, and John Moavenzadeh
ment of the obstacles hindering trade in economies from the World Economic Forum, for their energy and
around the world.The goal is to construct a platform their commitment to the project.We are also grateful to
for multistakeholder dialogue to explore how best to the management team of the Enabling Trade project,
remove these obstacles, in the interest of fostering inter- Sean Doherty and Qin He, for so effectively driving the
national economic development. process forward throughout the year. Appreciation also
Drawing on our expertise in developing tools for goes to Fiona Paua, Head of Strategic Insight Teams, and
benchmarking economic performance, the World other team members: Ciara Browne, Agustina Ciocia,
Economic Forum has developed the first Enabling Trade Thierry Geiger,Yasmina Makar, Irene Mia, Pearl
Index (ETI), which is at the core of this Report. The aim Samandari, and Eva Trujillo Herrera. Finally, we would
of the ETI, which covers 118 economies, is to provide a like to commend our network of 142 Partner Institutes
strategic tool for measuring a range of policy-related worldwide, without whose enthusiasm and hard work
issues that contribute to hindering trade. It ranks nations the annual administration of the Executive Opinion
according to the factors and policies facilitating the free Survey and this Report would not be possible.
flow of goods across national borders and to destination.
By providing detailed assessments of the trade-enhanc-
ing environments in countries worldwide, the results can
be used by all stakeholders to work together to increase
their economies’ participation in the global economy,
thereby contributing to national growth and prosperity.
The Report contains detailed profiles for each of the
118 economies featured in the study, as well as an
extensive section of data tables with global rankings
covering all of the indicators included in the ETI. In
addition, the Report includes insightful contributions
from a number of trade experts and industry practition-
ers.These essay contributions examine different aspects
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xii
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xiii
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
ROBERT Z. LAWRENCE, Harvard University
JENNIFER BLANKE, SEAN DOHERTY, and MARGARETA DRZENIEK HANOUZ, World Economic Forum
International trade is widely recognized as an important facilitating the free flow of goods over borders and to
driver of economic development.Trade is associated destination.
with higher growth and poverty reduction. It allows The ETI was developed within the context of the
countries to reap the benefits of specialization, ushering World Economic Forum’s Industry Partnership
competition into domestic markets and increasing Programme for the Logistics & Transport sector.This
choice for consumers and inputs for producers. It allows was done in close collaboration with our data partners:
the exploitation of economies of scale, fosters innova- the Global Express Association (GEA), the International
tion, and tends to encourage better policies. Air Transport Association (IATA), the International
However, despite the recognized benefits of trade, Trade Centre (ITC), the United Nations Conference on
many obstacles remain. Some of these obstacles are Trade and Development (UNCTAD),The World Bank,
intentional, specifically aimed at limiting market access; and the World Trade Organization (WTO).We have also
some have been justified on the grounds of infant received important feedback from a number of key
industry protection. But for the most part tariffs and companies that are industry partners in the effort, name-
other policy-related trade barriers are erected by gov- ly ABX LOGISTICS Worldwide, Agility, Deutsche Post
ernments wishing to shield those who lose in the short World Net, DP World, FedEx Corporation, Stena,TNT
term because of increased foreign competition. Other N.V., and UPS.
obstacles to trade are unintended consequences related The Index breaks the enablers into four overall xiii
to the human and physical infrastructure, and to institu- issue areas, or subindexes: (1) market access, (2) border
tional frameworks that have been developed over the administration, (3) transport and communications infra-
years in each country.Whatever their origins, these bar- structure, and (4) the business environment.The first
riers have the consequence of limiting the flow of trade, subindex measures the extent to which the policy and
generally lowering welfare at the aggregate. cultural framework of the country welcomes foreign
The World Economic Forum has embarked on a goods into the country. Once goods have been allowed
multiyear project of research and dialogue in collabora- in to the country, the second subindex assesses the extent
tion with international trade experts and leaders from to which the administration at the border facilitates their
the logistics and transport industry.This Report serves as entry. Once goods have made it over the border, the
a concrete resource, providing a measure of the extent third subindex takes into account whether the country
to which countries have in place all of the necessary has the transport and communications infrastructure
attributes to enable the free flow of trade into a country necessary to facilitate the movement of the goods from
and to destination. By bringing together the work of the border to destination. Finally, the fourth subindex
many institutions and other actors, we hope to highlight looks at the overarching regulatory and security envi-
the numerous efforts and successes in this area, bringing ronment impacting the transport business in the country.
them to new audiences so they may serve as building Each of these four subindexes is composed of a
blocks for further improvements. number of pillars of enabling trade, of which we use 10
We hope to raise awareness about the importance in all.These are:
of trade for development, and the many factors that can
hinder or facilitate trade. Our aim is to provide business- 1. Tariffs and non-tariff barriers
es and policymakers with insights into priorities for 2. Proclivity to trade
reform in each country, helping them to more fully 3. Efficiency of customs administration
benefit from the opportunities offered by global trade. 4. Efficiency of import-export procedures
5. Transparency of border administration
6. Availability and quality of transport
The Enabling Trade Index
A principal aim of this Report is to measure the extent infrastructure
to which countries around the world have in place the 7. Availability and quality of transport services
factors and policies for enabling trade. Chapter 1.1 8. Availability and use of ICTs
introduces a new index, the Enabling Trade Index 9. Regulatory environment
(ETI), which measures the factors, policies, and services 10. Physical security
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xiv
Executive Summary
Each of these pillars is, in turn, made up of a num- Sweden is ranked 3rd, receiving top marks for its
ber of individual variables.The dataset includes both transport and communications infrastructure, where it is
hard data and Survey data from the World Economic ranked 1st out of all 118 countries. Sweden has high-
Forum’s Executive Opinion Survey.The hard data were quality transport infrastructure and excellent transport
obtained from publicly available sources, international services, and the country has fully harnessed the use of
organizations, and trade experts (for example, IATA, the ICTs so important for the logistics and transport indus-
ITC, the WTO, and UNCTAD).The Survey is carried try. Sweden’s border administration is ranked 2nd, attrib-
out among CEOs and top business leaders in all utable to its high efficiency and transparency, with cus-
economies covered by our research.The Survey provides toms procedures that are not overly burdensome, requir-
unique data on many qualitative institutional and busi- ing, for example, few days and documents to import
ness environment-related issues, as well as a number of goods into the country.With regard to market access,
specific issues related to trade.The exact methodology Sweden has few tariffs, as is the case of other European
underlying the construction of the ETI is described in Union (EU) countries, placing it 3rd, although the
Chapter 1.1. country does impose significant non-tariff barriers
(ranked lower at 64th). More generally, Sweden demon-
strates a very strong proclivity to trade, ranked 3rd out
The Enabling Trade Index 2008 rankings of all countries.
Tables 1–5 show the rankings of all 118 countries in the Norway, ranked 4th, demonstrates its greatest
overall ETI as well as in each of the four subindexes and strengths in two areas: market access and border admin-
each individual pillar. istration. Norway is ranked 2nd out of all countries for
the ease of access into the country’s market, with low
The top 10 non-tariff barriers, a high share of duty-free imports
Two Asian economies—Hong Kong and Singapore— allowed into the country, and demonstrated openness to
occupy the top two positions in the ETI rankings.This multilateral trade rules through its participation in many
result bears witness to these countries’ openness to trade-related international agreements. As well as allowing
international trade and investment as part of their suc- goods easy access into the market, Norway also ensures
xiv cessful economic development strategy. Hong Kong’s that the goods make it over the border with little hassle.
positive outcome rests on very good results in all four The efficiency and transparency of its border adminis-
subindexes.The economy’s very open market, mirroring tration are both ranked 8th, and the procedures required
a pro-trade attitude and a high dependence on exports to import are so efficient as to place the country 5th. In
and imports, as well as the secure and open business addition, the business environment in the country is also
environment contribute to this good result. Hong Kong in the top 10, a ranking particularly related to the high
does not apply tariffs on imported products and the levels of physical security in the country that ensure the
business environment is open to investment and foreign safe arrival of goods to destination.
workers. At the same time, transport and telecommuni- Canada is the top-ranked North American country
cations infrastructure is well developed and border at 5th, ahead of the United States by 9 ranks. Canada is
administration is efficient, although businesses express ranked 3rd overall for its market access, with tariffs that
some concerns about the level of corruption. are not significantly higher than in the European Union,
Compared with Hong Kong, Singapore boasts a relatively low non-tariff barriers, and a high share of
highly efficient and transparent border administration, an duty-free imports allowed into the country. Canada’s
equally open business environment, and a well-devel- border administration is also among the top 10, with
oped transport and communications infrastructure. efficient clearance procedures and few documents
Customs procedures are assessed as the least burdensome required to import, as well as high levels of transparency
and the cost of importing goods is the lowest among the in the border administration’s activities. In addition,
countries covered. However, access to Singapore’s mar- Canada is ranked 3rd for the availability and quality of
ket is fairly difficult, as reflected in its 27th rank on the its transport infrastructure, facilitating the movement of
relevant subindex. Although tariff rates remain very low, goods to market once they are allowed over the border.
access is hampered by non-tariff barriers (84th) and little Denmark is ranked 6th. In addition to its low tar-
openness to multilateral trade rules.The country boasts iffs, the country also benefits from an excellent border
well-developed transport infrastructure and excellent administration, with import-export procedures that are
transport services, and improvements to the ICT infra- so efficient as to place the country 1st in this category.
structure could further increase the ease of getting The transparency of the border administration is also
goods across borders in Singapore.The country’s excel- ranked 1st, with extremely low levels of trade-related
lent business environment facilitates operations of corruption. In addition, Denmark has excellent transport
traders through an investment regime that is open to infrastructure (ranked 4th) and strong communications
FDI and hiring foreign labor, although more open bilat- infrastructure (ranked 7th).The country also benefits
eral Air Service Agreements would be beneficial. from very high levels of physical security, ranked 2nd
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xv
Executive Summary
overall in this category, with low levels of crime and ment in the country. At the same time, some aspects of
violence and a very reliable police force. the regulatory environment are not conducive to
The main strength of Finland, ranked 7th just after enabling trade, in particular laws that do not encourage
Denmark, is its business environment, which is ranked FDI and legal obstacles to hiring foreign labor. Although
1st out of all countries covered.The country benefits Japan is a very export-oriented economy, imports of
from rules fostering foreign ownership and greater ease goods appear to be hampered by administrative proce-
in hiring foreign labor than in many other European dures. In particular, businesses consider customs proce-
countries, as well as an excellent security environment. dures to be somewhat cumbersome, which are ranked
Like the other Nordic countries, Finland’s border 38th overall.This is also reflected in the fairly high cost
administration also gets top marks, with customs proce- to import: the cost of importing goods is almost three
dures that are not burdensome and a particularly low times higher than in Singapore, the best performer on
cost to import, perhaps explaining the high transparency this measure. Once goods are over the border, the coun-
and low level of corruption related to its border admin- try features excellent infrastructure-related services,
istration (ranked 3rd). ranked 7th for this indicator. In particular, postal and
Germany and Switzerland round out the European logistics services stand out for their quality and efficiency.
countries in the top 10, ranking 8th and 9th, respective- However, it must be noted that Japan’s overcrowded
ly. Germany benefits from an excellent business environ- roads and the fairly low airport density negatively affect
ment (ranked 4th), with a regulatory environment that is the environment for trade.
conducive to the functioning of the logistics and trans- Taiwan and Korea follow at 21st and 24th overall.
port industry, and an excellent security environment for Both economies boast very good infrastructure.
businesses operating in the country.The transport and Infrastructure-related services are efficient and widely
communications infrastructure is also among the best in available, and the use of ICTs is widespread, which
the world, with transport services in particular ranked improves the connectivity of companies and the ability
2nd out of all countries: the logistics industry gets to track consignments.Weaknesses in both countries
excellent marks for competence (ranked 4th), shipping is include obstacles to market access and a business envi-
easy and affordable (also ranked 4th), and its postal serv- ronment that does not facilitate the entry of foreign
ice is among the best in the world (ranked 3rd). investment and labor. xv
Switzerland gets particularly good marks for market China occupies the 48th position.This fairly low
access (ranked 5th). Although its tariffs overall are slight- position for one of the world’s most successful exporters
ly higher than EU countries, mainly because of higher highlights a number of underlying weaknesses in China’s
tariffs on agricultural goods, its non-tariff barriers are economy and its trading regime. Above all, China is a
comparatively low. As with the Nordic countries, fairly closed country. Although its economic success
Switzerland’s security environment is also excellent, and relies heavily on exports, imports are still severely inhib-
it benefits from a supportive regulatory environment, ited by tariff and non-tariff barriers, despite the coun-
with open bilateral Air Service Agreements and a rela- try’s accession to the WTO.The country ranks 108th
tive ease of hiring foreign labor, particularly compared out of 118 economies on tariff barriers, which amount
with several other European countries. Switzerland’s to almost 15 percent.The country’s border administra-
border administration also gets good marks, particularly tion is fairly efficient; importing products is not costly,
for its transparency and lack of corruption (ranked 6th). although it can be quite time-consuming. A particular
New Zealand closes the top 10 at 10th position. Its concern when exporting and importing is the lack of
highly efficient and transparent border administration transparency of border administration, which can be
contributes to this good rating, as do the country’s low particularly heavy for foreign businesses. Because of
tariff and non-tariff barriers. New Zealand applies low large export volumes, the country is well connected to
tariffs, and imports almost 80 percent of products duty- international markets, yet its transport infrastructure is
free.The country’s business environment is characterized not on a par with the world’s best. In particular, airport
by high levels of physical security and is fairly welcom- density and the quality of air transport infrastructure are
ing to foreign investment, although obstacles persist fairly low.The quality and availability of transport serv-
with respect to hiring foreign labor. Upgrading the ices, however, are among the best in the world, ranked
quality of infrastructure, in particular roads and railroads, 17th overall. Improvements to the regulatory and securi-
will be necessary to further facilitate the flow of goods ty environment would further enable trade. In particu-
to destinations in the country. lar, greater encouragement of FDI and more openness
to foreign air transport service providers would help.
Asia Further down the rankings we find India, at 71st
Outside the top 10, in Asia, Japan occupies the 13th place. India’s weak position reflects a mixed performance
position in the ETI ranking. Free market access and the on the four pillars of the ETI.While it boasts fairly
export orientation of local companies contribute to this good border administration and an acceptable business
rating, as well as the excellent physical security environ- environment, market access continues to be severely
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xvi
Executive Summary
Table 1: The Enabling Trade Index 2008
SUBINDEXES
Market Border Transport and communi- Business
OVERALL INDEX access administration cations infrastructure environment
Country/Economy Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
Hong Kong SAR 1 6.04 1 6.66 7 5.99 4 5.66 2 5.84

Singapore 2 5.71 27 4.99 1 6.51 7 5.53 3 5.82
Sweden 3 5.66 14 5.21 2 6.32 1 5.77 14 5.35
Norway 4 5.65 2 5.89 6 6.06 20 5.21 10 5.45
Canada 5 5.62 3 5.87 9 5.78 11 5.50 16 5.33
Denmark 6 5.62 15 5.15 5 6.10 10 5.51 5 5.70
Finland 7 5.61 19 5.08 4 6.15 18 5.29 1 5.92
Germany 8 5.58 9 5.34 15 5.57 5 5.66 4 5.74
Switzerland 9 5.58 5 5.65 12 5.69 14 5.39 7 5.58
New Zealand 10 5.52 7 5.41 3 6.16 21 5.09 11 5.42
Netherlands 11 5.51 18 5.10 8 5.98 2 5.73 17 5.22
Luxembourg 12 5.50 17 5.10 10 5.77 9 5.51 6 5.63
Japan 13 5.43 4 5.86 17 5.55 13 5.42 35 4.90
United States 14 5.42 6 5.65 21 5.29 3 5.66 25 5.08
Austria 15 5.42 13 5.22 16 5.57 12 5.43 9 5.45
United Kingdom 16 5.30 24 5.02 14 5.58 8 5.52 26 5.07
Australia 17 5.22 44 4.72 11 5.71 17 5.32 21 5.14
Belgium 18 5.21 16 5.12 25 5.23 16 5.33 20 5.16
France 19 5.20 20 5.08 26 5.21 6 5.54 31 4.98
Ireland 20 5.20 25 5.01 19 5.43 24 4.79 8 5.56
Taiwan, China 21 5.15 38 4.83 22 5.27 15 5.37 22 5.13
Spain 22 5.03 34 4.87 23 5.26 22 5.08 33 4.92
United Arab Emirates 23 4.96 50 4.50 27 5.18 23 4.80 15 5.34
Korea, Rep. 24 4.95 72 4.07 18 5.49 19 5.23 30 5.02
Estonia 25 4.89 47 4.66 13 5.63 29 4.51 39 4.76
Portugal 26 4.88 45 4.72 32 4.85 28 4.57 13 5.39
Chile 27 4.88 40 4.77 20 5.43 42 3.93 12 5.40
xvi Israel 28 4.76 36 4.84 29 5.03 26 4.64 57 4.53
Malaysia 29 4.75 68 4.09 24 5.23 27 4.62 27 5.07
Slovak Republic 30 4.74 23 5.03 35 4.68 35 4.17 24 5.09
Slovenia 31 4.74 21 5.07 30 4.91 30 4.49 63 4.48
Czech Republic 32 4.70 33 4.94 31 4.86 34 4.18 38 4.84
Italy 33 4.70 30 4.97 38 4.58 25 4.68 54 4.57
Hungary 34 4.67 41 4.76 33 4.79 38 4.10 28 5.05
Lithuania 35 4.63 32 4.95 28 5.04 37 4.14 67 4.40
Greece 36 4.60 31 4.95 54 4.08 31 4.49 36 4.86
Bahrain 37 4.53 46 4.69 41 4.53 40 3.99 34 4.92
Turkey 38 4.53 8 5.40 47 4.28 44 3.79 50 4.64
Cyprus 39 4.50 49 4.51 44 4.37 32 4.41 41 4.72
Mauritius 40 4.50 11 5.29 42 4.53 56 3.50 43 4.69
Qatar 41 4.48 54 4.39 53 4.11 33 4.22 18 5.22
Croatia 42 4.45 12 5.24 52 4.15 43 3.89 56 4.54
Latvia 43 4.45 48 4.55 40 4.54 39 4.08 51 4.61
Costa Rica 44 4.41 10 5.32 49 4.22 66 3.26 37 4.86
Poland 45 4.35 42 4.73 37 4.62 46 3.70 73 4.35
Panama 46 4.28 59 4.27 39 4.54 48 3.65 47 4.66
Indonesia 47 4.27 22 5.03 63 3.96 74 3.13 32 4.97
China 48 4.25 71 4.07 43 4.51 36 4.15 77 4.28
Tunisia 49 4.23 88 3.57 34 4.73 53 3.53 23 5.11
Oman 50 4.22 35 4.85 60 4.04 57 3.50 60 4.51
Jordan 51 4.19 95 3.35 36 4.66 51 3.54 19 5.21
Thailand 52 4.18 62 4.25 56 4.07 41 3.93 61 4.49
Saudi Arabia 53 4.16 51 4.49 59 4.05 47 3.70 68 4.39
Guatemala 54 4.14 28 4.98 46 4.32 78 3.00 79 4.27
El Salvador 55 4.13 29 4.97 62 3.98 80 2.97 52 4.59
Uruguay 56 4.06 66 4.12 51 4.15 61 3.34 49 4.64
Romania 57 4.04 61 4.25 61 4.02 49 3.64 81 4.24
Kuwait 58 4.03 64 4.18 67 3.86 50 3.56 59 4.51
South Africa 59 3.98 67 4.10 50 4.21 45 3.74 99 3.87
Bulgaria 60 3.90 56 4.31 57 4.07 54 3.52 107 3.71
Armenia 61 3.90 43 4.73 87 3.28 77 3.00 53 4.59
Moldova 62 3.88 26 4.99 75 3.65 76 3.05 101 3.83
Dominican Republic 63 3.85 85 3.69 58 4.07 79 2.97 42 4.70
Honduras 64 3.83 63 4.22 77 3.60 92 2.84 45 4.67
Mexico 65 3.83 74 4.04 65 3.88 67 3.25 86 4.15
(Cont’d.)
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xvii
Executive Summary
Table 1: The Enabling Trade Index 2008 (cont’d.)
SUBINDEXES
Jamaica 66 3.80 90 3.46 68 3.85 55 3.52 70 4.37

Nicaragua 67 3.78 79 3.91 74 3.65 102 2.51 29 5.03
Ukraine 68 3.77 39 4.77 94 3.17 59 3.42 106 3.73
Peru 69 3.76 73 4.06 73 3.67 82 2.96 72 4.35
Sri Lanka 70 3.75 70 4.08 69 3.83 73 3.13 92 3.97
India 71 3.74 105 2.82 55 4.08 52 3.54 58 4.53
Kazakhstan 72 3.73 37 4.83 110 2.70 63 3.31 88 4.06
Albania 73 3.72 57 4.29 64 3.89 106 2.47 82 4.22
Morocco 74 3.71 110 2.58 45 4.32 68 3.20 40 4.74
Colombia 75 3.70 96 3.31 48 4.24 72 3.14 87 4.11
Azerbaijan 76 3.68 65 4.15 112 2.62 64 3.30 46 4.66
Namibia 77 3.66 78 3.93 79 3.59 71 3.17 94 3.95
Argentina 78 3.65 89 3.57 71 3.69 58 3.46 98 3.88
Uganda 79 3.63 58 4.27 90 3.26 93 2.75 80 4.25
Brazil 80 3.63 92 3.42 66 3.87 62 3.31 96 3.91
Macedonia, FYR 81 3.58 86 3.64 80 3.58 69 3.19 97 3.90
Philippines 82 3.57 80 3.86 82 3.54 83 2.95 95 3.93
Paraguay 83 3.54 60 4.27 81 3.55 99 2.59 103 3.76
Pakistan 84 3.54 98 3.20 78 3.59 70 3.18 83 4.20
Zambia 85 3.52 76 3.98 103 2.88 100 2.59 48 4.65
Kenya 86 3.51 55 4.32 95 3.13 90 2.86 105 3.73
Egypt 87 3.51 111 2.51 70 3.78 65 3.27 64 4.47
Madagascar 88 3.49 53 4.42 100 3.01 107 2.47 89 4.05
Bosnia and Herzegovina 89 3.47 97 3.29 72 3.68 86 2.91 90 3.98
Mali 90 3.42 75 4.01 111 2.68 109 2.44 55 4.54
Vietnam 91 3.42 112 2.50 76 3.60 75 3.08 62 4.48
Cameroon 92 3.42 87 3.58 84 3.43 112 2.37 78 4.28
Mongolia 93 3.38 69 4.08 113 2.58 87 2.89 91 3.98 xvii
Bolivia 94 3.36 84 3.70 83 3.44 96 2.70 110 3.62
Lesotho 95 3.36 52 4.45 99 3.03 115 2.25 108 3.71
Ecuador 96 3.36 77 3.98 105 2.81 85 2.94 109 3.70
Mauritania 97 3.34 93 3.39 102 2.95 98 2.62 66 4.41
Benin 98 3.34 94 3.36 89 3.27 101 2.57 85 4.16
Burkina Faso 99 3.33 82 3.82 106 2.76 110 2.40 74 4.35
Senegal 100 3.33 109 2.59 93 3.18 89 2.86 44 4.67
Mozambique 101 3.30 81 3.85 86 3.30 114 2.29 102 3.76
Tanzania 102 3.27 100 3.07 88 3.28 111 2.40 75 4.32
Russian Federation 103 3.25 99 3.11 92 3.20 60 3.35 114 3.35
Tajikistan 104 3.13 83 3.74 117 2.40 117 2.02 69 4.38
Uzbekistan 105 3.06 114 2.46 116 2.43 84 2.94 65 4.43
Ethiopia 106 3.06 116 2.15 96 3.12 97 2.69 76 4.29
Syria 107 3.05 117 2.04 98 3.04 94 2.74 71 4.36
Algeria 108 3.04 118 1.80 85 3.34 91 2.85 84 4.16
Kyrgyz Republic 109 3.03 102 2.95 104 2.84 88 2.88 113 3.44
Bangladesh 110 3.03 104 2.87 97 3.12 103 2.51 111 3.60
Nigeria 111 3.02 107 2.77 101 2.98 108 2.44 100 3.87
Zimbabwe 112 2.98 91 3.44 114 2.51 95 2.73 116 3.22
Cambodia 113 2.95 108 2.62 107 2.74 105 2.48 93 3.96
Guyana 114 2.95 113 2.48 91 3.24 104 2.51 112 3.56
Venezuela 115 2.85 103 2.91 115 2.49 81 2.96 117 3.05
Nepal 116 2.70 106 2.77 108 2.70 113 2.34 118 2.98
Burundi 117 2.70 115 2.20 109 2.70 116 2.14 104 3.74
Chad 118 2.60 101 3.03 118 2.16 118 1.93 115 3.30
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xviii
Executive Summary
Table 2: The Enabling Trade Index: Market access
PILLARS
MARKET ACCESS 1. Tariff and non-tariff barriers 2. Proclivity to trade
Country/Economy Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
Albania 57 4.29 13 5.72 104 2.86

Algeria 118 1.80 115 1.00 113 2.59
Argentina 89 3.57 102 2.60 45 4.54
Armenia 43 4.73 14 5.67 74 3.78
Australia 44 4.72 71 4.14 28 5.31
Austria 13 5.22 48 4.40 4 6.03
Azerbaijan 65 4.15 38 4.58 79 3.73
Bahrain 46 4.69 12 5.85 85 3.53
Bangladesh 104 2.87 97 2.96 108 2.79
Belgium 16 5.12 41 4.53 13 5.71
Benin 94 3.36 82 3.87 103 2.86
Bolivia 84 3.70 69 4.16 92 3.24
Bosnia and Herzegovina 97 3.29 85 3.45 98 3.14
Brazil 92 3.42 98 2.88 68 3.96
Bulgaria 56 4.31 42 4.50 58 4.11
Burkina Faso 82 3.82 32 4.82 107 2.83
Burundi 115 2.20 106 2.34 118 2.06
Cambodia 108 2.62 103 2.50 112 2.74
Cameroon 87 3.58 79 3.99 95 3.17
Canada 3 5.87 2 6.10 17 5.64
Chad 101 3.03 81 3.94 117 2.12
Chile 40 4.77 49 4.38 31 5.16
China 71 4.07 90 3.33 40 4.82
Colombia 96 3.31 101 2.62 63 4.01
Costa Rica 10 5.32 10 5.92 42 4.72
Croatia 12 5.24 5 6.02 47 4.47
Cyprus 49 4.51 65 4.25 41 4.76
Czech Republic 33 4.94 64 4.27 19 5.61
xviii Denmark 15 5.15 61 4.31 6 5.99
Dominican Republic 85 3.69 51 4.38 101 2.99
Ecuador 77 3.98 83 3.84 57 4.11
Egypt 111 2.51 115 1.00 61 4.03
El Salvador 29 4.97 24 5.44 46 4.51
Estonia 47 4.66 73 4.12 29 5.20
Ethiopia 116 2.15 109 2.04 116 2.26
Finland 19 5.08 63 4.28 7 5.88
France 20 5.08 56 4.35 10 5.81
Germany 9 5.34 60 4.33 1 6.36
Greece 31 4.95 35 4.71 30 5.20
Guatemala 28 4.98 22 5.51 48 4.45
Guyana 113 2.48 108 2.19 110 2.77
Honduras 63 4.22 45 4.43 62 4.01
Hong Kong SAR 1 6.66 1 7.00 2 6.33
Hungary 41 4.76 77 4.06 23 5.46
India 105 2.82 112 1.89 77 3.76
Indonesia 22 5.03 16 5.65 50 4.41
Ireland 25 5.01 62 4.29 12 5.73
Israel 36 4.84 27 5.24 49 4.44
Italy 30 4.97 43 4.47 22 5.47
Jamaica 90 3.46 86 3.43 86 3.50
Japan 4 5.86 6 5.95 11 5.78
Jordan 95 3.35 105 2.38 52 4.32
Kazakhstan 37 4.83 20 5.53 55 4.13
Kenya 55 4.32 80 3.97 43 4.67
Korea, Rep. 72 4.07 96 3.06 33 5.08
Kuwait 64 4.18 21 5.52 106 2.84
Kyrgyz Republic 102 2.95 107 2.30 83 3.61
Latvia 48 4.55 66 4.23 38 4.88
Lesotho 52 4.45 4 6.04 105 2.86
Lithuania 32 4.95 50 4.38 21 5.52
Luxembourg 17 5.10 37 4.64 20 5.57
Macedonia, FYR 86 3.64 91 3.32 69 3.95
Madagascar 53 4.42 26 5.25 84 3.60
Malaysia 68 4.09 93 3.25 36 4.93
Mali 75 4.01 33 4.79 93 3.22
(Cont’d.)
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xix
Executive Summary
Table 2: The Enabling Trade Index: Market access (cont’d.)
PILLARS
Mauritania 93 3.39 84 3.81 102 2.96

Mauritius 11 5.29 9 5.93 44 4.65
Mexico 74 4.04 95 3.06 35 5.02
Moldova 26 4.99 3 6.06 70 3.92
Mongolia 69 4.08 30 5.01 97 3.15
Morocco 110 2.58 111 1.91 91 3.26
Mozambique 81 3.85 28 5.18 114 2.52
Namibia 78 3.93 40 4.56 90 3.29
Nepal 106 2.77 94 3.14 115 2.41
Netherlands 18 5.10 68 4.20 5 6.01
New Zealand 7 5.41 23 5.50 27 5.32
Nicaragua 79 3.91 78 4.02 73 3.80
Nigeria 107 2.77 113 1.80 78 3.74
Norway 2 5.89 7 5.94 9 5.83
Oman 35 4.85 15 5.66 60 4.03
Pakistan 98 3.20 87 3.40 100 3.01
Panama 59 4.27 31 4.92 81 3.63
Paraguay 60 4.27 39 4.57 67 3.98
Peru 73 4.06 74 4.11 64 4.00
Philippines 80 3.86 88 3.40 51 4.33
Poland 42 4.73 57 4.34 32 5.12
Portugal 45 4.72 54 4.36 34 5.08
Qatar 54 4.39 25 5.35 88 3.42
Romania 61 4.25 67 4.22 53 4.27
Russian Federation 99 3.11 99 2.73 87 3.49
Saudi Arabia 51 4.49 17 5.63 89 3.35
Senegal 109 2.59 110 2.03 96 3.16
Singapore 27 4.99 75 4.10 8 5.88
Slovak Republic 23 5.03 52 4.38 16 5.67 xix
Slovenia 21 5.07 44 4.43 14 5.71
South Africa 67 4.10 92 3.28 37 4.92
Spain 34 4.87 47 4.40 25 5.34
Sri Lanka 70 4.08 76 4.08 59 4.08
Sweden 14 5.21 53 4.37 3 6.05
Switzerland 5 5.65 11 5.91 24 5.39
Syria 117 2.04 115 1.00 99 3.09
Taiwan, China 38 4.83 59 4.33 26 5.33
Tajikistan 83 3.74 36 4.70 109 2.78
Tanzania 100 3.07 104 2.46 80 3.67
Thailand 62 4.25 58 4.34 54 4.15
Tunisia 88 3.57 89 3.38 76 3.76
Turkey 8 5.40 8 5.93 39 4.87
Uganda 58 4.27 34 4.78 75 3.77
Ukraine 39 4.77 19 5.55 65 4.00
United Arab Emirates 50 4.50 29 5.09 72 3.92
United Kingdom 24 5.02 46 4.42 18 5.62
United States 6 5.65 18 5.61 15 5.68
Uruguay 66 4.12 72 4.12 56 4.12
Uzbekistan 114 2.46 115 1.00 71 3.92
Venezuela 103 2.91 100 2.64 94 3.18
Vietnam 112 2.50 114 1.02 66 3.99
Zambia 76 3.98 55 4.35 82 3.61
Zimbabwe 91 3.44 70 4.14 111 2.75
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xx
Executive Summary
Table 3: The Enabling Trade Index: Border administration
PILLARS
BORDER 3. Efficiency of customs 4. Efficiency of import- 5. Transparency of
ADMINISTRATION administration export procedures border administration
Country/Economy Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
Albania 64 3.89 58 3.76 67 4.41 70 3.49

Algeria 85 3.34 102 2.56 89 3.88 66 3.59
Argentina 71 3.69 60 3.70 69 4.36 96 3.01
Armenia 87 3.28 103 2.56 74 4.21 92 3.07
Australia 11 5.71 13 5.47 25 5.43 9 6.23
Austria 16 5.57 34 4.72 9 5.91 13 6.07
Azerbaijan 112 2.62 67 3.49 115 1.81 114 2.57
Bahrain 41 4.53 43 4.30 58 4.60 32 4.69
Bangladesh 97 3.12 78 3.17 86 3.96 118 2.22
Belgium 25 5.23 29 4.80 27 5.37 20 5.52
Benin 89 3.27 95 2.79 88 3.93 91 3.08
Bolivia 83 3.44 93 2.83 80 4.10 75 3.39
Bosnia and Herzegovina 72 3.68 80 3.13 51 4.76 88 3.16
Brazil 66 3.87 73 3.28 61 4.55 58 3.78
Bulgaria 57 4.07 56 3.83 63 4.53 56 3.85
Burkina Faso 106 2.76 94 2.80 107 2.19 79 3.30
Burundi 109 2.70 97 2.74 112 2.00 76 3.37
Cambodia 107 2.74 110 2.30 98 3.62 117 2.30
Cameroon 84 3.43 68 3.48 82 4.07 109 2.73
Canada 9 5.78 12 5.53 18 5.64 10 6.18
Chad 118 2.16 116 2.00 110 2.06 116 2.41
Chile 20 5.43 17 5.35 30 5.24 18 5.69
China 43 4.51 39 4.49 28 5.33 62 3.73
Colombia 48 4.24 37 4.60 73 4.24 55 3.89
Costa Rica 49 4.22 65 3.57 53 4.72 42 4.37
Croatia 52 4.15 53 3.97 60 4.56 54 3.90
Cyprus 44 4.37 30 4.78 95 3.66 34 4.67
xx Czech Republic 31 4.86 23 5.03 37 5.07 38 4.47
Denmark 5 6.10 18 5.17 1 6.47 1 6.65
Dominican Republic 58 4.07 50 4.00 47 4.86 78 3.34
Ecuador 105 2.81 118 1.74 87 3.96 108 2.74
Egypt 70 3.78 84 3.07 49 4.82 71 3.45
El Salvador 62 3.98 72 3.32 64 4.49 49 4.13
Estonia 13 5.63 5 5.81 11 5.80 23 5.26
Ethiopia 96 3.12 82 3.09 104 2.99 80 3.29
Finland 4 6.15 7 5.73 6 6.09 3 6.64
France 26 5.21 40 4.48 23 5.52 19 5.63
Germany 15 5.57 32 4.77 7 5.99 15 5.95
Greece 54 4.08 87 3.02 46 4.87 43 4.36
Guatemala 46 4.32 19 5.16 81 4.09 63 3.72
Guyana 91 3.24 99 2.64 75 4.18 101 2.91
Honduras 77 3.60 77 3.20 77 4.17 74 3.42
Hong Kong SAR 7 5.99 10 5.59 4 6.29 12 6.09
Hungary 33 4.79 35 4.65 40 5.04 33 4.68
India 55 4.08 48 4.07 57 4.60 68 3.56
Indonesia 63 3.96 46 4.12 39 5.06 110 2.70
Ireland 19 5.43 33 4.73 13 5.78 17 5.78
Israel 29 5.03 44 4.16 15 5.70 25 5.23
Italy 38 4.58 47 4.09 32 5.19 40 4.46
Jamaica 68 3.85 66 3.50 56 4.61 72 3.45
Japan 17 5.55 20 5.15 14 5.71 16 5.79
Jordan 36 4.66 36 4.61 52 4.74 35 4.63
Kazakhstan 110 2.70 70 3.42 118 1.47 86 3.20
Kenya 95 3.13 89 2.96 97 3.63 105 2.80
Korea, Rep. 18 5.49 2 6.03 22 5.55 31 4.90
Kuwait 67 3.86 86 3.02 71 4.27 46 4.28
Kyrgyz Republic 104 2.84 52 3.98 113 1.90 113 2.63
Latvia 40 4.54 49 4.03 31 5.22 44 4.36
Lesotho 99 3.03 115 2.22 90 3.83 94 3.05
Lithuania 28 5.04 9 5.64 34 5.13 45 4.36
Luxembourg 10 5.77 15 5.36 12 5.79 11 6.16
Macedonia, FYR 80 3.58 106 2.49 59 4.58 65 3.66
Madagascar 100 3.01 114 2.22 100 3.46 77 3.35
Malaysia 24 5.23 11 5.57 21 5.58 37 4.54
Mali 111 2.68 100 2.63 109 2.14 83 3.26
(Cont’d.)
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xxi
Executive Summary
Table 3: The Enabling Trade Index: Border administration (cont’d.)
PILLARS
Mauritania 102 2.95 111 2.29 99 3.49 93 3.06

Mauritius 42 4.53 42 4.43 41 5.00 48 4.15
Mexico 65 3.88 63 3.66 76 4.18 57 3.82
Moldova 75 3.65 76 3.20 84 3.99 60 3.75
Mongolia 113 2.58 101 2.62 108 2.17 98 2.96
Morocco 45 4.32 27 4.98 72 4.25 61 3.73
Mozambique 86 3.30 90 2.93 94 3.76 87 3.20
Namibia 79 3.59 92 2.88 85 3.97 52 3.91
Nepal 108 2.70 117 1.92 101 3.37 103 2.83
Netherlands 8 5.98 6 5.73 8 5.92 7 6.29
New Zealand 3 6.16 3 6.01 10 5.81 2 6.65
Nicaragua 74 3.65 85 3.03 65 4.48 73 3.44
Nigeria 101 2.98 109 2.38 93 3.79 106 2.78
Norway 6 6.06 8 5.68 5 6.25 8 6.25
Oman 60 4.04 69 3.48 68 4.41 47 4.24
Pakistan 78 3.59 83 3.07 66 4.44 82 3.26
Panama 39 4.54 41 4.45 20 5.58 67 3.59
Paraguay 81 3.55 64 3.61 83 4.02 95 3.03
Peru 73 3.67 113 2.24 55 4.65 50 4.12
Philippines 82 3.54 88 2.97 48 4.85 104 2.81
Poland 37 4.62 28 4.82 35 5.13 53 3.90
Portugal 32 4.85 45 4.13 33 5.15 22 5.27
Qatar 53 4.11 51 4.00 102 3.16 27 5.17
Romania 61 4.02 74 3.28 38 5.06 64 3.71
Russian Federation 92 3.20 61 3.70 105 2.79 90 3.12
Saudi Arabia 59 4.05 81 3.10 29 5.27 59 3.77
Senegal 93 3.18 96 2.77 96 3.64 89 3.14
Singapore 1 6.51 1 6.48 2 6.45 5 6.61 xxi
Slovak Republic 35 4.68 24 5.03 62 4.54 39 4.47
Slovenia 30 4.91 38 4.58 54 4.72 21 5.45
South Africa 50 4.21 57 3.76 70 4.33 36 4.54
Spain 23 5.26 14 5.42 36 5.11 24 5.24
Sri Lanka 69 3.83 71 3.37 45 4.88 84 3.24
Sweden 2 6.32 4 6.00 3 6.36 4 6.61
Switzerland 12 5.69 21 5.10 19 5.61 6 6.36
Syria 98 3.04 98 2.68 91 3.80 111 2.65
Taiwan, China 22 5.27 16 5.36 26 5.38 30 5.06
Tajikistan 117 2.40 104 2.51 117 1.75 100 2.93
Tanzania 88 3.28 107 2.47 78 4.15 85 3.21
Thailand 56 4.07 59 3.72 43 4.96 69 3.52
Tunisia 34 4.73 31 4.77 42 4.96 41 4.45
Turkey 47 4.28 55 3.90 44 4.93 51 4.00
Uganda 90 3.26 62 3.69 103 3.15 99 2.96
Ukraine 94 3.17 108 2.42 92 3.80 81 3.28
United Arab Emirates 27 5.18 26 5.00 24 5.49 29 5.06
United Kingdom 14 5.58 22 5.07 17 5.65 14 6.00
United States 21 5.29 25 5.00 16 5.68 26 5.19
Uruguay 51 4.15 75 3.26 79 4.12 28 5.07
Uzbekistan 116 2.43 105 2.51 116 1.76 97 3.00
Venezuela 115 2.49 112 2.28 106 2.65 115 2.53
Vietnam 76 3.60 79 3.17 50 4.79 102 2.85
Zambia 103 2.88 54 3.95 111 2.04 112 2.64
Zimbabwe 114 2.51 91 2.90 114 1.88 107 2.76
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xxii
Executive Summary
Table 4: The Enabling Trade Index: Transport and communications infrastructure
PILLARS
TRANSPORT AND COMMUNI- 6. Availability and quality 7. Availability and quality 8. Availability and
CATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE of transport infrastructure of transport services use of ICTs
Albania 106 2.47 102 2.78 118 2.29 81 2.33

Algeria 91 2.85 74 3.46 112 2.69 78 2.41
Argentina 58 3.46 80 3.36 51 3.80 49 3.21
Armenia 77 3.00 65 3.71 89 3.11 86 2.18
Australia 17 5.32 15 5.17 18 5.09 11 5.70
Austria 12 5.43 17 5.13 5 5.79 19 5.38
Azerbaijan 64 3.30 50 4.09 70 3.35 76 2.45
Bahrain 40 3.99 38 4.33 53 3.78 39 3.85
Bangladesh 103 2.51 99 2.81 94 3.00 109 1.72
Belgium 16 5.33 8 5.37 9 5.48 23 5.14
Benin 101 2.57 109 2.50 72 3.32 98 1.89
Bolivia 96 2.70 93 3.07 85 3.15 101 1.87
Brazil 62 3.31 91 3.12 42 3.94 56 2.88
Bulgaria 54 3.52 76 3.43 60 3.61 44 3.54
Burkina Faso 110 2.40 112 2.45 92 3.02 107 1.75
Burundi 116 2.14 116 2.00 104 2.88 116 1.56
Cambodia 105 2.48 98 2.81 101 2.94 112 1.69
Cameroon 112 2.37 113 2.44 103 2.88 105 1.79
Canada 11 5.50 3 5.75 15 5.20 14 5.55
Chad 118 1.93 118 1.70 114 2.57 117 1.54
Chile 42 3.93 45 4.14 38 4.16 45 3.48
China 36 4.15 36 4.42 17 5.10 55 2.92
Colombia 72 3.14 83 3.32 67 3.39 63 2.72
Costa Rica 66 3.26 68 3.65 88 3.12 52 3.01
Croatia 43 3.89 49 4.10 54 3.65 35 3.93
Cyprus 32 4.41 21 5.02 41 3.99 31 4.23
xxii Czech Republic 34 4.18 43 4.17 44 3.92 29 4.44
Denmark 10 5.51 4 5.70 20 5.02 7 5.82
Ecuador 85 2.94 89 3.23 87 3.14 75 2.45
Egypt 65 3.27 57 3.89 56 3.64 82 2.29
El Salvador 80 2.97 94 3.00 68 3.37 73 2.52
Estonia 29 4.51 40 4.27 49 3.86 17 5.40
Ethiopia 97 2.69 82 3.33 79 3.22 118 1.52
Finland 18 5.29 5 5.55 25 4.91 16 5.41
France 6 5.54 2 5.81 10 5.42 18 5.38
Germany 5 5.66 9 5.31 2 6.08 13 5.58
Greece 31 4.49 24 4.92 28 4.62 36 3.92
Guatemala 78 3.00 84 3.31 84 3.15 72 2.53
Guyana 104 2.51 103 2.68 117 2.46 79 2.38
Honduras 92 2.84 70 3.57 105 2.86 90 2.09
Hong Kong SAR 4 5.66 14 5.18 4 5.96 6 5.84
Hungary 38 4.10 62 3.72 32 4.38 32 4.21
India 52 3.54 48 4.11 35 4.32 85 2.19
Indonesia 74 3.13 86 3.28 43 3.94 87 2.17
Ireland 24 4.79 28 4.63 26 4.90 26 4.84
Israel 26 4.64 39 4.29 33 4.35 20 5.28
Italy 25 4.68 51 4.07 21 5.02 24 4.97
Jamaica 55 3.52 52 4.06 99 2.95 43 3.56
Japan 13 5.42 23 4.98 7 5.75 15 5.54
Jordan 51 3.54 58 3.88 45 3.91 59 2.83
Kazakhstan 63 3.31 44 4.15 81 3.20 68 2.59
Kenya 90 2.86 78 3.41 86 3.14 93 2.03
Korea, Rep. 19 5.23 30 4.60 12 5.31 8 5.78
Kuwait 50 3.56 63 3.72 59 3.61 46 3.35
Kyrgyz Republic 88 2.88 69 3.62 78 3.24 104 1.80
Latvia 39 4.08 33 4.45 46 3.90 37 3.90
Lesotho 115 2.25 115 2.01 93 3.01 110 1.72
Lithuania 37 4.14 35 4.43 58 3.62 30 4.38
Luxembourg 9 5.51 7 5.42 23 5.01 2 6.12
Macedonia, FYR 69 3.19 85 3.30 61 3.56 62 2.72
Madagascar 107 2.47 97 2.86 110 2.74 102 1.80
Malaysia 27 4.62 22 5.00 14 5.21 41 3.64
Mali 109 2.44 114 2.23 73 3.32 106 1.78
(Cont’d.)
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xxiii
Executive Summary
Table 4: The Enabling Trade Index: Transport and communications infrastructure (cont’d.)
PILLARS
Mauritania 98 2.62 110 2.45 76 3.26 88 2.16

Mauritius 56 3.50 32 4.53 96 3.00 54 2.99
Mexico 67 3.25 87 3.27 55 3.65 58 2.84
Moldova 76 3.05 79 3.39 77 3.25 74 2.50
Mongolia 87 2.89 66 3.69 95 3.00 95 1.99
Morocco 68 3.20 60 3.84 82 3.17 67 2.59
Mozambique 114 2.29 107 2.56 113 2.68 114 1.62
Namibia 71 3.17 27 4.75 111 2.73 92 2.03
Nepal 113 2.34 111 2.45 97 2.97 115 1.61
Netherlands 2 5.73 10 5.29 3 6.03 5 5.86
New Zealand 21 5.09 20 5.10 24 4.94 21 5.24
Nicaragua 102 2.51 96 2.89 107 2.76 100 1.88
Nigeria 108 2.44 105 2.57 106 2.82 97 1.94
Norway 20 5.21 12 5.22 27 4.81 12 5.61
Oman 57 3.50 46 4.13 52 3.80 69 2.57
Pakistan 70 3.18 53 3.99 63 3.51 91 2.05
Panama 48 3.65 26 4.76 57 3.63 70 2.56
Paraguay 99 2.59 101 2.80 100 2.94 94 2.03
Peru 82 2.96 92 3.08 69 3.36 77 2.43
Philippines 83 2.95 88 3.23 75 3.28 80 2.34
Poland 46 3.70 71 3.51 50 3.82 40 3.76
Portugal 28 4.57 34 4.43 29 4.59 28 4.68
Qatar 33 4.22 31 4.59 40 4.07 34 3.99
Romania 49 3.64 75 3.44 47 3.90 42 3.58
Saudi Arabia 47 3.70 55 3.95 39 4.15 53 2.99
Senegal 89 2.86 77 3.42 98 2.95 83 2.22
Singapore 7 5.53 13 5.21 1 6.17 22 5.22 xxiii
Slovak Republic 35 4.17 42 4.22 31 4.42 38 3.86
Slovenia 30 4.49 37 4.36 36 4.23 25 4.88
South Africa 45 3.74 47 4.12 34 4.35 61 2.77
Spain 22 5.08 11 5.28 16 5.12 27 4.83
Sri Lanka 73 3.13 56 3.92 71 3.33 89 2.13
Sweden 1 5.77 1 5.89 13 5.27 1 6.16
Switzerland 14 5.39 18 5.11 22 5.01 3 6.04
Syria 94 2.74 72 3.50 116 2.53 84 2.19
Taiwan, China 15 5.37 25 4.80 11 5.36 4 5.96
Tajikistan 117 2.02 117 1.89 115 2.54 113 1.64
Tanzania 111 2.40 104 2.65 108 2.75 103 1.80
Thailand 41 3.93 29 4.62 30 4.47 64 2.70
Tunisia 53 3.53 41 4.27 64 3.51 60 2.81
Turkey 44 3.79 59 3.88 37 4.18 47 3.32
Uganda 93 2.75 90 3.13 65 3.41 111 1.70
Ukraine 59 3.42 67 3.65 66 3.40 48 3.22
United Kingdom 8 5.52 19 5.10 8 5.69 9 5.77
United States 3 5.66 6 5.53 6 5.75 10 5.71
Uruguay 61 3.34 61 3.77 83 3.15 51 3.10
Uzbekistan 84 2.94 54 3.95 102 2.89 96 1.99
Venezuela 81 2.96 95 3.00 91 3.03 57 2.85
Vietnam 75 3.08 100 2.81 48 3.89 71 2.54
Zambia 100 2.59 106 2.57 74 3.30 99 1.89
Zimbabwe 95 2.73 81 3.35 90 3.11 108 1.73
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xxiv
Executive Summary
Table 5: The Enabling Trade Index: Business environment
PILLARS
BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT 9. Regulatory environment 10. Physical security
Albania 82 4.22 73 4.26 78 4.19

Algeria 84 4.16 104 3.75 62 4.58
Argentina 98 3.88 87 4.11 98 3.64
Armenia 53 4.59 47 4.58 61 4.61
Australia 21 5.14 51 4.56 15 5.73
Austria 9 5.45 41 4.62 5 6.27
Azerbaijan 46 4.66 50 4.56 50 4.76
Bahrain 34 4.92 34 4.81 37 5.03
Bangladesh 111 3.60 90 4.08 112 3.13
Belgium 20 5.16 28 4.91 23 5.42
Benin 85 4.16 93 4.02 71 4.31
Bolivia 110 3.62 102 3.77 104 3.47
Brazil 96 3.91 70 4.28 101 3.54
Bulgaria 107 3.71 103 3.75 93 3.66
Burkina Faso 74 4.35 79 4.18 64 4.51
Burundi 104 3.74 107 3.73 86 3.76
Cambodia 93 3.96 74 4.24 90 3.69
Cameroon 78 4.28 63 4.36 77 4.20
Canada 16 5.33 23 5.02 18 5.64
Chad 115 3.30 110 3.68 115 2.91
Chile 12 5.40 12 5.38 25 5.41
China 77 4.28 84 4.13 67 4.44
Colombia 87 4.11 46 4.59 99 3.64
Costa Rica 37 4.86 7 5.43 74 4.29
Croatia 56 4.54 78 4.19 45 4.89
Cyprus 41 4.72 88 4.10 28 5.34
Czech Republic 38 4.84 26 4.96 52 4.72
xxiv Denmark 5 5.70 22 5.07 2 6.34
Ecuador 109 3.70 96 3.90 103 3.50
Egypt 64 4.47 72 4.27 59 4.66
El Salvador 52 4.59 1 5.87 110 3.31
Estonia 39 4.76 65 4.35 36 5.18
Ethiopia 76 4.29 95 3.91 57 4.67
Finland 1 5.92 19 5.18 1 6.66
France 31 4.98 56 4.47 21 5.50
Germany 4 5.74 18 5.18 3 6.31
Greece 36 4.86 57 4.44 30 5.29
Guatemala 79 4.27 4 5.60 114 2.94
Guyana 112 3.56 76 4.22 116 2.89
Honduras 45 4.67 3 5.61 88 3.73
Hong Kong SAR 2 5.84 9 5.40 4 6.28
Hungary 28 5.05 35 4.80 29 5.29
India 58 4.53 64 4.36 56 4.70
Indonesia 32 4.97 16 5.23 54 4.72
Ireland 8 5.56 5 5.58 19 5.54
Israel 57 4.53 52 4.56 65 4.51
Italy 54 4.57 67 4.32 48 4.81
Jamaica 70 4.37 8 5.41 109 3.34
Japan 35 4.90 61 4.39 26 5.41
Jordan 19 5.21 42 4.62 14 5.80
Kazakhstan 88 4.06 97 3.88 76 4.24
Kenya 105 3.73 85 4.12 108 3.34
Korea, Rep. 30 5.02 44 4.62 24 5.42
Kuwait 59 4.51 111 3.52 20 5.51
Kyrgyz Republic 113 3.44 113 3.46 106 3.41
Latvia 51 4.61 71 4.28 41 4.95
Lesotho 108 3.71 105 3.73 91 3.68
Lithuania 67 4.40 89 4.08 53 4.72
Luxembourg 6 5.63 11 5.39 10 5.87
Macedonia, FYR 97 3.90 106 3.73 80 4.07
Madagascar 89 4.05 92 4.06 83 4.03
Malaysia 27 5.07 36 4.77 27 5.37
Mali 55 4.54 69 4.30 49 4.79
(Cont’d.)
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xxv
Executive Summary
Table 5: The Enabling Trade Index: Business environment (cont’d.)
PILLARS
Mauritania 66 4.41 82 4.16 60 4.65

Mauritius 43 4.69 62 4.38 38 5.00
Mexico 86 4.15 31 4.88 105 3.42
Moldova 101 3.83 108 3.69 84 3.97
Mongolia 91 3.98 91 4.07 85 3.88
Morocco 40 4.74 55 4.49 39 4.99
Mozambique 102 3.76 94 3.99 102 3.52
Namibia 94 3.95 99 3.86 81 4.04
Nepal 118 2.98 116 3.14 117 2.82
Netherlands 17 5.22 24 4.99 22 5.46
New Zealand 11 5.42 25 4.96 11 5.87
Nicaragua 29 5.03 10 5.39 58 4.67
Nigeria 100 3.87 43 4.62 113 3.11
Norway 10 5.45 39 4.68 7 6.21
Oman 60 4.51 100 3.82 34 5.20
Pakistan 83 4.20 40 4.66 87 3.73
Panama 47 4.66 29 4.90 68 4.42
Paraguay 103 3.76 77 4.22 111 3.30
Peru 72 4.35 13 5.33 107 3.38
Philippines 95 3.93 81 4.17 89 3.70
Poland 73 4.35 58 4.43 75 4.27
Portugal 13 5.39 20 5.11 17 5.66
Qatar 18 5.22 48 4.57 12 5.86
Romania 81 4.24 80 4.18 72 4.31
Saudi Arabia 68 4.39 98 3.86 42 4.93
Senegal 44 4.67 54 4.51 47 4.83
Singapore 3 5.82 6 5.52 8 6.12
Slovak Republic 24 5.09 17 5.22 40 4.97 xxv
Slovenia 63 4.48 109 3.68 31 5.28
South Africa 99 3.87 86 4.12 100 3.62
Spain 33 4.92 45 4.60 32 5.25
Sri Lanka 92 3.97 68 4.30 97 3.64
Sweden 14 5.35 32 4.86 13 5.84
Switzerland 7 5.58 27 4.92 6 6.24
Syria 71 4.36 112 3.48 33 5.23
Taiwan, China 22 5.13 21 5.07 35 5.18
Tajikistan 69 4.38 59 4.40 70 4.36
Tanzania 75 4.32 66 4.34 73 4.30
Thailand 61 4.49 75 4.23 51 4.76
Tunisia 23 5.11 53 4.53 16 5.68
Turkey 50 4.64 49 4.57 55 4.70
Uganda 80 4.25 33 4.84 94 3.66
Ukraine 106 3.73 114 3.42 82 4.03
United Kingdom 26 5.07 14 5.24 44 4.90
United States 25 5.08 15 5.24 43 4.92
Uruguay 49 4.64 38 4.74 63 4.55
Uzbekistan 65 4.43 60 4.39 66 4.47
Venezuela 117 3.05 115 3.38 118 2.73
Vietnam 62 4.48 83 4.13 46 4.83
Zambia 48 4.65 30 4.88 69 4.42
Zimbabwe 116 3.22 118 2.78 92 3.67
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xxvi
Executive Summary
restricted. Indeed, India ranks 105th on the relevant France is ranked 19th.The country’s greatest strength
component with, unlike most other countries, tariff bar- is its transport infrastructure quality (ranked 2nd), with
riers representing a more serious impediment than non- its excellent roads, railroads, ports, and air transport
tariff barriers. Only a small share of goods is imported infrastructure.The country also shows a strong proclivity
duty-free. India’s border administration meets many to trade (ranked 10th), with a large share of imports
needs of importers and exporters. Ranked 55th on this allowed duty-free into the country and demonstrated
indicator, a vast number of customs-related services is openness to multilateral trade rules, although non-tariff
available in India and clearance entails low pecuniary barriers are non-negligible (66th).The country’s border
costs, although it is time-consuming. Border administra- administration, while ranked among the top 20, is seen
tion continues to be affected by corrupt practices, how- as somewhat less efficient and transparent than Europe’s
ever, hampering an efficient transport of goods across leaders, with more time and cost to import than many
borders.Trade-related infrastructure and the relevant other countries. France’s regulatory environment is an
services are equally fairly well developed in India, rank- additional hindrance to the cross-border flow of goods,
ing 52nd in the overall sample. However, although the with bilateral Air Service Agreements that are not
country is well connected through maritime routes, it deemed open (66th), some restrictions on FDI (47th),
needs more airports and high-quality roads. India’s busi- and difficulties in hiring foreign labor in the country
ness environment is in line with the country’s overall (76th).
assessment, with the regulatory environment ranked Estonia is the highest-ranked recent accession
64th and security assessed at 56th among the countries country to the European Union, at 25th. Most notable
assessed. is the efficiency of the country’s border administration
(5th) and of its specific import-export procedures
Europe and North America (11th), with little time, cost, and hassle for importing
The United States is ranked 14th.The country benefits goods.The country’s communications infrastructure
from its transport and communications infrastructure, compares well with that of its peers, although the trans-
which is among the best in the world (ranked 3rd). It portation infrastructure and provided services could be
also offers good market access (ranked 6th), with rela- improved.The picture in terms of market access is
xxvi tively low tariffs and non-tariff barriers and a strong somewhat mixed, with low tariffs in line with EU rates
proclivity to trade, as demonstrated by its relative open- (although higher than those that existed pre-EU-acces-
ness to multilateral trade rules. On the other hand, the sion) and a high share of duty-free imports allowed into
country’s border administration is seen as lacking some the country, but high non-tariff barriers (80th).
efficiency. For example, customs procedures are seen as Italy, at 33rd, is ranked lowest of the pre-2004
comparatively burdensome (ranked 42nd), and there is a accession EU15 countries, bar Greece, and lowest of the
relatively high cost to import (ranked 65th). In addition, G7 group of rich economies.The country compares rel-
there are some concerns about security in the country. atively well in terms of market access to its peers, and
The United Kingdom is ranked 16th.The country benefits from relatively good transport services (21st).
is endowed with a comparatively good transport and On the other hand, the transportation infrastructure
communications infrastructure (ranked 8th), particularly requires upgrading (51st), and border administration
related to the quality of its transport services. Its border could also be improved (38th), particularly by reducing
administration gets relatively good marks (ranked 14th), the time and cost to import and improving its trans-
with low levels of trade-related corruption, clearance parency (40th).The greatest obstacles lie in the business
perceived to be relatively efficient (13th), and few docu- environment, particularly regulatory impediments to
ments required to import (3rd), although it is somewhat foreign direct investment (100th) and foreign ownership
costly (77th) and requires more time than in several (93rd), as well as some concerns about safety and securi-
European countries (27th). Its evaluation in the area of ty in the country (48th).
market access is mixed: while it exhibits the same low Turkey is ranked close behind Italy and Greece at
tariffs as other EU countries, and allows a large share of 38th, and ahead of several countries that have recently
exports over the border duty free (11th), its non-tariff joined the European Union.Turkey affords good market
barriers are high enough to place the country 58th. In access (8th) with notably lower non-tariff barriers than
addition, while elements of the business environment in most EU countries. On the other hand, the country’s
are conducive to moving goods over borders, with rules transport and communications infrastructure is less
encouraging FDI and allowing for the employment of developed than in most European countries, and its bor-
foreign labor, there are some concerns. Bilateral Air der administration is rated as comparatively inefficient
Service Agreements could be more open (ranked 35th), (55th) and lacking transparency (51st). In addition, the
and there are some safety and security concerns in the regulatory environment could be more conducive to the
country, particularly compared with the best-performing cross-border flow of goods with more supportive policies
European countries. encouraging FDI and less restrictive policies on hiring
of foreign labor.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xxvii
Executive Summary
Russia, at 103rd, is the lowest-ranked European Air Service Agreements and policies encouraging for-
country by a wide margin, trailing the nearest-ranked eign investment, yet the relatively high levels of crime
large emerging market “BRIC” country, Brazil, by 23 and violence are potentially problematic for getting
places. Russia’s main comparative strength is its trans- goods to destination in the country.
portation and communications infrastructure (60th), Costa Rica is followed by a number of Central
although by international standards it requires significant American and Caribbean countries that cluster closely
upgrading.The country impedes access to the market together in the middle ranking, ranging from Panama in
with very high tariffs (100th), and allows only a small 46th position to the Dominican Republic and Honduras
share of goods to enter the market duty-free (95th).The at 63rd and 64th, respectively. Efficient border adminis-
country’s border administration receives poor marks tration contributes to the good showing of Panama, but
(92nd), requiring much time and cost to import, and investment in infrastructure and the use of ICTs would
lacking transparency. In addition, Russia’s regulatory improve the ease of getting goods across borders in the
regime is one of the least conducive to cross-border region.
trade out of all countries (ranked second to last, at Mexico, which occupies the 65th position, shows
117th), and physical security in the country remains a even results across all four subindexes of the ETI.
serious concern (96th), particularly by European stan- Market access is hampered by a fairly high tariff rate of
dards. Attention to these areas is warranted to improve about 11 percent. At the same time, however, this is
the cross-border flow of goods into the country. levied on only about 20 percent of all imported products,
with the large majority imported duty-free.This points
Latin America and the Caribbean to a certain openness to international trade, which is
Chile leads the ranking in Latin America, coming in at also reflected in the large number of bilateral trade
27th position, and is ahead, by a wide margin, of second- agreements and multilateral trade-related treaties signed
ranked Costa Rica at 44th. Part of Chile’s economic by the country. On the other hand, the country’s border
success can be attributed to trade liberalization and administration could be streamlined (ranked 65th over-
improvements to the business environment made in all). It is also very costly to import goods—moving one
recent years; this is reflected in the country’s good results container over the border costs seven times more than
on the ETI. It has also laid the foundations for Chile’s in the best-performing country on this indicator, xxvii
export success. Border administration is efficiently Singapore. Although the country does not boast a high-
organized and corruption in related agencies is under quality transport infrastructure (of concern given
control. At the same time, the country boasts a favorable Mexico’s large size), infrastructure-related services as
business environment, open to FDI and hiring foreign well as the telecommunications infrastructure are fairly
labor.The country’s weaknesses are to be found in the well developed. And Mexico’s regulatory environment is
market access component and with respect to the trans- somewhat conducive to cross-border trade, with, in par-
port and telecommunications infrastructure. Imports ticular, its rules encouraging foreign ownership. However,
continue to be burdened with tariffs and non-tariff bar- the lack of security in the country is of significant
riers, and although tariffs are not high in absolute terms, concern, as it may cause additional costs to shippers.
they apply to most imported products, or 69 percent of Argentina follows, at 78th position.The country’s
the total. In addition, the country’s infrastructure facilities particular strengths lie in relatively high proclivity to
are in need of upgrading. In particular, the country’s trade, and in fairly efficient import-export procedures.
roads do not get good marks for quality, and the avail- Despite these positive aspects, importing remains rela-
ability and quality of infrastructure-related services tively costly, thereby hindering trade. Increasing trans-
could be enhanced. parency in institutions related to border administration
Costa Rica is at 44th, the second-ranked country in would further facilitate trade operations and reduce the
Latin America.The overall rank disguises a mixed per- cost of trading across borders. Infrastructure services are
formance on the four categories assessed by the Index. widely available and telecommunications infrastructure
Costa Rica stands out for its openness to imports with is well developed, two factors that facilitate trade in
both tariff and non-tariff barriers being relatively low. Argentina.The low level of physical security, however,
The country’s border administration is quite efficient where Argentina ranks 112th out of 118 countries, is a
and transparent, although customs procedures are con- major impediment to enhancing the country’s trade
sidered to be somewhat burdensome, which is also performance. Equally, the regulatory environment—in
reflected in the fairly long time it takes to import goods. particular, FDI-related regulations—are not conducive
The country’s weak spot is its underdeveloped transport to moving goods across borders.
infrastructure and related services. Here, in particular, Just two positions further down the rankings is
the quality of transport infrastructure, railroads, roads, Brazil, at 80th position. Brazil’s markets continue to be
and ports are poorly assessed by the business communi- fairly closed, with tariffs and, to a lesser extent, also non-
ty.The country’s regulatory environment for importers tariff barriers inhibiting goods imports.The country’s
is among the top 10 in the world, with open bilateral border administration is assessed fairly favorably, at 66th
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xxviii
Executive Summary
position, although businesses complain that customs pro- tariffs.The low share of duty-free imports and the reluc-
cedures are burdensome. And although transport infra- tance to engage in multilateral trade rules coupled with
structure—in particular, railroads, roads, and ports—is low reliance on export markets points to a low priority
fairly underdeveloped, which is not surprising for a that is attached to trade by the authorities. In particular,
country of Brazil’s level of development, the logistics opening up the country to imports would provide sig-
industry is well assessed in terms of competence and nificant benefits—the increased competition would
reliability. Equally, telecommunications infrastructure is make the economy more productive, thereby reducing
relatively widely available and used.The country boasts reliance on primary resources and boosting growth rates.
an open and competitive air transport sector. However, Tunisia comes in 49th on the ETI, with high marks
as in other countries in the region, a significant impedi- on the business environment and a fairly efficient border
ment to fostering trade across borders remains the poor administration.Yet the country’s markets remain shel-
security situation in the country. tered from international competition, with some of the
highest tariff barriers in the entire sample ranked 114th
Middle East and North Africa out of 118 countries. At the same time,Tunisia’s border
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) comes in at 23rd administration is fairly efficient and its business environ-
position globally, right after Spain and ahead of Korea ment is secure, although additional opening up to FDI
and Estonia.This very good result at the global level and labor migration would benefit the country’s trade
is not surprising when one considers the impressive performance. Equally, investment in infrastructure and
development of Dubai over recent years into the most the use of ICTs would further enable the country to
important transport and logistics hub in the region, and take advantage of the benefits of trade.
the UAE has made significant efforts to improve the Saudi Arabia ranks 53rd and shows fairly even per-
business environment for the transport and logistics formance across all the four categories of the ETI.
sector.The good results in the ETI testify to the Although Saudi Arabia has very low non-tariff barriers,
world-class transport infrastructure (23rd), very good tariffs are somewhat higher and levied on 81 percent of
infrastructure-related services, and a conducive and all imports, which corresponds to a low 96th rank glob-
secure business environment, characterized in particular ally on this category.The country, which just recently
xxviii by its ease of hiring foreign labor.The most important acceded to the WTO, ratified only a small share of the
obstacle to trading across borders in the UAE remains relevant multilateral trading agreements. And although
the restricted access to the country’s goods markets formal administrative procedures for importing are fairly
through pervasive tariffs (through a uniform 5 percent easy, the overall efficiency of border agencies is not on a
tariff rate).This is reflected in the fairly low 50th rank par with international standards. Improvements to the
out of 118 countries on the market access pillar of the business environment would also benefit traders, in par-
ETI.This high incidence of trade barriers appears to be ticular regarding regulations related to FDI, which
rooted in the low standing of trade on the country’s appear to deter international businesses from engaging
agenda, as witnessed by the very small portion of in the country.
imports that enters the country duty-free. Here, the Egypt ranks a low 87th for the ease of getting
UAE ranks 107th out of 118 economies. goods across the border.The country’s relative strengths
At 28th, Israel places second in the Middle East and include a fairly conducive business environment, espe-
North Africa region, between two countries that have cially with regard to the ease of hiring foreign labor and
successfully harnessed trade for development, Chile and the fairly well developed transport infrastructure, includ-
Malaysia.With its high-quality infrastructure, firmly ing the associated services. Egypt stands out positively
organized border administration, and intensive use of for its maritime connectivity and the related services,
ICTs, the country presents a number of important where it ranks in the top 20, as well as for the quality of
advantages. It is a fairly open economy, with companies its roads. Although importing goods is neither costly nor
serving broad international markets and 80 percent of time consuming, importers raise concerns about the
imports allowed into the country duty-free (8th rank). efficiency of customs and other border agencies.The
At the same time, Israel’s trade performance could bene- high tariffs, which apply to 70 percent of all imported
fit from improvements to the business environment, goods, as well as the tariff barriers, constitute the most
which, although open to foreign businesses, is penalized important impediment to enabling trade in Egypt.
by the vulnerable security situation and barriers to hir-
ing foreign labor. Sub-Saharan Africa
Bahrain, at 37th position, right behind Greece and Mauritius is the highest-ranked country in the sub-
ahead of Turkey and Cyprus, is the third-placed country Saharan African region, at 40th, ahead of some EU
from the region. Although Bahrain is fairly open to for- countries and all of the BRICs. As one might expect of
eign investment and boasts a fairly good business envi- a small open economy, Mauritius ensures a high level of
ronment, the country remains, despite its small size, rela- market access (11th), with low tariffs and particularly
tively protected from international competition through low non-tariff barriers, as well as allowing a large share
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xxix
Executive Summary
of duty-free imports into the country.The country also Kenya is ranked 86th overall. Similar to Uganda,
has well-rated border administration, with relatively little Kenya demonstrates good market access by regional
time, cost, and hassle related to getting goods over the standards (55th), with a high share of duty-free imports
border. In addition, levels of security in the country are (43rd) and relative openness to multilateral trade rules
good, particularly by regional standards. And while the (56th). On the other hand, once goods are allowed in
country’s transportation and communications infrastruc- the country, the border administration is characterized
ture compares well with those of other countries in the by inefficiencies and a lack of transparency, and the
region, this remains the main area for improvement, country’s transport and communications infrastructure is
particularly with regard to upgrading transportation quite underdeveloped (90th).The greatest concerns in
services. the country are related to the security situation, ranked
South Africa is ranked 2nd in the region at 59th, 108th overall, increasing the difficulty of getting goods
the only other sub-Saharan country in the top half of to destinations.
the rankings. Contrary to Mauritius, South Africa’s main
strength as measured by the Index is its transport and General findings from the ETI
communications infrastructure (45th), particularly attrib- The results across the regions have shown that, on aver-
utable to the quality of air transport and roads, as well as age, high-income countries tend to do well in the over-
the comparatively high quality of transport services in all rankings, a tendency that is generally attributable to
the country (34th).The country’s border administration their more developed institutional and infrastructure
is seen as somewhat inefficient (57th), although it is environments.We also note a tendency for small
characterized by relative transparency (36th). Market economies to rank higher, which is not surprising given
access proves a bit more difficult (67th), with relatively the importance of trade for their overall economic per-
high tariffs and non-tariff barriers. However, the main formance.Yet performance remains varied, with some
area of concerns relate to the regulatory environment, countries doing much more than others to enable the
which is not entirely conducive to cross-border trade free flow of trade.
(86th), as well as serious concerns about safety levels in The ETI methodology points to the large number
the country (100th) related to the high cost of crime of factors that affect trade. In this context, enhancing the
and violence for businesses in the country. benefits from trade, in particular for developing coun- xxix
Namibia follows South Africa in the regional rank- tries, requires not only further liberalization of national
ings, at 77th overall. Namibia’s main strength lies in the trade policies, but also efforts to improve performance
quality and availability of its transport infrastructure on a wide range of other factors. It therefore provides
(27th), particularly the quality of its roads and railroads, support to the inclusion of trade facilitation as a feature
although transport services remain limited in the coun- of the Doha Round.
try. On the other hand, market access remains impeded
by high tariffs (80th). Further, the border administration
is characterized by inefficiencies (92nd) and some trade- Selected issues of enabling trade
related corruption (74th). In addition, similar to South This Report also features a number of excellent contri-
Africa, the regulatory environment does not foster the butions from trade experts, dealing with issues related to
movement of goods over borders (99th) and physical reducing barriers to trade and national trade perform-
security remains an area of concern (81st), albeit to a ance.These special contributions are highly relevant and
lesser degree than in South Africa. complement the analysis of the ETI in Chapter 1.1, the
Uganda, ranked 4th in the region at 79th, follows Country/Economy Profiles, and the Data Tables found
closely behind Namibia, but with quite a different pro- in Part 2 of the Report.
file. Uganda’s main comparative strength is in its regula- In Chapter 1.2,“The Doha Round Negotiations on
tory environment (33rd), with rules encouraging FDI Trade Facilitation,” Richard Eglin of the WTO provides
and the ease of hiring foreign labor. Uganda is also an update on the Doha Round negotiations in the area
characterized by higher levels of market access (58th). of trade facilitation.The author describes how successive
Although it imposes high tariffs, non-tariff barriers are rounds of negotiation under the General Agreement on
so low as to place the country 1st on this indicator. In Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the WTO have seen the
addition, the country allows the entry of some imports average import tariffs on manufactured products in
duty-free (58th).The country’s border administration is industrialized countries fall from 20–30 percent to less
also somewhat efficient by regional standards (62nd), than 4 percent, and non-tariff barriers regulated.
although the cost for importing remains very high. On Attention has turned to less obvious obstacles, and trade
the other hand, unlike Namibia, the country’s trans- facilitation was added to the subjects being negotiated in
portation infrastructure is comparatively underdeveloped the Doha Round.The trade facilitation negotiations do
(90th). And like most other countries in the region, not pretend to target the entire logistical supply chain,
security concerns remain an obstacle. but cover how nations control the way in which goods
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xxx
Executive Summary
move across their borders through various inspection The Logistics Performance Index (LPI), a key input
and approval stages. to the broader Enabling Trade Index, draws from a
The negotiations have three objectives: improving worldwide survey of logistics professionals in freight for-
the relevant GATT rules, providing less-developed warders and express carriers. Respondents were asked to
countries with technical assistance and support, and rate the performance, in several logistics competencies,
improving coordination between customs authorities. All of countries with which they conduct business.This
of the main elements of an agreement have been tabled, type of data adds an external perspective on a country’s
and an extensive program of technical assistance is well performance to the domestic data also used.
underway. However, although negotiations are well The LPI provides insight into the cost of poor
advanced, as part of the “Single Undertaking,” trade logistics and the sources of those costs. Hedging against
facilitation cannot be completed separately from other uncertainty induces significant costs in many developing
subjects under negotiation in the Doha Round. countries, with traders concerned about the reliability of
The prospects for a successful conclusion are good, supply chains. Predictability and transparency are there-
which would result in significant benefits for business fore key components of logistics performance. Significant
and consumers. A successful outcome would help reduce differences are observed among countries at similar levels
the transaction costs for the world’s least competitive of development. A two-way relationship exists between
producers and poorest consumers, who currently need to good logistics and increased trade. Countries doing well
shoulder additional costs of US$1,000 or more for each here are also likely to do well in export diversification
container of goods imported or exported. and overall growth.
In Chapter 1.3, “Additional Taxes and the Indirect In Chapter 1.5, entitled “Facilitating Cross-Border
Evidence on Trade Protection,” Mondher Mimouni, Movement of Goods: A Sustainable Approach,” Poul
Xavier Pichot, and Lionel Fontagné from the International Hansen and Liliana Annovazzi-Jakab from UNCTAD
Trade Centre (ITC) take a detailed look at different discuss how access to global maritime routes for land-
types of taxes and how they affect trade. In their chapter, locked countries can be improved through transit corri-
the authors classify and compare additional taxes from a dors. Assuming that trade is an engine for economic
dataset covering over 70 countries.They conclude that growth, job creation, and poverty reduction, the authors
xxx the resulting trade barriers can be very high, though state that with tariff reductions in place, firms’ success
concentrated in particular sectors. depends more and more on their ability to offer efficient
These levies can be grouped as customs charges, and low-cost trade services and logistics.The trade and
pseudo-tariffs, regional taxes, excise duties, environmen- transport facilitation agenda looks to maximize efficiency
tal charges, intellectual property, sales, and other taxes. while safeguarding legitimate regulatory objectives.
An analysis of the data shows that the most-affected Focusing on the special case of landlocked develop-
product is prepared foodstuffs, and that 11 countries in ing countries, which include many of the poorest
the sample have average additional taxes above 10 percent. nations of the world, the chapter addresses the issue of
The highest rates are found in areas, such as alcohol transit cooperation. Some very successful solutions have
or cigarettes, where health or ethical concerns apply. been implemented in the European Union, Southeast
However, such taxes could be used for other reasons, in Asia, and Southern and Western Africa, with varying
particular for protecting certain categories of products support from formal bilateral or multiparty agreements.
from competition from foreign substitutes not domesti- The problems seen in transit are similar to the more
cally produced (e.g., rum in Iceland).The far higher general trade impediments, poor service provision, insti-
impact of these non-tariff barriers, relative to tariffs, and tutional challenges, and recourse to unofficial payments
the relatively little attention given to them, suggests as a resolution.
potential for further research in this area. The chapter discusses in detail the factors that
Jean-François Arvis, Monica Alina Mustra, and John contributed to making the UNCTAD-led initiative for
Panzer from the World Bank, together with Lauri Ojala regional corridor development between Zambia and
and Tapio Naula from the Turku School of Economics Namibia, Laos and Thailand, and Paraguay and Uruguay
in Finland, authors of Chapter 1.4, entitled “Connecting a success. By bringing together clusters of users, govern-
to Compete:Trade Logistics in the Global Economy,” ment agencies, and service providers, the UNCTAD
discuss an index, developed by the World Bank, that initiative was able to develop practical solutions. Develop-
assesses logistics performance across countries.The ing trust and a sense of ownership among the different
authors illustrate how the increase in global production actors was important for reducing bottlenecks in the
sharing and the shortening of product life cycles put a physical and procedural chains. Interestingly, operators
new premium on moving goods in a predictable, timely, from transit countries were often the most active in the
and cost-effective way.Therefore the quality of logistics efforts. Ultimately, the findings offer operational solu-
can have a major bearing on a firm’s decisions about tions, directly applicable to the region and providing a
which country to locate in, which suppliers to buy toolkit for other efforts.
from, and which consumer markets to enter.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xxxi
Executive Summary
Chapter 1.6, “Countdown to 2015: Improving
Access and Openness to Help Achieve the Millennium
Development Goals" by Gene Huang, Chief Economist
for FedEx Corp., explores the impact greater “Access”
—to goods, services, ideas and information—has on
improving social and economic conditions in markets
around the world. Building on the 2006 Access Index
commissioned by FedEx, it looks at how open and effi-
cient trade flows and greater access can help to achieve
the Millennium Development Goals.
The chapter looks at Chile and Estonia as two
countries that have embraced the possibilities of open-
ness, drawing correlations between national policies that
support the principles of Access and development in
these two countries.
Furthermore, the author considers arguments about
how an open approach to trade can be shaped to deliver
environmental benefits and individual empowerment.
He cites programs designed to foster these principles
and describes ways in which governments and the pri-
vate sector can help to enable openness and assist indi-
viduals in taking advantage of the opportunities brought
about by greater Access.
Part 2 of the Report is a comprehensive data section
that contains detailed country/economy profiles for each
of the 118 economies covered. It features the main trade
indicators as well as the ETI results at the subindex, pillar, xxxi
and individual indicator level, presented as strengths and
weaknesses.The last section of the Report contains data
tables for each of the individual variables used in the
computation of the ETI.Technical notes and sources,
included at the end of Part 2, provide details on the
characteristics and sources of the hard data variables
included in the Report.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page xxxii
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 1
Part 1
Selected Issues on Enabling Trade
1.1: The Enabling Trade Index

CHAPTER 1.1 If the titles of recent studies such as The World Is Flat,
Borderless World, and The Death of Distance were to be
taken at face value,1 a Global Enabling Trade Report would
The Enabling Trade Index: not be necessary because the process of globalization
would be nearly complete. But these titles entail consid-
Assessing the Factors erable hyperbole and overlook the many costs that are
incurred when goods and services move across interna-
Impeding International Trade tional borders. Some of these reflect the costs of internal
and international transportation and tariffs paid at the
ROBERT Z. LAWRENCE, Harvard University
border. Some reflect the costs of communication and
JENNIFER BLANKE, MARGARETA DRZENIEK HANOUZ, gathering information. Some of the costs take a pecu-
THIERRY GEIGER, and QIN HE, World Economic Forum niary form, while others that are no less significant
involve additional time (for example, time required for
search, transportation, meeting regulatory requirements
and dealing with customs) and risk (such as that associ-
ated with theft, loss, damage, and contract failures).
These costs are so damaging because they limit
trade across borders.The benefits of opening to trade are
well known: it allows countries to reap the gains from
specialization by obtaining higher prices for their exports
and lower prices for the goods and services they import.
Trade ushers competition into the domestic market,
increasing the varieties available to consumers as final
products and to producers as intermediate inputs. In
addition, trade allows countries to exploit economies of
scale and promotes technological innovation. All these
effects increase productivity and overall welfare. More- 3
over, as the rather footloose trade and investment flows
tend to exert pressure on policymakers, openness to
trade is often associated with better policies and
institutions. Numerous studies have shown that trade is
associated with higher growth and poverty reduction,
particularly in developing countries.2
However, despite the recognized benefits of trade,
many obstacles remain. Some of these obstacles are
intentional, specifically aimed at limiting market access;
some have been justified on the grounds of infant
industry protection. But for the most part tariffs and
other policy-related trade barriers are erected by gov-
ernments wishing to shield those who lose in the short
term because of increased foreign competition. Other
obstacles to trade are related to the human and physical
infrastructure and to institutional frameworks that have
been developed over the years in each country to move
products over borders and to destinations.Whatever
their origins, these barriers have the consequence of
limiting the flow of trade, generally lowering welfare at
the aggregate.
Given the importance of trade for economic devel-
opment and of reducing barriers to trade, the World
Economic Forum has embarked on a multiyear research
project in collaboration with international trade experts
and leaders from the logistics and transport industry to
measure the extent to which countries have in place all
of the necessary attributes for enabling the free flow of
trade into individual countries and to destination.The
index we have developed to provide this benchmarking
analysis reflects the broad range of obstacles to interna- The importance of infrastructure
tional trade. Based on the evidence we will describe in One source of these price discrepancies is the distance
this chapter, we have adopted a wide swath in con- between markets.There is overwhelming evidence that
structing the index, including not simply traditional international trade is very sensitive to distance.8 The
indicators that reflect tariffs and transportation costs but most obvious cause is transportation costs.9 Even in a
also measures of infrastructure quality, customs adminis- perfect market, prices could differ because transportation
tration performance, and the domestic regulatory and costs reduce the incentive for arbitrage. Confirmation
security environment. that transportation costs matter is provided by the find-
Through this endeavor, we hope to raise awareness ing that distance matters more for commodities with
about the importance of the large number of measures high weight-to-value ratios, and for goods transported
that can facilitate trade, and to provide countries with across land rather than oceans.10
the ability to benchmark their performance vis-à-vis Indeed, transportation costs have often been more
others. By comparing their performance with that of important than trade barriers in inhibiting trade.This
other countries both overall and with respect to the has been the case historically. Overall, between 1820 and
components of the index, countries will get a better 2000, according to Lindert and Williamson, only 18 per-
appreciation of their strengths and weaknesses.The goal cent of the reduction in intercontinental price gaps
is to provide a cross-country analysis of the enablers of between the United States and Europe was due to poli-
trade, highlighting to national policymakers the obstacles cies liberalizing trade while 82 percent of the decline
to trade that require policy attention, and to enable dia- was due to cheaper transportation.11 In the 19th centu-
logue between the private and public sectors for improv- ry, the large drops in intercontinental transportation
ing the environment for trade at the national level. costs—the result of innovations such as the steamship—
The next section of this chapter will describe the led price differences between the United States and
large variety of obstacles to trade at the national level, Europe to narrow even though the United States actual-
preparing the ground for the description of the new ly raised its tariffs significantly! Currently, US import
Enabling Trade Index, described in the section that data indicate that insurance and freight costs are twice
follows. those of tariff revenues.
4 Clark, Dollar, and Micco (2004) find that, for most
Latin American countries, transport costs are a greater
Enabling trade barrier to US markets than import tariffs.12 They point
The case for enabling trade is well illustrated by the sig- out that these costs are not simply a function of distance
nificant international price differences across countries. but also of the quality of the infrastructure. Improving
In a market that is fully integrated, similar goods should the efficiency of a port from the 25th to the 75th per-
have similar prices regardless of where they are sold— centile in their sample, for example, reduces shipping
the “law of one price.” One common explanation for costs by 12 percent. (On average, they find that having
differences in final goods prices is that they include dis- bad ports is equivalent to being 60 percent farther away
tribution costs that are not tradable, but even when from markets.) Similarly, Limao and Venables (2001)
these margins are taken into account, Bradford and demonstrate the role of infrastructure more broadly in
Lawrence (2004) find that sizable differences remain. determining transportation costs.They use data on the
They report that the prices on goods selected as compa- costs of shipping the same container from Baltimore,
rable in purchasing power parity studies typically differ Maryland, to different parts of the world, and measure
by 20 percent between the United States and Canada, infrastructure using indicators of road, rail, and telecom-
30 percent between the United States and Europe, and munications.13 In their sample, a destination with infra-
50 percent between the United States and Japan. structure in the 25th percentile has transportation costs
Moreover, similar results could be found in a large num- that are 12 percent higher than the destination with
ber of studies that compare prices internationally.These median infrastructure quality. And the median land-
include findings that (1) the law of one price does not locked country has transportation costs that are 55 per-
hold internationally even for standardized products,3 (2) cent higher than the median coastal economy.14
the degree of price dispersion across countries is far As Grossman (1998) has pointed out, however, in
greater than within them;4 (3) the law of one price level many econometric studies the role of distance is far
(purchasing power parity) holds, if at all, only in the greater than could be attributed to transportation costs
very long run,5 and (4) that firms have a significant alone. One reason is that distance is associated with a
capacity to engage in international price discrimination host of additional nonpecuniary costs relating to time
and routinely “price to market.”6 All told, these price involved in search, preparation and scheduling, move-
differences imply that obstacles to full international inte- ment, communication, likelihood of theft, loss, quality
gration remain significant.7 This also indicates the gains deterioration, and inventory management.15 A study by
that can come for consumers and users of intermediate Djankov, Freund, and Pham explores the role played by
inputs from an increase in trade. additional transportation time using World Bank data on

the days it takes to move standard cargo from the facto- They have even been eliminated completely on a pref-
ry gate to the ship in 126 countries.16 On average, each erential basis in free trade agreements and other prefer-
additional day that a product is delayed prior to being ential trading arrangements that have continued to
shipped reduces trade by at least 1 percent. Each day is proliferate. Nonetheless, developed-country tariffs are
equivalent to a country distancing itself from its trade still important in some product areas such as agriculture,
partners by 70 kilometers.They also report that delays and in labor-intensive manufactured products such as
have an even greater impact on developing country apparel and footwear. Moreover, even when countries
exports and exports of time-sensitive goods, such as per- have a free trade agreement or grant duty- and quota-
ishable agricultural products. In particular, a day’s delay free preferences, customs inspections continue to verify
reduces a country’s relative exports of time-sensitive that rules of origin and other regulatory requirements
agricultural goods by 6 percent. are met.
David Hummels has estimated that the advent of More generally, therefore, the border may be
fast transport (air shipping and faster ocean vessels) is important because of the need to deal with customs
equivalent to reducing tariffs on manufactured goods administrations.21 Time is money. It has been estimated,
from 32 to 9 percent between 1950 and1998.17 He for example, that each day taken to clear through cus-
reports that each additional day spent in transport toms is the equivalent of a 0.8 percent tariff. But the
reduces the probability that the United States will costs of trade are affected not simply through longer
source from that country by 1–1.5 percent because each delays: as Huang and Whalley (2006) have shown in a
day saved in shipping time is worth 0.8 percent ad-val- study of border delays that result from security inspec-
orem for manufactured goods. Evans and Harrigan tions, there could be added costs because delays could
(2005) find that time has an important influence on US affect the frequency of transactions and the size of indi-
apparel imports.Those apparel products for which time- vidual transactions that take place.22
liness matters are increasingly imported from nearby Of course, inefficiencies in border administration
countries.18 hinder exports as well as imports. Sadikov (2007) found
that each extra signature that exporters have to collect
Market access and border administration before a shipment can be made reduces aggregate
The possibility of off-shoring services over the Internet exports by 4.2 percent.The impact is large, equivalent to 5
has led some to argue that the world can be thought of raising importer’s tariff by 5 percentage points.
as flat, since trading internationally appears similar to Furthermore, the practice is particularly detrimental to
trading nearby when transportation and communica- export diversification, since each signature lowers
tions costs are almost zero. But the empirical literature exports of differentiated products by 4–5 percent more
contains strong evidence that, even setting the effects of than exports of homogeneous goods.23
distance and transportation costs aside, the obstacles to
trade remain significant. In a pioneering study, McCallum The business environment: Regulation and security
found that provinces within Canada were 20 times more The “border effects” may also reflect the increased trans-
likely to trade with each other that to trade with US actions costs caused by national differences behind the
states that were an equal distance away.19 While the size border.To be sure, many of these differences may be
of the effect has not always been the same, his finding of worth preserving. After all, even if they reduce trade,
a significant home bias in purchases has been confirmed national differences in culture, institutions, and language
in many other tests.20 Apparently the effects associated may be valuable in their own right. Nonetheless, there is
with borders continue to affect trade. evidence that trade is significantly greater when coun-
The most straightforward explanation for border tries share a common language, currency, regulatory sys-
effects for trade in goods is the trade barriers that are tem, and colonial experience, for example, and there is
imposed by governments. Although these barriers have merit in facilitating international convergence where the
been reduced over the postwar period, in many coun- benefits are significant. In addition, differences can be
tries they remain important.They include formal barri- preserved and at the same time facilitate trade.There is
ers such as tariffs and quotas; contingent barriers that evidence that, regardless of the precise form they may
can be invoked through anti-dumping, countervailing take, the ability of the domestic legal system to enforce
duty, and safeguard measures; regulatory barriers that commercial contracts and the capacity of government to
result from discriminatory rules and standards; and provide physical security, combat crime and corruption,
requirements such as the use of trade permits and and provide impartial formulation and implementation
licenses as well as embargoes and prohibitions. of government economic policy can all have important
These types of barriers are still significant in effects on trade. Anderson and Marcouiller (2002) have
some developing countries. For the most part, however, used measures from the World Economic Forum’s
developed countries no longer use quotas outside of Executive Opinion Survey designed to capture policy
agriculture, and their tariffs on many industrial products transparency and impartiality as well as contract enforce-
have been substantially reduced over the postwar period. ability.They estimate that if the indexes of institutional
quality with respect to these attributes associated with barriers. High trade barriers may mean less trade and
Latin American countries were to rise to the levels asso- less reason to invest in high-quality infrastructure and
ciated with the European Union, Latin American trade reduce transportation costs. Hummels argues, for exam-
would expand by 30 percent.They observe that this ple, that shipping firms with pricing power will charge
expansion is roughly equivalent to what we would higher prices for transporting goods protected by trade
expect from the reduction of Latin American tariffs to barriers because these make the demand for their serv-
US levels.24 Similarly, Blomberg and Hess find that the ices less responsive to price.30 Similarly, Fink, Mattoo,
presence of terrorism, as well as internal and external and Neagu emphasize the importance of strengthened
conflict, is equivalent to having a 30 percent tariff on disciplines on restrictive business practices in maritime
trade.25 They observe “This is larger than estimated tar- shipping.31
iff-equivalent costs of border and language barriers and Second, some of these issues cannot be adequately
tariff-equivalent reduction through GSPs and WTO par- dealt with through independent actions at the national
ticipation.” Similarly, Gani and Prasad find that institu- level, but require international cooperation and coordi-
tional quality as captured by measure of government nation. Obvious examples include compatible infrastruc-
effectiveness, regulatory quality, control of corruption, ture and communications systems as well as mutual
and rule of law has an important impact on the trade of recognition and cooperation with respect to standards,
Pacific Island Countries. 26, 27 technical specifications, and conformity assessments.
In sum, there are a large variety of effects that Moenius (2004) finds, for example, that a 1 percent
enable the flow of trade. Although governmental tariff increase in bilaterally shared standards between the
and non-tariff barriers at the border and the costs of United States and its trading partners increases US trade
transportation exert significant effects, the costs of trade volumes by $6 billion.32
are affected by a host of other considerations as well. In Third, these issues are of particular importance for
their comprehensive survey, for example, Anderson and developing countries. According to Martinez-Zarzoso
van Wincoop conclude that taking a more comprehen- and Marquez-Ramos (2005), “geographical distance,
sive view of trade costs suggests that they could account being landlocked, [and] technological and social factors
for a tax-equivalent of 170 percent for rich countries seem to be more important for the poorest than the
6 with the presumption that they are far higher for poor richest countries.Transport infrastructure and technolo-
countries.28 Wilson, Mann, and Otsuki have shown that gy can be considered as barriers to trade for those coun-
improvements in port efficiency, customs environment, tries with lower endowment levels.”33 One reason is that
regulatory environment, and “e-business” could boost their exports (products such as food, fruits, flowers, and
trade considerably. Measures that raised the countries in clothing) are often perishable and thus more sensitive to
their sample of 75 countries that were below average delays. Disdier and Head report that distance matters
half way to the average of the sample would yield a gain more for developing-country trade.34 In addition, many
of US$377 billion in their manufactured goods trade.29 are far from their markets, have poor interconnectivity
This review of the literature provides support for with their neighbors,35 and lower value per unit exports
the index developed in this chapter. In an attempt to that are more affected by transportation costs. In today’s
capture the full range of factors that contribute to these international economy, many developing countries want
costs, the index takes account of four major elements: to become part of global supply chains that can provide
formal border barriers, border administration, transport just-in-time production sharing. Moreover, in develop-
and communications infrastructure, and regulatory and ing countries it is often the case that inputs cannot be
security measures that affect the business environment. sourced locally. Not making the whole product but per-
As the previous discussion has made clear, some of these forming the parts of the production process for which
costs are pecuniary—these include trade duties and pay- they have a comparative advantage requires trading sys-
ments for services such as transportation, communica- tems that are efficient and inexpensive.36
tions, and security. Other costs take nonpecuniary forms Finally, some the barriers to trade may arise simply
such as the additional time required to obtain informa- because national policies and practices differ from
tion, transport products, and obtain necessary clearance country to country. Obstacles of this type could reflect
and documentation as well as the costs associated with institutions that are deeply rooted and result from local
the losses that occur as a result of damage and theft. But preferences for specific public goods and policies. In
all these costs are likely to affect trade. considering reforms, the benefits from these practices
We end this section with four observations before obviously need to be weighed against the benefits from
proceeding to the detailed description of the index. trade. On the other hand, it could also be the case that
First, while we present these factors individually, there is adopting new measures because they could promote
evidence that they can interact in a multiplicative fashion; trade could yield benefits beyond their trade impacts.
thus weaknesses in one area can raise costs in others.
Corruption, for example, and a nontransparent policy
mechanism could lead to higher tariff and non-tariff

The Enabling Trade Index ing measures, countervailing duties, and production
The Enabling Trade Index (ETI) was developed within requirements.
the context of the World Economic Forum’s Industry The proclivity to trade pillar is measured by the
Partnership Programme for the Logistics and Transport country’s openness to trade as demonstrated by its par-
sector.The Index was developed in close collaboration ticipation in multilateral trade rules and instruments, the
with our data partners: the Global Express Association percentage of goods allowed duty-free into the country,
(GEA), the International Air Transport Association and measures of the importance of trade for companies
(IATA), the International Trade Centre (ITC), the in the country.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development The efficiency of customs administration pillar
(UNCTAD),The World Bank, and the World Trade measures the perceived efficiency of customs procedures
Organization (WTO).We have also received important (formalities regulating the entry and exit of merchandise)
feedback from a number of key companies that are by the private sector, as well as the extent of services
industry partners in the effort, namely ABX LOGIS- provided by customs authorities and related agencies.
TICS Worldwide, Agility, Deutsche Post World Net, DP The efficiency of import-export procedures pillar
World, FedEx Corporation, Stena,TNT N.V., and UPS. extends the analysis beyond the official customs admin-
The ETI is a comprehensive index that measures istration to assess effectiveness and efficiency of the
the factors, policies, and services facilitating the free flow clearance process by customs and border control agencies,
of goods over borders and to destination.37 The structure the number of days and documents required to import
of the index mirrors the concepts discussed in the section goods into the country, and the total official cost associ-
above, breaking the enablers into four overall issue areas, ated with importing, excluding tariffs and trade taxes.
or subindexes: (1) market access, (2) border administra- Given the significant hindrance that corruption can
tion, (3) transport and communications infrastructure, provide in trade, the transparency of border administration
and (4) the business environment.The first subindex pillar assesses the pervasiveness of undocumented extra
measures the extent to which the policy and cultural payments or bribes connected with import and export
framework of the country welcomes foreign goods into permits, as well as overall perceived degree of corruption
the country. Once goods have been allowed in to the in each country.
country, the second subindex assesses the extent to The availability and quality of transport infrastructure 7
which the administration at the border facilitates their pillar measures the availability of transport infrastructure
entry. Once goods have made it over the border, the in each country, as demonstrated by the density of air-
third subindex takes into account whether the country ports, the percentage of paved roads, and the extent to
has the transport and communications infrastructure which they are congested, as well as the extent of trans-
necessary to facilitate the movement of the goods from shipment connections available to shippers from each
the border to destination. Finally, the fourth subindex country. Also captured is the quality of all types of trans-
looks at the overarching regulatory and security envi- port infrastructure, including air, rail, roads, and ports.38
ronment impacting the transport business in the country. In addition to the underlying infrastructure, the
Each of these four subindexes is in turn composed availability and quality of transport services pillar takes
of a number of pillars of enabling trade, of which there into account the services available for shipment, including
are 10 in all.These are: the quantity of services provided by liner companies, the
ability to track and trace international shipments, the
1. Tariffs and non-tariff barriers timeliness of shipments in reaching their destinations,
2. Proclivity to trade general postal efficiency, and the overall competence of
3. Efficiency of customs administration the local logistics industry (e.g., transport operators, cus-
4. Efficiency of import-export procedures toms brokers).
5. Transparency of border administration Given the increasing importance of information
and communication technologies for the tracing and
6. Availability and quality of transport
management of shipments, the availability and use of
infrastructure
ICTs pillar captures the penetration rates of these new
7. Availability and quality of transport services
tools—such as mobile phones, Internet, and broadband
8. Availability and use of ICTs —in each country.
9. Regulatory environment As the policy environment for the business of trade
10. Physical security and logistics, the regulatory environment pillar captures
the extent to which the government has put in place
The tariffs and non-tariff barriers pillar measures policies conducive to the cross-border flow of goods.
the deterrent to imports imposed by national-level Included are the ease of hiring foreign labor in the
administrative barriers to trade.These include tariffs, country (important for companies moving goods across
which are the official duties imposed on imported borders) and the openness of bilateral Air Service
goods, as well as non-tariff barriers, such as anti-dump- Agreements into which the country has entered
Figure 1: Composition of the four subindexes of the ETI
Transport and
Market Border
communications
access administration
infrastructure
Tariff and non-tariff Efficiency of customs Availability and quality of

barriers administration transport infrastructure
Destination
Border
Proclivity to trade Efficiency of import- Availability and quality of

export procedures transport services
Transparency of Availability and

border administration use of ICTs
Business environment
Regulatory Physical
environment security
(providing a sense of competition in the air transport To keep this project at a feasible scope, we have
sector), as well as the extent to which the policy envi- explicitly focused on the flow of imports into a country
ronment encourages foreign direct investment. in the ETI. Of course, it is important to note that most
The security environment in each country is of of these factors stimulate the flow of both exports and
great importance for ensuring the delivery of goods to imports. Introducing elements explicitly enabling the
destination. In this context, the physical security pillar flow of exports will be the subject of future research in
specifically gauges the level of national violence (in this ongoing project studying obstacles to trade.
terms of general crime and violence in addition to the
threat of terrorism), as well as the reliability of the
police services to protect businesses from criminals. The Enabling Trade Index 2008 rankings
Each of these pillars is, in turn, made up of a num- Tables 1–5 show the rankings of all 118 countries in the
ber of individual variables.The dataset includes both overall ETI as well as in each of the four subindexes and
hard data and Survey data from the World Economic individual pillars. As would be expected, the ETI results
Forum’s Executive Opinion Survey.The hard data were provide an important component for explaining the
obtained from publicly available sources, international variation in cross-country trade, as discussed in Box 1.
organizations, and trade experts (for example, IATA, The sections below review the rankings of the following
the ITC, the WTO, and UNCTAD).The Survey is car- five overall regions and groupings: Asia and the Pacific,
ried out among CEOs and top business leaders in all Europe and North America, Latin America and the
economies covered by our research.The Survey provides Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa, and sub-
unique data on many qualitative institutional and busi- Saharan Africa. Box 2 provides a higher-level analysis of
ness environment–related issues, as well as a number of the difference in enabling trade assessments across 10
specific issues related to trade. different regional groupings.
The 10 pillars are regrouped into the four subindexes
described above, as shown in Figure 1, and the overall Asia and the Pacific
score for each country is derived as an unweighted aver- Two Asian economies—Hong Kong and
age of the four subindexes.The details of the composition Singapore—occupy the top two positions in the ETI
of the ETI are shown in Appendix A. ranking.This result bears witness to these countries’

Box 1: Testing the ETI model
As explained in the text, the World Economic Forum’s Enabling • BORDERij takes the value 1 if i and j share a common
Trade Index (ETI) is an attempt to measure the extent to which border, and is 0 otherwise;
countries have in place all of the necessary attributes for
enabling the free flow of trade into individual countries, and to • LLOCKEDij takes the value 1 if i, j, or both are
destination. landlocked, and is 0 otherwise;
This box presents the preliminary results of an empirical
study that uses a gravity model in order to assess how the ETI • CURRij takes the value 1 if i and j share the same
contributes to explaining variations in bilateral trade flows. currency, and is 0 otherwise. This variable is
The baseline gravity model predicts that the closer and the constructed using data from the International
bigger two trading partners are, the more they trade. This model Organization for Standardization (ISO) and reflects
has produced some of the most robust and powerful results in the situation as of 2006;
the field of international trade and in the social sciences in gen-
eral. Since the 1960s, researchers have been seeking to give • COLONYij takes the value 1 if i and j have at any point in
the model a theoretical underpinning—with some success— time maintained, or still maintain, a colonial relationship,
and to improve its predictive power by introducing new vari- and is 0 otherwise. Data come from CEPII;
ables in order to account for trade frictions (e.g., transaction
costs, information costs, transportation costs). The ETI is an • LANGij takes the value 1 if i and j share at least one
attempt to measure how individual countries overcome these common official language, and is 0 otherwise. Data
frictions; a high score in the overall ETI is an indication that a come from CEPII; and
country is relatively successful at doing so.
In light of the above, we formulate the following hypothesis: • the two dependent variables ETIi and ETIj represent
for any given country pair (i, j), the higher the ETI score for i the overall ETI scores achieved by countries i and j,
and/or j, the more voluminous the trade between the two coun- respectively.
tries, everything else being held constant. In order to verify our
hypothesis, we specify the following augmented gravity model:
The gravity model is often estimated using ordinary least
9
squares (OLS). The problem with this method is that it suffers
ln (IMPij ) = ␤0 + ␤1 • ln(GDPi ) + ␤2 • ln(GDPj ) from selection bias. By excluding the pairs of countries that
+ ␤3 • ln(DISTij ) + ␤4 • BORDERij report no bilateral trade, OLS overestimates the explanatory
+ ␤5 • LLOCKEDij + ␤6 • CURRij power of independent variables, thus producing biased results.
+ ␤7 • COLONYij + ␤8 • LANGij In order to address this selection bias we use a Heckman
+ ␤9 • ETIi + ␤10 • ETIj + εij (1) two-step estimation method, which produces consistent and
efficient results.1 This approach first uses a selection equation
—a probit model—to determine the probability of two countries
where:
trading with each other. In a second step, an OLS regression is
run to estimate the model (see Equation 1) for those country
• the dependent variable IMPij represents the total value
pairs that report positive trade flows.
of imports of country i from country j or, symmetrically,
Country pairs for which trade data are missing are
the exports of j to i. When import data are not available,
retained—unlike in OLS—and it is assumed that no trade
export data, if available, are used instead. Trade data
occurs between the two countries. Those observations repre-
come from the United Nations’ Comtrade database and
sent the censored observations in the probit estimation, for
are for 2006;
which we construct the latent variable IMPBINij taking the
value 1 whenever i and j report some bilateral trade, and 0
• GDPi and GDPj correspond to the gross domestic prod-
otherwise.2
uct of i and j, respectively, in US dollars and at current
The results of the estimation of the Heckman outcome
prices. Data are for 2006 and come from the October
equation are reported in Table 1. 3 The coefficients on the vari-
2007 edition of the International Monetary Fund’s
ables traditionally included in the baseline gravity model bear
World Economic Outlook Database;
the expected signs and are highly significant. A doubling in the
GDP of one of the two trading partners causes bilateral trade to
• DISTij is the distance between i and j expressed in
more than double. Furthermore, countries sharing a common
kilometers. The distance is weighted to account for the
border tend to trade more than noncontiguous countries. So do
geographic distribution of population within a country.
nations with a common official language, which usually betrays
Data come from the Centre d’Etude Prospectives et
the existence of cultural ties—an important determinant of
d’Information Internationales (CEPII). Population figures
trade. On the other hand, the farther apart two countries are,
are for 2004;
the less they trade. Similarly, trade with or between landlocked
(Cont’d.)
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 10
Box 1: Testing the ETI model (cont’d.)
countries is less voluminous, ceteris paribus. Because in the increase in the ETI score of exporter j boosts its exports to i by
probit estimation the dummy COLONY perfectly predicts the some 39 percent, while an improvement in importer i’s score
value of IMPBIN, it is dropped from the subsequent estimation. raises trade by 19 percent.4
In addition, the Heckman estimation requires the probit estima- These results suggest for instance that if the ETI scores of
tion to have at least one more independent variable than the Guyana (2.95) and Venezuela (2.85) were to improve by 1 point,
outcome equation. Variable CURR is therefore dropped. imports to Guyana from Venezuela would increase by 58 per-
cent, all other things being held equal. The difference between
the lowest average ETI score of two trading partners, Algeria
and Chad, and the highest average score, achieved by
Table 1: Results for the Heckman outcome equation Singapore and Hong Kong, is a full three points.5 In theory, clos-
ing the gap would treble trade between the two African nations.
The addition of ETI performance to a standard gravity
Constant –30.95*** model produces satisfying empirical results. The contribution of
(0.544) the ETI to explaining variations in bilateral trade flows is positive
ln(GDPi ) 0.993***
and sizeable, thereby confirming the trade-enabling feature of
(0.0136)
the index components taken altogether. The publication of the
lln(GDPj ) 1.167***
second edition of the ETI will make possible further research, in
(0.0136)
ln(DISTij ) –1.094***
particular time comparison and panel data analysis.
(0.0242)
BORDERij 1.360***
(0.131) Notes
LLOCKEDij –0.551*** 1 See Gronau 1974 and Heckman 1976. For a recent application of the
(0.0468) Heckman method to international trade, see Helpman et al. 2006.
LANGij 0.974*** 2 The Enabling Trade Index covers 118 countries. This represents 13,806
possible country pairs (i.e., 118 times 117), 12,057 of which have positive
(0.0618) import flows; 1,749 pairs report either no trade or zero trade.
10 ETIi 0.192*** 3 Intermediate results are available from the authors.
(0.0307) 4 Recall the semi-log specification of the model: variable ETI simply is the
ETIj 0.388*** ETI score of i or j, while the explained variable IMP is log-transformed.
(0.0298) 5 Burundi and Chad post the lowest average ETI score (2.65), yet the two
countries reported no bilateral trade in 2006.
Observations 12,057
R2 0.716
Note: Dependent variable is ln(IMPij ); robust standard errors

are in parentheses. Significance levels: *** = 1 percent;
** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent.
The coefficients on ETIi and ETIj are both positive and highly
significantly different from zero, yet they differ in magnitude.
The impact on trade of the score achieved by exporting country
j is almost twice that of importing country i. Indeed, a one-point
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 11

Box 2: Regional performance in the Enabling Trade Index
An analysis of the performance of regional groupings from the to the region’s markets, in particular in Canada. Evidently the
Enabling Trade Index (ETI) sheds light on common characteris- infrastructure in both countries is world class, although security
tics across regions that help explain their performance in the measures in the United States put a significant burden on the
ETI and make it possible to interpret countries’ performances in country’s importers, as discussed in the country-level analysis
light of regional averages. The regional rankings shown in of this chapter.
Figure 1 demonstrate that North America, the European Union The East Asian NICs provide a success story on how to
(EU), and the East Asian newly industrializing countries (NICs) take advantage of the globalizing world economy to boost eco-
are the most advanced regions in terms of enabling trade nomic growth rates. Hong Kong and Singapore turned their
across borders. Although trade benefits countries at all stages small size and proximity to the large markets in Asia into a com-
of development and gains are likely to be higher if trade part- petitive advantage by developing regional trade and logistics
ners are more diverse, the ETI results show that less-developed hubs. Efficiently organized public administrations, as reflected
economies are not presently in a position to fully benefit from in the positive assessment of the border administration and the
the liberalization of trade policies that have taken place over wide range and high quality of available logistics services, con-
the past decades. Many obstacles remain in place in these tributed to this success, as did excellent infrastructure facilities
countries. One common hindrance to trade across less-devel- and an entrepreneur-friendly business environment.
oped regions is the poorly adapted transport and telecommuni- Over the past half century, the European Union has gone
cations infrastructure. In the context of the Doha Round of trade the furthest of all regional trading agreements worldwide in dis-
negotiations, which aim at increasing the participation of devel- mantling barriers to trade within its borders. This is reflected in
oping countries in global trade, these results call for investment its overall good performance in the ETI. It reduced border
in infrastructure and for an upgrading of trade facilitation mech- administration to a minimum, harmonized standards, and even
anisms. introduced a common currency. With this, the EU countries are
The average performance of the United States and some of the most open markets worldwide for merchandise
Canada receives the highest overall score on the ETI among the exports, although it must be noted that the region’s agricultural
regions shown. For many years, North America, one of the policy remains a significant hurdle for exporters from non-mem-
world’s largest markets, has been at the forefront of the trade ber countries.
liberalization process. This is reflected in the very open access 11
Figure 1: Regional rankings of the ETI

I Market access
I Border administration
7
I Transport and communications infrastructure
I Business environment
I Enabling Trade Index 2008
6
Enabling Trade Index score
0
US and East Asian EU27 Central and MENA Latin CIS and Sub- South Asia
Canada NICs Eastern America & Mongolia Saharan
Europe Caribbean Africa
(Cont’d.)
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 12
Box 2: Regional performance in the Enabling Trade Index (cont’d.)
In most Central and Eastern European countries, the The North African countries have instead chosen to pursue
process of accession to the European Union brought about sig- closer trade ties with the European Union. A particular success
nificant advantages for their trade performance, and although story is Israel, which within a short period of time radically
they perform less well than the top-performing regions shown in changed the country’s trade patterns by increasing the share of
the figure, they outperform most developing regions on the ETI. high-technology products in exports.
The desire to join the European Union provided a strong incen- In Latin America and the Caribbean, despite progress
tive to fulfill the accession criteria, which included liberalizing achieved in improving the business environment and liberalizing
trade and improving the business and regulatory environments.1 trade over the past years, the region has fallen behind the rest
At the same time, border administration was significantly of the world in terms of share in global trade in the second half
streamlined and infrastructure was upgraded. This allowed of the 20th century, as outlined in the World Trade Organization
these countries to exploit wage differentials and increase (WTO)’s International Trade Statistics (Figure 2). As the ETI
exports of goods to the European Union significantly, in great results underscore, underdeveloped infrastructure remains a
part by attracting export-oriented foreign direct investment. significant impediment to enhancing Latin America’s trade per-
Although the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region formance. In addition to poor infrastructure, many countries
groups a number of very diverse countries, many of them clus- need to further pursue trade liberalization in order to fully bene-
ter around the middle of the ETI ranking. Almost all of them fit from the positive effects of trade. In this respect, countries
remain relatively sheltered from international competition such as Costa Rica or, to a lesser extent, Chile could serve as
through tariff and non-tariff barriers, albeit at different levels. positive examples for the region.
Overall, because of their diversity, countries from the region Although countries of the Commonwealth of Independent
have pursued very different strategies of integration into the States (CIS) maintain close trade links with each other, they still
global economy; some countries have progressed with respect exhibit many obstacles that inhibit the flow of goods across bor-
to factors that enable trade more than others. The resource-rich ders, and their ETI scores are somewhat low on average. In
economies of the Gulf that built their wealth on hydrocarbon most of these countries, a thorough overhaul of public institu-
exports are now increasingly competing in global markets, in tions will be necessary to facilitate trade; upgrading institutions
particular in service sectors such as transportation and finance. will also contribute to improved overall economic performance.
12
Africa
Figure 2: World trade by region Asia
South and Central America
Middle East
Europe
60
North America
50
Share of total world trade
40
30
20
10
0
1948 1953 1963 1973 1983 1993 2003 2006
Source: WTO, 2007.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 13

Box 2: Regional performance in the Enabling Trade Index (cont’d.)
Trade in these countries is significantly hampered by inefficient

border administration, which is prone to corruption and makes
importing goods expensive and time consuming. The region’s
trade performance also suffers from its decaying transport
infrastructure, which, after many years of neglect and underin-
vestment, is in dire need of upgrading at all levels.
Sub-Saharan Africa is among the regions that have been
left behind in the globalization process over the past 50 years.
As Figure 2 shows, Africa’s share in world trade fell continually
throughout in the second half of the 20th century. A look at the
ETI results sheds some light on the reasons for this performance.
Sub-Saharan Africa has the poorest transport infrastructure
among all the regions assessed—on a scale of 1 to 7, the
region scores only a low 2.6. Investing resources obtained
from presently high-priced commodity exports in upgrading
infrastructure would help enhance the region’s benefits from
globalization.
South Asia closes the regional ranking. South Asia is not
only the weakest performer on the ETI among the regions
assessed, it is also the most sheltered by trade barriers. This
prevents the countries from further benefiting by expanding
merchandise trade, which could significantly enhance their
development. Additional competition would increase productivi-
ty and growth rates of the economy, thereby creating jobs and
reducing poverty in the longer term. In India, for example, the
liberalization process of the 1990s has resulted in double-digit 13
growth rates. Yet, although much progress has been achieved,
India remains one of the most protected countries worldwide
and much room for improvement remains in dismantling trade
barriers.
Source: WTO, 2007.

1 The requirement for liberalizing trade is true for most countries with the
notable exception of Estonia, which actually had a more liberal trade
regime than the European Union before joining.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 14
Table 1: The Enabling Trade Index 2008
SUBINDEXES
Hong Kong SAR 1 6.04 1 6.66 7 5.99 4 5.66 2 5.84

Singapore 2 5.71 27 4.99 1 6.51 7 5.53 3 5.82
Sweden 3 5.66 14 5.21 2 6.32 1 5.77 14 5.35
Norway 4 5.65 2 5.89 6 6.06 20 5.21 10 5.45
Canada 5 5.62 3 5.87 9 5.78 11 5.50 16 5.33
Denmark 6 5.62 15 5.15 5 6.10 10 5.51 5 5.70
Finland 7 5.61 19 5.08 4 6.15 18 5.29 1 5.92
Germany 8 5.58 9 5.34 15 5.57 5 5.66 4 5.74
Switzerland 9 5.58 5 5.65 12 5.69 14 5.39 7 5.58
New Zealand 10 5.52 7 5.41 3 6.16 21 5.09 11 5.42
Netherlands 11 5.51 18 5.10 8 5.98 2 5.73 17 5.22
Luxembourg 12 5.50 17 5.10 10 5.77 9 5.51 6 5.63
Japan 13 5.43 4 5.86 17 5.55 13 5.42 35 4.90
United States 14 5.42 6 5.65 21 5.29 3 5.66 25 5.08
Austria 15 5.42 13 5.22 16 5.57 12 5.43 9 5.45
United Kingdom 16 5.30 24 5.02 14 5.58 8 5.52 26 5.07
Australia 17 5.22 44 4.72 11 5.71 17 5.32 21 5.14
Belgium 18 5.21 16 5.12 25 5.23 16 5.33 20 5.16
France 19 5.20 20 5.08 26 5.21 6 5.54 31 4.98
Ireland 20 5.20 25 5.01 19 5.43 24 4.79 8 5.56
Taiwan, China 21 5.15 38 4.83 22 5.27 15 5.37 22 5.13
Spain 22 5.03 34 4.87 23 5.26 22 5.08 33 4.92
United Arab Emirates 23 4.96 50 4.50 27 5.18 23 4.80 15 5.34
Korea, Rep. 24 4.95 72 4.07 18 5.49 19 5.23 30 5.02
Estonia 25 4.89 47 4.66 13 5.63 29 4.51 39 4.76
Portugal 26 4.88 45 4.72 32 4.85 28 4.57 13 5.39
Chile 27 4.88 40 4.77 20 5.43 42 3.93 12 5.40
14 Israel 28 4.76 36 4.84 29 5.03 26 4.64 57 4.53
Malaysia 29 4.75 68 4.09 24 5.23 27 4.62 27 5.07
Slovak Republic 30 4.74 23 5.03 35 4.68 35 4.17 24 5.09
Slovenia 31 4.74 21 5.07 30 4.91 30 4.49 63 4.48
Czech Republic 32 4.70 33 4.94 31 4.86 34 4.18 38 4.84
Italy 33 4.70 30 4.97 38 4.58 25 4.68 54 4.57
Hungary 34 4.67 41 4.76 33 4.79 38 4.10 28 5.05
Lithuania 35 4.63 32 4.95 28 5.04 37 4.14 67 4.40
Greece 36 4.60 31 4.95 54 4.08 31 4.49 36 4.86
Bahrain 37 4.53 46 4.69 41 4.53 40 3.99 34 4.92
Turkey 38 4.53 8 5.40 47 4.28 44 3.79 50 4.64
Cyprus 39 4.50 49 4.51 44 4.37 32 4.41 41 4.72
Mauritius 40 4.50 11 5.29 42 4.53 56 3.50 43 4.69
Qatar 41 4.48 54 4.39 53 4.11 33 4.22 18 5.22
Croatia 42 4.45 12 5.24 52 4.15 43 3.89 56 4.54
Latvia 43 4.45 48 4.55 40 4.54 39 4.08 51 4.61
Costa Rica 44 4.41 10 5.32 49 4.22 66 3.26 37 4.86
Poland 45 4.35 42 4.73 37 4.62 46 3.70 73 4.35
Panama 46 4.28 59 4.27 39 4.54 48 3.65 47 4.66
Indonesia 47 4.27 22 5.03 63 3.96 74 3.13 32 4.97
China 48 4.25 71 4.07 43 4.51 36 4.15 77 4.28
Tunisia 49 4.23 88 3.57 34 4.73 53 3.53 23 5.11
Oman 50 4.22 35 4.85 60 4.04 57 3.50 60 4.51
Jordan 51 4.19 95 3.35 36 4.66 51 3.54 19 5.21
Thailand 52 4.18 62 4.25 56 4.07 41 3.93 61 4.49
Saudi Arabia 53 4.16 51 4.49 59 4.05 47 3.70 68 4.39
Guatemala 54 4.14 28 4.98 46 4.32 78 3.00 79 4.27
El Salvador 55 4.13 29 4.97 62 3.98 80 2.97 52 4.59
Uruguay 56 4.06 66 4.12 51 4.15 61 3.34 49 4.64
Romania 57 4.04 61 4.25 61 4.02 49 3.64 81 4.24
Kuwait 58 4.03 64 4.18 67 3.86 50 3.56 59 4.51
South Africa 59 3.98 67 4.10 50 4.21 45 3.74 99 3.87
Bulgaria 60 3.90 56 4.31 57 4.07 54 3.52 107 3.71
Armenia 61 3.90 43 4.73 87 3.28 77 3.00 53 4.59
Moldova 62 3.88 26 4.99 75 3.65 76 3.05 101 3.83
Dominican Republic 63 3.85 85 3.69 58 4.07 79 2.97 42 4.70
Honduras 64 3.83 63 4.22 77 3.60 92 2.84 45 4.67
Mexico 65 3.83 74 4.04 65 3.88 67 3.25 86 4.15
(Cont’d.)
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 15

Table 1: The Enabling Trade Index 2008 (cont’d.)
SUBINDEXES
Jamaica 66 3.80 90 3.46 68 3.85 55 3.52 70 4.37

Nicaragua 67 3.78 79 3.91 74 3.65 102 2.51 29 5.03
Ukraine 68 3.77 39 4.77 94 3.17 59 3.42 106 3.73
Peru 69 3.76 73 4.06 73 3.67 82 2.96 72 4.35
Sri Lanka 70 3.75 70 4.08 69 3.83 73 3.13 92 3.97
India 71 3.74 105 2.82 55 4.08 52 3.54 58 4.53
Kazakhstan 72 3.73 37 4.83 110 2.70 63 3.31 88 4.06
Albania 73 3.72 57 4.29 64 3.89 106 2.47 82 4.22
Morocco 74 3.71 110 2.58 45 4.32 68 3.20 40 4.74
Colombia 75 3.70 96 3.31 48 4.24 72 3.14 87 4.11
Azerbaijan 76 3.68 65 4.15 112 2.62 64 3.30 46 4.66
Namibia 77 3.66 78 3.93 79 3.59 71 3.17 94 3.95
Argentina 78 3.65 89 3.57 71 3.69 58 3.46 98 3.88
Uganda 79 3.63 58 4.27 90 3.26 93 2.75 80 4.25
Brazil 80 3.63 92 3.42 66 3.87 62 3.31 96 3.91
Macedonia, FYR 81 3.58 86 3.64 80 3.58 69 3.19 97 3.90
Philippines 82 3.57 80 3.86 82 3.54 83 2.95 95 3.93
Paraguay 83 3.54 60 4.27 81 3.55 99 2.59 103 3.76
Pakistan 84 3.54 98 3.20 78 3.59 70 3.18 83 4.20
Zambia 85 3.52 76 3.98 103 2.88 100 2.59 48 4.65
Kenya 86 3.51 55 4.32 95 3.13 90 2.86 105 3.73
Egypt 87 3.51 111 2.51 70 3.78 65 3.27 64 4.47
Madagascar 88 3.49 53 4.42 100 3.01 107 2.47 89 4.05
Bosnia and Herzegovina 89 3.47 97 3.29 72 3.68 86 2.91 90 3.98
Mali 90 3.42 75 4.01 111 2.68 109 2.44 55 4.54
Vietnam 91 3.42 112 2.50 76 3.60 75 3.08 62 4.48
Cameroon 92 3.42 87 3.58 84 3.43 112 2.37 78 4.28
Mongolia 93 3.38 69 4.08 113 2.58 87 2.89 91 3.98 15
Bolivia 94 3.36 84 3.70 83 3.44 96 2.70 110 3.62
Lesotho 95 3.36 52 4.45 99 3.03 115 2.25 108 3.71
Ecuador 96 3.36 77 3.98 105 2.81 85 2.94 109 3.70
Mauritania 97 3.34 93 3.39 102 2.95 98 2.62 66 4.41
Benin 98 3.34 94 3.36 89 3.27 101 2.57 85 4.16
Burkina Faso 99 3.33 82 3.82 106 2.76 110 2.40 74 4.35
Senegal 100 3.33 109 2.59 93 3.18 89 2.86 44 4.67
Mozambique 101 3.30 81 3.85 86 3.30 114 2.29 102 3.76
Tanzania 102 3.27 100 3.07 88 3.28 111 2.40 75 4.32
Russian Federation 103 3.25 99 3.11 92 3.20 60 3.35 114 3.35
Tajikistan 104 3.13 83 3.74 117 2.40 117 2.02 69 4.38
Uzbekistan 105 3.06 114 2.46 116 2.43 84 2.94 65 4.43
Ethiopia 106 3.06 116 2.15 96 3.12 97 2.69 76 4.29
Syria 107 3.05 117 2.04 98 3.04 94 2.74 71 4.36
Algeria 108 3.04 118 1.80 85 3.34 91 2.85 84 4.16
Kyrgyz Republic 109 3.03 102 2.95 104 2.84 88 2.88 113 3.44
Bangladesh 110 3.03 104 2.87 97 3.12 103 2.51 111 3.60
Nigeria 111 3.02 107 2.77 101 2.98 108 2.44 100 3.87
Zimbabwe 112 2.98 91 3.44 114 2.51 95 2.73 116 3.22
Cambodia 113 2.95 108 2.62 107 2.74 105 2.48 93 3.96
Guyana 114 2.95 113 2.48 91 3.24 104 2.51 112 3.56
Venezuela 115 2.85 103 2.91 115 2.49 81 2.96 117 3.05
Nepal 116 2.70 106 2.77 108 2.70 113 2.34 118 2.98
Burundi 117 2.70 115 2.20 109 2.70 116 2.14 104 3.74
Chad 118 2.60 101 3.03 118 2.16 118 1.93 115 3.30
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 16
Table 2: The Enabling Trade Index: Market access
PILLARS
Albania 57 4.29 13 5.72 104 2.86

Algeria 118 1.80 115 1.00 113 2.59
Argentina 89 3.57 102 2.60 45 4.54
Armenia 43 4.73 14 5.67 74 3.78
Australia 44 4.72 71 4.14 28 5.31
Austria 13 5.22 48 4.40 4 6.03
Azerbaijan 65 4.15 38 4.58 79 3.73
Bahrain 46 4.69 12 5.85 85 3.53
Bangladesh 104 2.87 97 2.96 108 2.79
Belgium 16 5.12 41 4.53 13 5.71
Benin 94 3.36 82 3.87 103 2.86
Bolivia 84 3.70 69 4.16 92 3.24
Brazil 92 3.42 98 2.88 68 3.96
Bulgaria 56 4.31 42 4.50 58 4.11
Burkina Faso 82 3.82 32 4.82 107 2.83
Burundi 115 2.20 106 2.34 118 2.06
Cambodia 108 2.62 103 2.50 112 2.74
Cameroon 87 3.58 79 3.99 95 3.17
Canada 3 5.87 2 6.10 17 5.64
Chad 101 3.03 81 3.94 117 2.12
Chile 40 4.77 49 4.38 31 5.16
China 71 4.07 90 3.33 40 4.82
Colombia 96 3.31 101 2.62 63 4.01
Costa Rica 10 5.32 10 5.92 42 4.72
Croatia 12 5.24 5 6.02 47 4.47
Cyprus 49 4.51 65 4.25 41 4.76
Czech Republic 33 4.94 64 4.27 19 5.61
16 Denmark 15 5.15 61 4.31 6 5.99
Ecuador 77 3.98 83 3.84 57 4.11
Egypt 111 2.51 115 1.00 61 4.03
El Salvador 29 4.97 24 5.44 46 4.51
Estonia 47 4.66 73 4.12 29 5.20
Ethiopia 116 2.15 109 2.04 116 2.26
Finland 19 5.08 63 4.28 7 5.88
France 20 5.08 56 4.35 10 5.81
Germany 9 5.34 60 4.33 1 6.36
Greece 31 4.95 35 4.71 30 5.20
Guatemala 28 4.98 22 5.51 48 4.45
Guyana 113 2.48 108 2.19 110 2.77
Honduras 63 4.22 45 4.43 62 4.01
Hong Kong SAR 1 6.66 1 7.00 2 6.33
Hungary 41 4.76 77 4.06 23 5.46
India 105 2.82 112 1.89 77 3.76
Indonesia 22 5.03 16 5.65 50 4.41
Ireland 25 5.01 62 4.29 12 5.73
Israel 36 4.84 27 5.24 49 4.44
Italy 30 4.97 43 4.47 22 5.47
Jamaica 90 3.46 86 3.43 86 3.50
Japan 4 5.86 6 5.95 11 5.78
Jordan 95 3.35 105 2.38 52 4.32
Kazakhstan 37 4.83 20 5.53 55 4.13
Kenya 55 4.32 80 3.97 43 4.67
Korea, Rep. 72 4.07 96 3.06 33 5.08
Kuwait 64 4.18 21 5.52 106 2.84
Kyrgyz Republic 102 2.95 107 2.30 83 3.61
Latvia 48 4.55 66 4.23 38 4.88
Lesotho 52 4.45 4 6.04 105 2.86
Lithuania 32 4.95 50 4.38 21 5.52
Luxembourg 17 5.10 37 4.64 20 5.57
Macedonia, FYR 86 3.64 91 3.32 69 3.95
Madagascar 53 4.42 26 5.25 84 3.60
Malaysia 68 4.09 93 3.25 36 4.93
Mali 75 4.01 33 4.79 93 3.22
(Cont’d.)
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 17

Table 2: The Enabling Trade Index: Market access (cont’d.)
PILLARS
Mauritania 93 3.39 84 3.81 102 2.96

Mauritius 11 5.29 9 5.93 44 4.65
Mexico 74 4.04 95 3.06 35 5.02
Moldova 26 4.99 3 6.06 70 3.92
Mongolia 69 4.08 30 5.01 97 3.15
Morocco 110 2.58 111 1.91 91 3.26
Mozambique 81 3.85 28 5.18 114 2.52
Namibia 78 3.93 40 4.56 90 3.29
Nepal 106 2.77 94 3.14 115 2.41
Netherlands 18 5.10 68 4.20 5 6.01
New Zealand 7 5.41 23 5.50 27 5.32
Nicaragua 79 3.91 78 4.02 73 3.80
Nigeria 107 2.77 113 1.80 78 3.74
Norway 2 5.89 7 5.94 9 5.83
Oman 35 4.85 15 5.66 60 4.03
Pakistan 98 3.20 87 3.40 100 3.01
Panama 59 4.27 31 4.92 81 3.63
Paraguay 60 4.27 39 4.57 67 3.98
Peru 73 4.06 74 4.11 64 4.00
Philippines 80 3.86 88 3.40 51 4.33
Poland 42 4.73 57 4.34 32 5.12
Portugal 45 4.72 54 4.36 34 5.08
Qatar 54 4.39 25 5.35 88 3.42
Romania 61 4.25 67 4.22 53 4.27
Saudi Arabia 51 4.49 17 5.63 89 3.35
Senegal 109 2.59 110 2.03 96 3.16
Singapore 27 4.99 75 4.10 8 5.88
Slovak Republic 23 5.03 52 4.38 16 5.67 17
Slovenia 21 5.07 44 4.43 14 5.71
South Africa 67 4.10 92 3.28 37 4.92
Spain 34 4.87 47 4.40 25 5.34
Sri Lanka 70 4.08 76 4.08 59 4.08
Sweden 14 5.21 53 4.37 3 6.05
Switzerland 5 5.65 11 5.91 24 5.39
Syria 117 2.04 115 1.00 99 3.09
Taiwan, China 38 4.83 59 4.33 26 5.33
Tajikistan 83 3.74 36 4.70 109 2.78
Tanzania 100 3.07 104 2.46 80 3.67
Thailand 62 4.25 58 4.34 54 4.15
Tunisia 88 3.57 89 3.38 76 3.76
Turkey 8 5.40 8 5.93 39 4.87
Uganda 58 4.27 34 4.78 75 3.77
Ukraine 39 4.77 19 5.55 65 4.00
United Kingdom 24 5.02 46 4.42 18 5.62
United States 6 5.65 18 5.61 15 5.68
Uruguay 66 4.12 72 4.12 56 4.12
Uzbekistan 114 2.46 115 1.00 71 3.92
Venezuela 103 2.91 100 2.64 94 3.18
Vietnam 112 2.50 114 1.02 66 3.99
Zambia 76 3.98 55 4.35 82 3.61
Zimbabwe 91 3.44 70 4.14 111 2.75
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 18
Table 3: The Enabling Trade Index: Border administration
PILLARS
Albania 64 3.89 58 3.76 67 4.41 70 3.49

Algeria 85 3.34 102 2.56 89 3.88 66 3.59
Argentina 71 3.69 60 3.70 69 4.36 96 3.01
Armenia 87 3.28 103 2.56 74 4.21 92 3.07
Australia 11 5.71 13 5.47 25 5.43 9 6.23
Austria 16 5.57 34 4.72 9 5.91 13 6.07
Azerbaijan 112 2.62 67 3.49 115 1.81 114 2.57
Bahrain 41 4.53 43 4.30 58 4.60 32 4.69
Bangladesh 97 3.12 78 3.17 86 3.96 118 2.22
Belgium 25 5.23 29 4.80 27 5.37 20 5.52
Benin 89 3.27 95 2.79 88 3.93 91 3.08
Bolivia 83 3.44 93 2.83 80 4.10 75 3.39
Brazil 66 3.87 73 3.28 61 4.55 58 3.78
Bulgaria 57 4.07 56 3.83 63 4.53 56 3.85
Burkina Faso 106 2.76 94 2.80 107 2.19 79 3.30
Burundi 109 2.70 97 2.74 112 2.00 76 3.37
Cambodia 107 2.74 110 2.30 98 3.62 117 2.30
Cameroon 84 3.43 68 3.48 82 4.07 109 2.73
Canada 9 5.78 12 5.53 18 5.64 10 6.18
Chad 118 2.16 116 2.00 110 2.06 116 2.41
Chile 20 5.43 17 5.35 30 5.24 18 5.69
China 43 4.51 39 4.49 28 5.33 62 3.73
Colombia 48 4.24 37 4.60 73 4.24 55 3.89
Costa Rica 49 4.22 65 3.57 53 4.72 42 4.37
Croatia 52 4.15 53 3.97 60 4.56 54 3.90
Cyprus 44 4.37 30 4.78 95 3.66 34 4.67
18 Czech Republic 31 4.86 23 5.03 37 5.07 38 4.47
Denmark 5 6.10 18 5.17 1 6.47 1 6.65
Ecuador 105 2.81 118 1.74 87 3.96 108 2.74
Egypt 70 3.78 84 3.07 49 4.82 71 3.45
El Salvador 62 3.98 72 3.32 64 4.49 49 4.13
Estonia 13 5.63 5 5.81 11 5.80 23 5.26
Ethiopia 96 3.12 82 3.09 104 2.99 80 3.29
Finland 4 6.15 7 5.73 6 6.09 3 6.64
France 26 5.21 40 4.48 23 5.52 19 5.63
Germany 15 5.57 32 4.77 7 5.99 15 5.95
Greece 54 4.08 87 3.02 46 4.87 43 4.36
Guatemala 46 4.32 19 5.16 81 4.09 63 3.72
Guyana 91 3.24 99 2.64 75 4.18 101 2.91
Honduras 77 3.60 77 3.20 77 4.17 74 3.42
Hong Kong SAR 7 5.99 10 5.59 4 6.29 12 6.09
Hungary 33 4.79 35 4.65 40 5.04 33 4.68
India 55 4.08 48 4.07 57 4.60 68 3.56
Indonesia 63 3.96 46 4.12 39 5.06 110 2.70
Ireland 19 5.43 33 4.73 13 5.78 17 5.78
Israel 29 5.03 44 4.16 15 5.70 25 5.23
Italy 38 4.58 47 4.09 32 5.19 40 4.46
Jamaica 68 3.85 66 3.50 56 4.61 72 3.45
Japan 17 5.55 20 5.15 14 5.71 16 5.79
Jordan 36 4.66 36 4.61 52 4.74 35 4.63
Kazakhstan 110 2.70 70 3.42 118 1.47 86 3.20
Kenya 95 3.13 89 2.96 97 3.63 105 2.80
Korea, Rep. 18 5.49 2 6.03 22 5.55 31 4.90
Kuwait 67 3.86 86 3.02 71 4.27 46 4.28
Kyrgyz Republic 104 2.84 52 3.98 113 1.90 113 2.63
Latvia 40 4.54 49 4.03 31 5.22 44 4.36
Lesotho 99 3.03 115 2.22 90 3.83 94 3.05
Lithuania 28 5.04 9 5.64 34 5.13 45 4.36
Luxembourg 10 5.77 15 5.36 12 5.79 11 6.16
Macedonia, FYR 80 3.58 106 2.49 59 4.58 65 3.66
Madagascar 100 3.01 114 2.22 100 3.46 77 3.35
Malaysia 24 5.23 11 5.57 21 5.58 37 4.54
Mali 111 2.68 100 2.63 109 2.14 83 3.26
(Cont’d.)
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 19

Table 3: The Enabling Trade Index: Border administration (cont’d.)
PILLARS
Mauritania 102 2.95 111 2.29 99 3.49 93 3.06

Mauritius 42 4.53 42 4.43 41 5.00 48 4.15
Mexico 65 3.88 63 3.66 76 4.18 57 3.82
Moldova 75 3.65 76 3.20 84 3.99 60 3.75
Mongolia 113 2.58 101 2.62 108 2.17 98 2.96
Morocco 45 4.32 27 4.98 72 4.25 61 3.73
Mozambique 86 3.30 90 2.93 94 3.76 87 3.20
Namibia 79 3.59 92 2.88 85 3.97 52 3.91
Nepal 108 2.70 117 1.92 101 3.37 103 2.83
Netherlands 8 5.98 6 5.73 8 5.92 7 6.29
New Zealand 3 6.16 3 6.01 10 5.81 2 6.65
Nicaragua 74 3.65 85 3.03 65 4.48 73 3.44
Nigeria 101 2.98 109 2.38 93 3.79 106 2.78
Norway 6 6.06 8 5.68 5 6.25 8 6.25
Oman 60 4.04 69 3.48 68 4.41 47 4.24
Pakistan 78 3.59 83 3.07 66 4.44 82 3.26
Panama 39 4.54 41 4.45 20 5.58 67 3.59
Paraguay 81 3.55 64 3.61 83 4.02 95 3.03
Peru 73 3.67 113 2.24 55 4.65 50 4.12
Philippines 82 3.54 88 2.97 48 4.85 104 2.81
Poland 37 4.62 28 4.82 35 5.13 53 3.90
Portugal 32 4.85 45 4.13 33 5.15 22 5.27
Qatar 53 4.11 51 4.00 102 3.16 27 5.17
Romania 61 4.02 74 3.28 38 5.06 64 3.71
Saudi Arabia 59 4.05 81 3.10 29 5.27 59 3.77
Senegal 93 3.18 96 2.77 96 3.64 89 3.14
Singapore 1 6.51 1 6.48 2 6.45 5 6.61 19
Slovak Republic 35 4.68 24 5.03 62 4.54 39 4.47
Slovenia 30 4.91 38 4.58 54 4.72 21 5.45
South Africa 50 4.21 57 3.76 70 4.33 36 4.54
Spain 23 5.26 14 5.42 36 5.11 24 5.24
Sri Lanka 69 3.83 71 3.37 45 4.88 84 3.24
Sweden 2 6.32 4 6.00 3 6.36 4 6.61
Switzerland 12 5.69 21 5.10 19 5.61 6 6.36
Syria 98 3.04 98 2.68 91 3.80 111 2.65
Taiwan, China 22 5.27 16 5.36 26 5.38 30 5.06
Tajikistan 117 2.40 104 2.51 117 1.75 100 2.93
Tanzania 88 3.28 107 2.47 78 4.15 85 3.21
Thailand 56 4.07 59 3.72 43 4.96 69 3.52
Tunisia 34 4.73 31 4.77 42 4.96 41 4.45
Turkey 47 4.28 55 3.90 44 4.93 51 4.00
Uganda 90 3.26 62 3.69 103 3.15 99 2.96
Ukraine 94 3.17 108 2.42 92 3.80 81 3.28
United Kingdom 14 5.58 22 5.07 17 5.65 14 6.00
United States 21 5.29 25 5.00 16 5.68 26 5.19
Uruguay 51 4.15 75 3.26 79 4.12 28 5.07
Uzbekistan 116 2.43 105 2.51 116 1.76 97 3.00
Venezuela 115 2.49 112 2.28 106 2.65 115 2.53
Vietnam 76 3.60 79 3.17 50 4.79 102 2.85
Zambia 103 2.88 54 3.95 111 2.04 112 2.64
Zimbabwe 114 2.51 91 2.90 114 1.88 107 2.76
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 20
Table 4: The Enabling Trade Index: Transport and communications infrastructure
PILLARS
Albania 106 2.47 102 2.78 118 2.29 81 2.33

Algeria 91 2.85 74 3.46 112 2.69 78 2.41
Argentina 58 3.46 80 3.36 51 3.80 49 3.21
Armenia 77 3.00 65 3.71 89 3.11 86 2.18
Australia 17 5.32 15 5.17 18 5.09 11 5.70
Austria 12 5.43 17 5.13 5 5.79 19 5.38
Azerbaijan 64 3.30 50 4.09 70 3.35 76 2.45
Bahrain 40 3.99 38 4.33 53 3.78 39 3.85
Bangladesh 103 2.51 99 2.81 94 3.00 109 1.72
Belgium 16 5.33 8 5.37 9 5.48 23 5.14
Benin 101 2.57 109 2.50 72 3.32 98 1.89
Bolivia 96 2.70 93 3.07 85 3.15 101 1.87
Brazil 62 3.31 91 3.12 42 3.94 56 2.88
Bulgaria 54 3.52 76 3.43 60 3.61 44 3.54
Burkina Faso 110 2.40 112 2.45 92 3.02 107 1.75
Burundi 116 2.14 116 2.00 104 2.88 116 1.56
Cambodia 105 2.48 98 2.81 101 2.94 112 1.69
Cameroon 112 2.37 113 2.44 103 2.88 105 1.79
Canada 11 5.50 3 5.75 15 5.20 14 5.55
Chad 118 1.93 118 1.70 114 2.57 117 1.54
Chile 42 3.93 45 4.14 38 4.16 45 3.48
China 36 4.15 36 4.42 17 5.10 55 2.92
Colombia 72 3.14 83 3.32 67 3.39 63 2.72
Costa Rica 66 3.26 68 3.65 88 3.12 52 3.01
Croatia 43 3.89 49 4.10 54 3.65 35 3.93
Cyprus 32 4.41 21 5.02 41 3.99 31 4.23
20 Czech Republic 34 4.18 43 4.17 44 3.92 29 4.44
Denmark 10 5.51 4 5.70 20 5.02 7 5.82
Ecuador 85 2.94 89 3.23 87 3.14 75 2.45
Egypt 65 3.27 57 3.89 56 3.64 82 2.29
El Salvador 80 2.97 94 3.00 68 3.37 73 2.52
Estonia 29 4.51 40 4.27 49 3.86 17 5.40
Ethiopia 97 2.69 82 3.33 79 3.22 118 1.52
Finland 18 5.29 5 5.55 25 4.91 16 5.41
France 6 5.54 2 5.81 10 5.42 18 5.38
Germany 5 5.66 9 5.31 2 6.08 13 5.58
Greece 31 4.49 24 4.92 28 4.62 36 3.92
Guatemala 78 3.00 84 3.31 84 3.15 72 2.53
Guyana 104 2.51 103 2.68 117 2.46 79 2.38
Honduras 92 2.84 70 3.57 105 2.86 90 2.09
Hong Kong SAR 4 5.66 14 5.18 4 5.96 6 5.84
Hungary 38 4.10 62 3.72 32 4.38 32 4.21
India 52 3.54 48 4.11 35 4.32 85 2.19
Indonesia 74 3.13 86 3.28 43 3.94 87 2.17
Ireland 24 4.79 28 4.63 26 4.90 26 4.84
Israel 26 4.64 39 4.29 33 4.35 20 5.28
Italy 25 4.68 51 4.07 21 5.02 24 4.97
Jamaica 55 3.52 52 4.06 99 2.95 43 3.56
Japan 13 5.42 23 4.98 7 5.75 15 5.54
Jordan 51 3.54 58 3.88 45 3.91 59 2.83
Kazakhstan 63 3.31 44 4.15 81 3.20 68 2.59
Kenya 90 2.86 78 3.41 86 3.14 93 2.03
Korea, Rep. 19 5.23 30 4.60 12 5.31 8 5.78
Kuwait 50 3.56 63 3.72 59 3.61 46 3.35
Kyrgyz Republic 88 2.88 69 3.62 78 3.24 104 1.80
Latvia 39 4.08 33 4.45 46 3.90 37 3.90
Lesotho 115 2.25 115 2.01 93 3.01 110 1.72
Lithuania 37 4.14 35 4.43 58 3.62 30 4.38
Luxembourg 9 5.51 7 5.42 23 5.01 2 6.12
Macedonia, FYR 69 3.19 85 3.30 61 3.56 62 2.72
Madagascar 107 2.47 97 2.86 110 2.74 102 1.80
Malaysia 27 4.62 22 5.00 14 5.21 41 3.64
Mali 109 2.44 114 2.23 73 3.32 106 1.78
(Cont’d.)
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 21

Table 4: The Enabling Trade Index: Transport and communications infrastructure (cont’d.)
PILLARS
Mauritania 98 2.62 110 2.45 76 3.26 88 2.16

Mauritius 56 3.50 32 4.53 96 3.00 54 2.99
Mexico 67 3.25 87 3.27 55 3.65 58 2.84
Moldova 76 3.05 79 3.39 77 3.25 74 2.50
Mongolia 87 2.89 66 3.69 95 3.00 95 1.99
Morocco 68 3.20 60 3.84 82 3.17 67 2.59
Mozambique 114 2.29 107 2.56 113 2.68 114 1.62
Namibia 71 3.17 27 4.75 111 2.73 92 2.03
Nepal 113 2.34 111 2.45 97 2.97 115 1.61
Netherlands 2 5.73 10 5.29 3 6.03 5 5.86
New Zealand 21 5.09 20 5.10 24 4.94 21 5.24
Nicaragua 102 2.51 96 2.89 107 2.76 100 1.88
Nigeria 108 2.44 105 2.57 106 2.82 97 1.94
Norway 20 5.21 12 5.22 27 4.81 12 5.61
Oman 57 3.50 46 4.13 52 3.80 69 2.57
Pakistan 70 3.18 53 3.99 63 3.51 91 2.05
Panama 48 3.65 26 4.76 57 3.63 70 2.56
Paraguay 99 2.59 101 2.80 100 2.94 94 2.03
Peru 82 2.96 92 3.08 69 3.36 77 2.43
Philippines 83 2.95 88 3.23 75 3.28 80 2.34
Poland 46 3.70 71 3.51 50 3.82 40 3.76
Portugal 28 4.57 34 4.43 29 4.59 28 4.68
Qatar 33 4.22 31 4.59 40 4.07 34 3.99
Romania 49 3.64 75 3.44 47 3.90 42 3.58
Saudi Arabia 47 3.70 55 3.95 39 4.15 53 2.99
Senegal 89 2.86 77 3.42 98 2.95 83 2.22
Singapore 7 5.53 13 5.21 1 6.17 22 5.22 21
Slovak Republic 35 4.17 42 4.22 31 4.42 38 3.86
Slovenia 30 4.49 37 4.36 36 4.23 25 4.88
South Africa 45 3.74 47 4.12 34 4.35 61 2.77
Spain 22 5.08 11 5.28 16 5.12 27 4.83
Sri Lanka 73 3.13 56 3.92 71 3.33 89 2.13
Sweden 1 5.77 1 5.89 13 5.27 1 6.16
Switzerland 14 5.39 18 5.11 22 5.01 3 6.04
Syria 94 2.74 72 3.50 116 2.53 84 2.19
Taiwan, China 15 5.37 25 4.80 11 5.36 4 5.96
Tajikistan 117 2.02 117 1.89 115 2.54 113 1.64
Tanzania 111 2.40 104 2.65 108 2.75 103 1.80
Thailand 41 3.93 29 4.62 30 4.47 64 2.70
Tunisia 53 3.53 41 4.27 64 3.51 60 2.81
Turkey 44 3.79 59 3.88 37 4.18 47 3.32
Uganda 93 2.75 90 3.13 65 3.41 111 1.70
Ukraine 59 3.42 67 3.65 66 3.40 48 3.22
United Kingdom 8 5.52 19 5.10 8 5.69 9 5.77
United States 3 5.66 6 5.53 6 5.75 10 5.71
Uruguay 61 3.34 61 3.77 83 3.15 51 3.10
Uzbekistan 84 2.94 54 3.95 102 2.89 96 1.99
Venezuela 81 2.96 95 3.00 91 3.03 57 2.85
Vietnam 75 3.08 100 2.81 48 3.89 71 2.54
Zambia 100 2.59 106 2.57 74 3.30 99 1.89
Zimbabwe 95 2.73 81 3.35 90 3.11 108 1.73
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 22
Table 5: The Enabling Trade Index: Business environment
PILLARS
Albania 82 4.22 73 4.26 78 4.19

Algeria 84 4.16 104 3.75 62 4.58
Argentina 98 3.88 87 4.11 98 3.64
Armenia 53 4.59 47 4.58 61 4.61
Australia 21 5.14 51 4.56 15 5.73
Austria 9 5.45 41 4.62 5 6.27
Azerbaijan 46 4.66 50 4.56 50 4.76
Bahrain 34 4.92 34 4.81 37 5.03
Bangladesh 111 3.60 90 4.08 112 3.13
Belgium 20 5.16 28 4.91 23 5.42
Benin 85 4.16 93 4.02 71 4.31
Bolivia 110 3.62 102 3.77 104 3.47
Brazil 96 3.91 70 4.28 101 3.54
Bulgaria 107 3.71 103 3.75 93 3.66
Burkina Faso 74 4.35 79 4.18 64 4.51
Burundi 104 3.74 107 3.73 86 3.76
Cambodia 93 3.96 74 4.24 90 3.69
Cameroon 78 4.28 63 4.36 77 4.20
Canada 16 5.33 23 5.02 18 5.64
Chad 115 3.30 110 3.68 115 2.91
Chile 12 5.40 12 5.38 25 5.41
China 77 4.28 84 4.13 67 4.44
Colombia 87 4.11 46 4.59 99 3.64
Costa Rica 37 4.86 7 5.43 74 4.29
Croatia 56 4.54 78 4.19 45 4.89
Cyprus 41 4.72 88 4.10 28 5.34
Czech Republic 38 4.84 26 4.96 52 4.72
22 Denmark 5 5.70 22 5.07 2 6.34
Ecuador 109 3.70 96 3.90 103 3.50
Egypt 64 4.47 72 4.27 59 4.66
El Salvador 52 4.59 1 5.87 110 3.31
Estonia 39 4.76 65 4.35 36 5.18
Ethiopia 76 4.29 95 3.91 57 4.67
Finland 1 5.92 19 5.18 1 6.66
France 31 4.98 56 4.47 21 5.50
Germany 4 5.74 18 5.18 3 6.31
Greece 36 4.86 57 4.44 30 5.29
Guatemala 79 4.27 4 5.60 114 2.94
Guyana 112 3.56 76 4.22 116 2.89
Honduras 45 4.67 3 5.61 88 3.73
Hong Kong SAR 2 5.84 9 5.40 4 6.28
Hungary 28 5.05 35 4.80 29 5.29
India 58 4.53 64 4.36 56 4.70
Indonesia 32 4.97 16 5.23 54 4.72
Ireland 8 5.56 5 5.58 19 5.54
Israel 57 4.53 52 4.56 65 4.51
Italy 54 4.57 67 4.32 48 4.81
Jamaica 70 4.37 8 5.41 109 3.34
Japan 35 4.90 61 4.39 26 5.41
Jordan 19 5.21 42 4.62 14 5.80
Kazakhstan 88 4.06 97 3.88 76 4.24
Kenya 105 3.73 85 4.12 108 3.34
Korea, Rep. 30 5.02 44 4.62 24 5.42
Kuwait 59 4.51 111 3.52 20 5.51
Kyrgyz Republic 113 3.44 113 3.46 106 3.41
Latvia 51 4.61 71 4.28 41 4.95
Lesotho 108 3.71 105 3.73 91 3.68
Lithuania 67 4.40 89 4.08 53 4.72
Luxembourg 6 5.63 11 5.39 10 5.87
Macedonia, FYR 97 3.90 106 3.73 80 4.07
Madagascar 89 4.05 92 4.06 83 4.03
Malaysia 27 5.07 36 4.77 27 5.37
Mali 55 4.54 69 4.30 49 4.79
(Cont’d.)
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 23

Table 5: The Enabling Trade Index: Business environment (cont’d.)
PILLARS
Mauritania 66 4.41 82 4.16 60 4.65

Mauritius 43 4.69 62 4.38 38 5.00
Mexico 86 4.15 31 4.88 105 3.42
Moldova 101 3.83 108 3.69 84 3.97
Mongolia 91 3.98 91 4.07 85 3.88
Morocco 40 4.74 55 4.49 39 4.99
Mozambique 102 3.76 94 3.99 102 3.52
Namibia 94 3.95 99 3.86 81 4.04
Nepal 118 2.98 116 3.14 117 2.82
Netherlands 17 5.22 24 4.99 22 5.46
New Zealand 11 5.42 25 4.96 11 5.87
Nicaragua 29 5.03 10 5.39 58 4.67
Nigeria 100 3.87 43 4.62 113 3.11
Norway 10 5.45 39 4.68 7 6.21
Oman 60 4.51 100 3.82 34 5.20
Pakistan 83 4.20 40 4.66 87 3.73
Panama 47 4.66 29 4.90 68 4.42
Paraguay 103 3.76 77 4.22 111 3.30
Peru 72 4.35 13 5.33 107 3.38
Philippines 95 3.93 81 4.17 89 3.70
Poland 73 4.35 58 4.43 75 4.27
Portugal 13 5.39 20 5.11 17 5.66
Qatar 18 5.22 48 4.57 12 5.86
Romania 81 4.24 80 4.18 72 4.31
Saudi Arabia 68 4.39 98 3.86 42 4.93
Senegal 44 4.67 54 4.51 47 4.83
Singapore 3 5.82 6 5.52 8 6.12
Slovak Republic 24 5.09 17 5.22 40 4.97 23
Slovenia 63 4.48 109 3.68 31 5.28
South Africa 99 3.87 86 4.12 100 3.62
Spain 33 4.92 45 4.60 32 5.25
Sri Lanka 92 3.97 68 4.30 97 3.64
Sweden 14 5.35 32 4.86 13 5.84
Switzerland 7 5.58 27 4.92 6 6.24
Syria 71 4.36 112 3.48 33 5.23
Taiwan, China 22 5.13 21 5.07 35 5.18
Tajikistan 69 4.38 59 4.40 70 4.36
Tanzania 75 4.32 66 4.34 73 4.30
Thailand 61 4.49 75 4.23 51 4.76
Tunisia 23 5.11 53 4.53 16 5.68
Turkey 50 4.64 49 4.57 55 4.70
Uganda 80 4.25 33 4.84 94 3.66
Ukraine 106 3.73 114 3.42 82 4.03
United Kingdom 26 5.07 14 5.24 44 4.90
United States 25 5.08 15 5.24 43 4.92
Uruguay 49 4.64 38 4.74 63 4.55
Uzbekistan 65 4.43 60 4.39 66 4.47
Venezuela 117 3.05 115 3.38 118 2.73
Vietnam 62 4.48 83 4.13 46 4.83
Zambia 48 4.65 30 4.88 69 4.42
Zimbabwe 116 3.22 118 2.78 92 3.67
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 24
openness to international trade and investment as part of is also reflected in the fairly high cost to import: the
their successful economic development strategy. Hong cost of importing goods is almost three times higher in
Kong’s positive result rests on very good results in all Japan than in Singapore, the best performer on this
four subindexes.The country’s very open market, mir- measure. Once goods are over the border, the country
roring a pro-trade attitude and a high dependence on features excellent infrastructure-related services, ranked
exports and imports as well as its secure and open busi- 7th for this indicator. In particular, postal and logistics
ness environment, contribute to this good result. Hong services stand out for their quality and efficiency.
Kong does not apply tariffs on imported products, and However, it must be noted that Japan’s overcrowded
the business environment is open to investment and for- roads and fairly low airport density negatively affect the
eign workers. At the same time, transport and telecom- environment for trade.
munications infrastructure is well developed and border Australia comes in 17th, with its good perform-
administration is efficient, although businesses express ance with respect to the efficiency of border administra-
some concerns about the level of corruption. tion, infrastructure, and business environment being off-
Compared with Hong Kong, Singapore boasts a set by high market barriers.The country applies tariffs
highly efficient and transparent border administration, an that are significantly higher than in many other coun-
equally open business environment, and well-developed tries at a similar level of development, placing Australia
transport and communications infrastructure. Customs at 86th position on this indicator. Lowering these tariffs
procedures are assessed as the least burdensome and the could contribute to boosting the country’s trade per-
cost of importing goods is the lowest among the coun- formance.
tries covered. However, access to Singapore’s market is Taiwan and Korea follow at 21st and 24th overall.
fairly difficult, as reflected in the 27th rank on the rele- Both economies boast very good infrastructures.
vant subindex. Although tariff rates remain very low, Infrastructure-related services are efficient and widely
access is hampered by non-tariff barriers (84th) and little available, and the use of ICTs is widespread, which
openness to multilateral trade rules.The country’s well- improves the connectivity of companies and the ability
developed transport infrastructure and excellent trans- to track consignments.Weaknesses in both economies
port services and improvements to the ICT infrastruc- include obstacles to market access and a business envi-
24 ture could further increase the ease of getting goods ronment that does not facilitate the entry of foreign
across borders in Singapore.The country’s excellent investment and labor.
business environment facilitates operations of traders Malaysia ranks a high 29th overall, the best-
through an investment regime that is open to FDI and performing country in developing Asia. Efficient border
hiring foreign labor, although more open bilateral Air administration, the low cost of importing goods, and
Service Agreements would be beneficial. manifold customs services facilitate imports. Improve-
New Zealand closes the top 10 at 10th position ments to the transparency of border administration
for countries from all regions. Its highly efficient and would further enhance this strength (the country is
transparent border administration contributes to this ranked 37th on this indicator). In terms of infrastructure,
good rating, as do the country’s low tariff and non-tariff Malaysia is well connected to the rest of the world, with
barriers. New Zealand applies low tariffs, and imports highly developed transport infrastructure and numerous
almost 80 percent of products duty-free.The country’s and efficient transport services available.The regulatory
business environment is characterized by high levels of environment is also conducive to trade through its
physical security and is fairly welcoming to foreign openness to foreign investment, labor, and air service
investment, although obstacles persist with respect to providers. Improving the usage of the latest technologies
hiring foreign labor. Upgrading the quality of infrastruc- would further allow Malaysian entrepreneurs to raise the
ture, in particular roads and railroads, will be necessary efficiency of their import and export operations.
to further facilitate the flow of goods to destinations in China occupies the 48th position.This fairly low
the country. position for one of the world’s most successful exporters
Japan occupies the 13th position in the ETI highlights a number of underlying weaknesses in China’s
ranking. Free market access and the export orientation economy and its trading regime. Above all, China is a
of local companies contribute to this rating, along with fairly closed country. Although its economic success
the excellent physical security environment in the coun- relies heavily on exports, imports are still severely inhib-
try. At the same time, some aspects of the regulatory ited by tariff and non-tariff barriers, despite the country’s
environment are not conducive to enabling trade, in accession to the WTO.The country ranks 108th out of
particular laws that do not encourage FDI and legal 118 economies on tariff barriers, which amount to
obstacles to hiring foreign labor. Although Japan is a almost 15 percent.The country’s border administration
very export-oriented economy, imports of goods appear is fairly efficient; importing products is not costly,
to be hampered by administrative procedures. In partic- although it can be quite time-consuming. A particular
ular, businesses consider customs procedures to be some- concern when exporting and importing is the lack of
what cumbersome, which are ranked 38th overall.This transparency of border administration, which can be
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 25

particularly heavy for foreign businesses. Because of for example, few days and documents to import goods
large export volumes, the country is well connected to into the country.With regard to market access, Sweden
international markets, yet its transport infrastructure is has few tariffs, as is the case of other EU countries, plac-
not on a par with the world’s best. Above all, airport ing it 3rd, although the country does impose significant
density and the quality of air transport infrastructure are non-tariff barriers (ranked lower at 64th). More general-
fairly low.The quality and availability of transport serv- ly, Sweden demonstrates a very strong proclivity to
ices, however, are among the best in the world, ranked trade, ranked 3rd out of all countries.
17th overall. Improvements to the regulatory and securi- Norway, ranked 4th, demonstrates its greatest
ty environment would further enable trade. In particu- strengths in two areas: market access and border admin-
lar, greater encouragement of FDI and more openness istration. Norway is ranked 2nd out of all countries for
to foreign air transport service providers would help. the ease of access into the country’s market, with low
Further down the rankings we find India, at 71st non-tariff barriers, a high share of duty-free imports
place. India’s weak position reflects a mixed performance allowed into the country, and demonstrated openness
on the four pillars of the ETI.While it boasts fairly to multilateral trade rules through its participation in
good border administration and an acceptable business many trade-related international agreements. As well as
environment, market access continues to be severely allowing goods easy access into the market, Norway also
restricted. Indeed, India ranks 105th on the relevant ensures that the goods make it over the border with
component with, unlike most other countries, tariff bar- little hassle.The efficiency and transparency of its border
riers representing a more serious impediment than non- administration are both ranked 8th, and the procedures
tariff barriers. Only a small share of goods is imported required to import are so efficient as to place the
duty-free. country 5th. In addition, the business environment in
India’s border administration meets many needs of the country is also in the top 10, a ranking particularly
importers and exporters. Ranked 55th on this indicator, related to the high levels of physical security in the
a vast number of customs-related services are available in country that ensure the safe arrival of goods to
India and clearance entails low pecuniary costs, although destination.
it is time-consuming. Border administration continues Canada is the top-ranked North American country
to be affected by corrupt practices, however, hampering at 5th, ahead of the United States by 9 ranks. Canada is 25
an efficient transport of goods across borders.Trade- ranked 3rd overall for its market access, with tariffs that
related infrastructure and the relevant services are equal- are not significantly higher than in the European
ly fairly well developed in India, ranking 52nd in the Union’s, relatively low non-tariff barriers, and a high
overall sample. However, although the country is well share of duty-free imports allowed into the country.
connected through maritime routes, it needs more air- Canada’s border administration is also among the top 10,
ports and high-quality roads. India’s business environ- with efficient clearance procedures and few documents
ment is in line with the country’s overall assessment, required to import, as well as high levels of transparency
with the regulatory environment ranked 64th and secu- in the border administration’s activities. In addition,
rity assessed at 56th among the countries assessed. Canada is ranked 3rd for the availability and quality of
Most other countries from Asia and the Pacific rank its transport infrastructure, facilitating the movement of
in the lower part of the Index, and the regional ranking goods to market once they are allowed over the border.
closes with Bangladesh at 110th and Nepal at 116th. Denmark is ranked 6th. In addition to its low tar-
iffs, the country also benefits from an excellent border
Europe and North America administration, with import-export procedures that are
Within Europe, the Nordic countries stand out at the so efficient as to place the country 1st in this category.
very top of the rankings, with Sweden the top-ranked The transparency of the border administration is also
country at 3rd, followed closely by Norway, Denmark, ranked 1st, with extremely low levels of trade-related
and Finland at 4th, 6th, and 7th, respectively. Canada corruption. In addition, Denmark has excellent transport
joins the top ranks at 5th, while the United States is infrastructure (ranked 4th) and strong communications
ranked a bit lower than its northern neighbor, at 14th infrastructure (ranked 7th).The country also benefits
place. from very high levels of physical security, ranked 2nd
Sweden receives top marks for its transport and overall in this category, with low levels of crime and
communications infrastructure, where it is ranked 1st violence and a very reliable police force.
out of all 118 countries. Sweden has high-quality trans- The main strength of Finland, ranked 7th just after
port infrastructure and excellent transport services, and Denmark, is its business environment, which is ranked
the country has fully harnessed the use of ICTs so 1st out of all countries covered.The country benefits
important for the logistics and transport industry. from rules fostering foreign ownership and greater ease
Sweden’s border administration is ranked 2nd, attributa- in hiring foreign labor than in many other European
ble to its high efficiency and transparency, with customs countries, as well as an excellent security environment.
procedures that are not overly burdensome, requiring, Like the other Nordic countries, Finland’s border
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 26
administration also gets top marks, with customs proce- barriers are high enough to place the country 58th. In
dures that are not burdensome and a particularly low addition, while elements of the business environment
cost to import, perhaps explaining the high transparency are conducive to moving goods over borders, with rules
and low level of corruption related to its border admin- encouraging FDI and allowing for the employment of
istration (ranked 3rd). foreign labor, there are some concerns. Bilateral Air
Germany and Switzerland round out the Service Agreements could be more open (ranked 35th),
European countries in the top 10, ranking 8th and 9th, and there are some safety and security concerns in the
respectively. Germany benefits from an excellent busi- country, particularly compared with the best-performing
ness environment (ranked 4th), with a regulatory envi- European countries.
ronment that is conducive to the functioning of the France is ranked 19th.The country’s greatest
logistics and transport industry, and an excellent security strength is its transport infrastructure quality (ranked
environment for businesses operating in the country. 2nd), with its excellent roads, railroads, ports, and air
The transport and communications infrastructure is also transport infrastructure.The country also shows a strong
among the best in the world, with transport services in proclivity to trade (ranked 10th), with a large share of
particular ranked 2nd out of all countries: the logistics imports allowed duty-free into the country and demon-
industry gets excellent marks for competence (ranked strated openness to multilateral trade rules, although
4th), shipping is easy and affordable (also ranked 4th), non-tariff barriers are non-negligible (66th).The coun-
and its postal service is among the best in the world try’s border administration, while ranked among the top
(ranked 3rd). 20, is seen as somewhat less efficient and transparent
Switzerland gets particularly good marks for mar- than Europe’s leaders, with more time and cost to
ket access (ranked 5th). Although its tariffs overall are import than many other countries. France’s regulatory
slightly higher than those of EU countries, mainly environment is an additional hindrance to the cross-bor-
because of higher tariffs on agricultural goods,39 its non- der flow of goods, with bilateral Air Service Agreements
tariff barriers are comparatively low. As with the Nordic that are not deemed open (66th), some restrictions on
countries, Switzerland’s security environment is also FDI (47th), and difficulties in hiring foreign labor in the
excellent, and it benefits from a supportive regulatory country (76th).
26 environment, with open bilateral Air Service Estonia is the highest-ranked recent accession
Agreements and a relative ease of hiring foreign labor, country to the European Union, at 25th. Most notable
especially compared with several other European coun- is the efficiency of the country’s border administration
tries. Switzerland’s border administration also gets good (5th) and of its specific import-export procedures
marks, particularly for its transparency and lack of cor- (11th), with little time, cost, and hassle for importing
ruption (ranked 6th). goods.The country’s communications infrastructure
The United States is ranked 14th.The country compares well with that of its peers, although the trans-
benefits from its transport and communications infra- portation infrastructure and provided services could be
structure, which is among the best in the world (ranked improved.The picture in terms of market access is
3rd). It also offers good market access (ranked 6th), with somewhat mixed, with low tariffs in line with EU rates
relatively low tariffs and non-tariff barriers and a strong (although higher than those that existed pre-EU-acces-
propensity to trade, as demonstrated by its relative open- sion) and a high share of duty-free imports allowed into
ness to multilateral trade rules. On the other hand, the the country, but high non-tariff barriers (80th).
country’s border administration is seen as lacking some Italy, at 33rd, is ranked lowest of the pre-2004
efficiency. For example, customs procedures are seen as accession EU15 countries, bar Greece, and lowest of the
comparatively burdensome (ranked 42nd), and there is a G7 group of rich economies.The country compares rel-
relatively high cost to import (ranked 65th). In addition, atively well in terms of market access with its peers, and
there are some concerns about security in the country. benefits from relatively good transport services (21st).
The United Kingdom is ranked 16th.The coun- On the other hand, the transportation infrastructure
try is endowed with a comparatively good transport and requires upgrading (51st), and border administration
communications infrastructure (ranked 8th), particularly could also be improved (38th), particularly by reducing
related to the quality of its transport services. Its border the time and cost to import and improving its trans-
administration gets relatively good marks (ranked 14th), parency (40th).The greatest obstacles lie in the business
with low levels of trade-related corruption, clearance environment, particularly regulatory impediments to
perceived to be relatively efficient (13th), and few docu- foreign direct investment (100th) and foreign ownership
ments required to import (3rd), although it is somewhat (93rd), as well as some concerns about safety and securi-
costly (77th) and requires more time than in several ty in the country (48th).
European countries (27th). Its evaluation in the area of Turkey is ranked close behind Italy and Greece at
market access is mixed: while it exhibits the same low 38th, and ahead of several countries that have recently
tariffs as other EU countries and allows a large share of joined the European Union.Turkey affords good market
exports over the border duty-free (11th), its non-tariff access (8th) with notably lower non-tariff barriers than
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 27

is found in most EU countries. On the other hand, the Index. Costa Rica stands out for its openness to
country’s transport and communications infrastructure is imports, with both tariff and non-tariff barriers being
less developed than in most European countries, and its relatively low.The country’s border administration is
border administration is rated as comparatively ineffi- quite efficient and transparent, although customs proce-
cient (55th) and lacking transparency (51st). In addition, dures are considered to be somewhat burdensome,
the regulatory environment could be more conducive to which is also reflected in the fairly long time it takes to
the cross-border flow of goods with more supportive import goods.The country’s weak spot is its underdevel-
policies encouraging FDI and less restrictive policies on oped transport infrastructure and related services. Here,
the hiring of foreign labor. in particular, the quality of transport infrastructure, rail-
Russia, at 103rd, is the lowest-ranked European roads, roads, and ports are poorly assessed by the business
country by a wide margin, trailing the nearest-ranked community.The country’s regulatory environment for
large emerging market “BRIC” country, Brazil, by 23 importers is among the top 10 in the world, with open
places. Russia’s main comparative strength is its trans- bilateral Air Service Agreements and policies encourag-
portation and communications infrastructure (60th), ing foreign investment, yet the relatively high levels of
although by international standards it requires significant crime and violence are potentially problematic for get-
upgrading.The country impedes access to the market ting goods to destination in the country.
with very high tariffs (100th), and allows only a small Costa Rica is followed by a number of Central
share of goods to enter the market duty-free (95th).The American and Caribbean countries that cluster closely
country’s border administration receives poor marks together in the middle ranking, ranging from Panama
(92nd), requiring much time and cost to import and in 46th position to the Dominican Republic and
lacking transparency. In addition, Russia’s regulatory Honduras at 63rd and 64th, respectively. Efficient bor-
environment is one of the least conducive to cross-border administration contributes to the good showing of
der trade out of all countries (ranked second to last, at Panama, but investment in infrastructure and the use of
117th), and physical security in the country remains a ICTs would improve the ease of getting goods across
serious concern (96th), particularly by European stan- borders in the region.
dards. Attention to these areas is warranted to improve Mexico, which occupies the 65th position, shows
the cross-border flow of goods into the country. even results across all four subindexes of the ETI. 27
Market access is hampered by a fairly high tariff rate of
Latin America and the Caribbean about 11 percent. At the same time, however, this is
Chile leads the ranking in Latin America, coming in at levied on only about 20 percent of all imported products,
27th position, and is ahead, by a wide margin, of second- with the large majority imported duty-free.This points
ranked Costa Rica at 44th. Overall, the large Latin to a certain openness to international trade, which is
American countries are to be found toward the lower also reflected in the large number of bilateral trade
part of the ranking, while many of the smaller countries agreements and multilateral trade-related treaties signed
occupy positions in the middle. by the country. On the other hand, the country’s border
Part of Chile’s economic success can be attributed administration could be streamlined (ranked 65th over-
to trade liberalization and improvements to the business all). It is also very costly to import goods—moving one
environment made in recent years; this is reflected in the container over the border costs seven times more than
country’s good results on the ETI. It has also laid the in the best-performing country on this indicator,
foundations for Chile’s export success. Border administra- Singapore. Although the country does not boast a high-
tion is efficiently organized and corruption in related quality transport infrastructure (of concern given
agencies is under control. At the same time, the country Mexico’s large size), infrastructure-related services as
boasts a favorable business environment, open to FDI well as the telecommunications infrastructure are fairly
and hiring foreign labor.The country’s weaknesses are to well developed. And Mexico’s regulatory environment is
be found in the market access component and with somewhat conducive to cross-border trade, with, in par-
respect to the transport and telecommunications infra- ticular, its rules encouraging foreign ownership. However,
structure. Imports continue to be burdened with tariffs the lack of security in the country is of significant con-
and non-tariff barriers, and although tariffs are not high cern, as it may cause additional costs to shippers.
in absolute terms, they apply to most imported prod- Argentina follows, at 78th position.The country’s
ucts, or 69 percent of the total. In addition, the country’s particular strengths lie in relatively high proclivity to
infrastructure facilities are in need of upgrading. In par- trade, and in fairly efficient import-export procedures.
ticular, the country’s roads do not get good marks for Despite these positive aspects, importing remains relatively
quality, and the availability and quality of infrastructure- costly, thereby hindering trade. Increasing transparency
related services could be enhanced. in institutions related to border administration would
Costa Rica is at 44th, the second-ranked country further facilitate trade operations and reduce the cost of
in Latin America.The overall rank disguises a mixed trading across borders. Infrastructure services are widely
performance on the four categories assessed by the available and telecommunications infrastructure is well
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 28
developed, two factors that facilitate trade in Argentina. trade on the country’s agenda, as witnessed by the very
The low level of physical security, however, where small portion of imports that enters the country duty-
Argentina ranks 112th out of 118 countries, is a major free. Here, the UAE ranks 107th out of 118 economies.
impediment to enhancing the country’s trade perform- At 28th, Israel places 2nd in the Middle East and
ance. Equally, the regulatory environment—in particular, North Africa region, between two countries that have
FDI-related regulations—are not conducive to moving successfully harnessed trade for development, Chile and
goods across borders. Malaysia.With its high-quality infrastructure, firmly
Just two positions further down the rankings is organized border administration, and intensive use of
Brazil, at 80th position. Brazil’s markets continue to be ICTs, the country presents a number of important
fairly closed, with tariffs and, to a lesser extent, also non- advantages. It is a fairly open economy, with companies
tariff barriers inhibiting goods imports.The country’s serving broad international markets and 80 percent of
border administration is assessed fairly favorably, at 66th imports allowed into the country duty-free (8th rank).
position, although businesses complain that customs pro- At the same time, Israel’s trade performance could bene-
cedures are burdensome. And although transport infra- fit from improvements to the business environment,
structure—in particular, railroads, roads, and ports—is which, although open to foreign businesses, is penalized
fairly underdeveloped, which is not surprising for a by the vulnerable security situation and barriers to hir-
country of Brazil’s level of development, the logistics ing foreign labor.
industry is well assessed in terms of competence and Bahrain, at 37th position, right behind Greece and
reliability. Equally, telecommunications infrastructure is ahead of Turkey and Cyprus, is the third-placed country
relatively widely available and used.The country boasts from the region. Although Bahrain is fairly open to for-
an open and competitive air transport sector. However, eign investment and boasts a fairly good business envi-
as in other countries in the region, a significant impedi- ronment, the country remains, despite its small size, rela-
ment to fostering trade across borders remains the poor tively protected from international competition through
security situation in the country. tariffs.The low share of duty-free imports and the reluc-
tance to engage in multilateral trade rules coupled with
Middle East and North Africa low reliance on export markets points to a low priority
28 The economically very diverse economies of the Middle that is attached to trade by the authorities. In particular,
East and North Africa display varying degrees of success opening up the country to imports would provide sig-
in enabling trade, yet, as the ETI results confirm, most of nificant benefits—the increased competition would
them forego significant benefits from trade because of make the economy more productive, thereby reducing
the high level of protection from international competi- reliance on primary resources and boosting growth
tion.The countries in the region are spread out across rates.
almost the entire ETI ranking, with the United Arab Tunisia comes in 49th on the ETI, with high
Emirates leading at 23rd, followed by Israel and Bahrain marks on the business environment and a fairly efficient
at 28th and 37th, respectively.Tunisia, as the best-per- border administration.Yet the country’s markets remain
forming North African country, comes in at 49th posi- sheltered from international competition, with some of
tion, significantly ahead of neighboring Algeria, which is the highest tariff barriers in the entire sample, ranked
the weakest performer in the region at 108th. 114th out of 118 countries. At the same time,Tunisia’s
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) comes in at border administration is fairly efficient and its business
23rd position globally, right after Spain and ahead of environment is secure, although additional opening up
Korea and Estonia.This very good result at the global to FDI and labor migration would benefit the country’s
level is not surprising when one considers the impres- trade performance. Equally, investment in infrastructure
sive development of Dubai over recent years into the and the use of ICTs would further enable the country
most important transport and logistics hub in the to take advantage of the benefits of trade.
region, and the UAE has made significant efforts to Saudi Arabia ranks 53rd and shows a fairly even
improve the business environment for the transport and performance across all the four subindexes of the ETI.
logistics sector.The good results in the ETI testify to the Although Saudi Arabia has very low non-tariff barriers,
world-class transport infrastructure (23rd), very good tariffs are somewhat higher and levied on 81 percent of
infrastructure-related services, and a conducive and all imports, which corresponds to a low 96th rank glob-
secure business environment, characterized in particular ally on this category.The country, which just recently
by its ease of hiring foreign labor.The most important acceded to the WTO, ratified only a small share of the
obstacle to trading across borders in the UAE remains relevant multilateral trading agreements. And although
the restricted access to the country’s goods markets formal administrative procedures for importing are fairly
through pervasive tariffs.40 This is reflected in the fairly easy, the overall efficiency of border agencies is not on a
low 50th rank out of 118 countries on the market par with international standards. Improvements to the
access pillar of the ETI.This high incidence of trade business environment would also benefit traders, in par-
barriers appears to be rooted in the low standing of ticular regarding regulations related to FDI, which
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 29

appear to deter international businesses from engaging by high tariffs (80th). Further, its border administration
in the country. is characterized by inefficiencies (92nd) and some trade-
Egypt ranks a low 87th for the ease of getting related corruption (74th). In addition, similar to South
goods across the border.The country’s relative strengths Africa, the regulatory environment does not foster the
include a fairly conducive business environment, espe- movement of goods over borders (99th) and physical
cially with regard to the ease of hiring foreign labor and security remains an area of concern (81st), albeit to a
the fairly well developed transport infrastructure, includ- lesser degree than in South Africa.
ing the associated services. Egypt stands out positively Uganda, ranked 4th in the region at 79th, follows
for its maritime connectivity and the related services, closely behind Namibia, but with quite a different pro-
where it ranks in the top 20, as well as for the quality of file. Uganda’s main comparative strength is in its regula-
its roads. Although importing goods is neither costly nor tory environment (33rd), with rules encouraging FDI
time consuming, importers raise concerns about the and the ease of hiring foreign labor. Uganda is also
efficiency of customs and other border agencies.The characterized by higher levels of market access (58th).
high tariffs, which apply to 70 percent of all imported Although it imposes high tariffs, non-tariff barriers are
goods, as well as the tariff barriers, constitute the most so low as to place the country 1st on this indicator. In
important impediments to enabling trade in Egypt. addition, the country allows the entry of some imports
duty-free (58th).The country’s border administration is
Sub-Saharan Africa also somewhat efficient by regional standards (62nd),
Mauritius is the highest-ranked country in the sub- although the cost for importing remains very high. On
Saharan African region, at 40th, ahead of some EU the other hand, unlike Namibia, the country’s trans-
countries and all of the BRICs. As one might expect of portation infrastructure is comparatively underdeveloped
a small, open economy, Mauritius ensures a high level of (90th). And like most other countries in the region,
market access (11th), with low tariffs and particularly security concerns remain an obstacle.
low non-tariff barriers, and allows a large share of duty- Kenya is ranked 86th overall. Similar to Uganda,
free imports into the country.The country also has a Kenya demonstrates good market access by regional
well-rated border administration, with relatively little standards (55th), with a high share of duty-free imports
time, cost, and hassle related to getting goods over the (43rd) and relative openness to multilateral trade rules 29
border. In addition, levels of security in the country (56th). On the other hand, once goods are allowed in
are good, particularly by regional standards. And while the country, the border administration is characterized
the country’s transportation and communications infra- by inefficiencies and a lack of transparency, and the
structure compares well with those of other countries in country’s transport and communications infrastructure is
the region, this remains the main area for improvement, quite underdeveloped (90th).The greatest concerns in
particularly with regard to upgrading transportation the country are related to the security situation, ranked
services. 108th overall, increasing the difficulty of getting goods
South Africa is ranked 2nd in the region at 59th, to destinations.
the only other sub-Saharan country in the top half of Most other sub-Saharan African countries share
the rankings. Contrary to Mauritius, South Africa’s main similar profiles, with governments often imposing vari-
strength as measured by the Index is its transport and ous obstacles to market access, and with inefficiencies at
communications infrastructure (45th), particularly attrib- the borders making the entry of goods into the country
utable to the quality of air transport and roads, as well as difficult.This is compounded by transport and commu-
the comparatively high quality of transport services in nications infrastructure underdeveloped by international
the country (34th).The country’s border administration standards, and significant concerns related to corruption
is seen as somewhat inefficient (57th), although it is as well as safety and security, complicating the ability to
characterized by relative transparency (36th). Market get the goods to destination. Efforts to improve these
access proves a bit more difficult (67th), with relatively areas would greatly facilitate the movement of goods
high tariffs and non-tariff barriers. However, the main over national borders in countries of the region.
area of concerns relate to the regulatory environment,
which is not entirely conducive to cross-border trade
(86th), as well as serious concerns about safety levels in Conclusions
the country (100th) related to the high cost of crime This chapter has introduced a new comprehensive
and violence for businesses in the country. index, the Enabling Trade Index (ETI), aimed at bench-
Namibia follows South Africa in the regional marking the extent to which countries have in place the
rankings, at 77th overall. Namibia’s main strength lies in necessary factors, policies, and services for enabling the
the quality and availability of its transport infrastructure flow of goods over borders and to destination.The ETI
(27th), particularly the quality of its roads and railroads, covers 118 economies spanning all regions of the world.
although transport services remain limited in the coun- The results have shown that, on average, high-income
try. On the other hand, market access remains impeded countries tend to do well in the overall rankings, a ten-
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 30
dency that is generally attributable to their more-devel- 4 Rogers and Smith 2001.
oped institutional and infrastructure environments.We 5 Rogoff 1996.

also note a tendency for small economies to rank high- 6 Haskal and Wolf 2001.
er, not surprising given the importance of trade for their 7 Bradford and Lawrence 2004.
overall economic performance.Yet performance remains
8 Disdier and Head 2008. They survey 1,051 estimates of distance
varied, with some countries doing much more than coefficients and find the mean distance effect is 0.893 and the
others to enable the free flow of trade over their borders. median is 0.85. This means that doubling the distance between
two trading partners will reduce their trade by almost 90 per-
Overall, it is clear that despite the great benefits cent—a remarkably powerful effect.
of trade, many policy and other obstacles continue to
9 See Hummels 2007, pp. 131–54.
hinder its movement over borders in many countries.
10 See Disdier and Head 2008.
Accordingly, our analysis provides support for the
11 Lindert and Williamson 2003.
emphasis on complementing negotiations to reduce trade
barriers with cooperation on trade facilitation. One of 12 Clark et al. 2004.
the more controversial issues in the Doha Round is 13 Limao and Venables 2001.
related to the inclusion of the so-called Singapore Issues 14 Being landlocked and far away from major markets has a signifi-
(Competition, Investment,Transparency in Government cant impact on economic development. See for example, Gallup
et al. 1999.
Procurement, and Trade Facilitation). In the aftermath of
15 Rauch 1999.
the ill-fated Cancun Ministerial Conference, it was
determined that the necessary consensus to introduce 16 Djankov et al. 2006.
three of these issues was not present. However, the 17 Hummels 2007.
fourth issue—Trade Facilitation—was included in the 18 Evans and Harrigan 2005.
negotiations, and has featured prominently.The analysis 19 McCallum1995.
in this Report provides considerable support for this
20 In a study grounded in rigorous theory, Anderson and van
decision. It suggests that agreements on trade facilitation Wincoop (2003) find that national borders reduce trade between
are a vital complement to agreements on reducing for- industrialized countries by amounts of between 20 and 50 percent.
mal trade barriers and trade-distorting measures. Indeed, 21 Messerlin and Zarrouk 2000.
30 an agreement on trade facilitation could be one of the 22 Huang and Whalley 2006.
most consequential achievements of a completed Doha 23 Sadikov 2007.
Round.
24 Anderson and Marcouiller 2002.
We hope that, by providing an objective account of
25 Blomberg and Hess 2006.
the factors enabling trade across borders, the findings of
our research will enhance dialogue between private and 26 Gani and Prasad 2006.
public sectors and will thereby contribute to reducing 27 Levchenko (2007) builds on the literature of incomplete contracts
to argue that institutional quality also affects the composition of
obstacles to trade for the benefit of economic growth trade.
and development.
28 Anderson and van Wincoop 2004.
29 Wilson et al. 2004.
Notes 30 Hummels finds that these characteristics explain more variation in

shipping prices than do conventional proxies such as distance,
1 Kenichi 1991; Friedman 2005; Cairncross 1997.
and significantly contribute to the higher shipping prices facing
2 A recent review of the empirical evidence between trade open- the developing world. Markups increase shipping prices by at
ness and economic growth by Alesina, Spolaore, and Wacziarg least 83 percent for the mean shipment in Latin American
(2005) comes to the conclusion that ”. . . there is a general sense imports. Shipping firms decrease prices by 1–2 percent for every
that trade openness increases growth and income levels.” At the 1 percent reduction in tariffs.
same time, while all these factors are likely to contribute to higher
31 Fink et al. 2002.
productivity, growth and consumer wellbeing and thereby benefit
the nation as a whole, we recognize that there could be losers as 32 Moenius 2004.
well as winners from increased trade. Sachs and Warner (1995)
found that the growth performance of open countries was 2 per- 33 Martinez-Zarzoso and Marquez-Ramos 2005, abstract.
centage points higher than those classified as “closed.”
34 Disider and Head 2008.
Competitive exporters will thrive, create jobs, and contribute to
economic growth, but those unable to withstand the competition 35 According to Hummels, “For Africa, the Middle East and Asia
may be put out of business and resources relocated to other parts between 1 and 5 percent of trade by value is with land-neighbor-
of the economy. These adverse effects on individuals do not pro- ing countries, for Latin America, trade with land neighbors is 10 to
vide strong arguments against the overall benefits of increased 20 percent of the whole, and for Europe and North America it is
trade as they are in most cases of a temporary nature as the 25–35 percent.” Hummels 2007, p. 132.
affected individuals find other opportunities in a growing econo-
my. However, this does imply a need for the careful sequencing 36 Shepherd and Wilson 2006.
of the liberalization process to allow industries to adapt to the
37 We have focused on the flow of trade in goods into countries in
new situation and governments to implement policies to mitigate
the index for expository purposes, although we recognize that
the negative effects on individuals. This is particularly important to
enabling trade from countries and in services, is also important.
avoid popular backlash against the opening to trade at the national
By circumscribing the issue clearly, the Index provides a useful
level. In addition, it requires the building of infrastructure and insti-
vehicle for carrying out policy analysis on a clearly defined part of
tutions that facilitate the flow of goods.
the issue. Trade in goods accounts for upwards of 80 percent of
3 Giovannini 1998. all trade, and is therefore highly relevant. It is also important to
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 31

note that many of the factors and policies included in the model Haskal, J. and H. Wolf. 2001. “The Law of One Price: A Case Study.”
would be equally relevant for an analysis of the factors facilitating NBER Working Paper 8112. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
the services trade and the enabling of exports. Economic Research.
38 For landlocked countries, the access to ports is measured. Heckman, J. J. 1976. “The Common Structure of Statistical Models of
Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables
39 This is in part attributable to the fact that we are taking into and a Simple Estimator for Such Models.” Annals of Economic
account a trade weighted measure. Tariffs on nonagricultural and Social Measurement (5): 475–92.
goods in Switzerland are low. However, those on agricultural
goods are high, likely providing a significant deterrence to Helpman E., M. Melitz, and Y. Rubinstein. 2006. “Trading Partners and
importers. The overall measure is therefore one of low trade- Trading Volumes.” Preliminary and incomplete draft. March.
weighted tariffs.
Huang, H. and J. Whalley. 2006. “Baumol-Tobin and the Welfare Costs
40 The United Arab Emirates apply a uniform tariff of 5 percent on of National Security Border Delays.” NBER Working Paper 12296.
almost all imported goods. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hummels, D. 2007. “Transportation Costs and International Trade in the

Second Era of Globalization.” Journal of Economic Perspectives
21 (3): 131–54.
References
IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2007. World Economic Outlook
Alesina, A., E. Spolaore, and R. Wacziarg. 2005. “Trade, Growth and the
Database. October.
Size of Countries.” Handbook of Economic Growth, ed. Ph.
Aghion and S. Durlauf. Elsevier. Available at Kenichi, O. 1991. The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~chad/Handbook.html. Interlinked Economy. London, HarperCollins.
Anderson, J. E. and D. Marcouiller. 2002. “Insecurity and the Pattern of Levchenko, A. A. 2007. “Institutional Quality and International Trade.”
Trade: An Empirical Investigation.” The Review of Economics and Review of Economic Studies 74 (3): 791–819.
Statistics 84 (2): 342–52.
Limao, N. and A. J. Venables. 2001. “Infrastructure, Geographical
Anderson, J. E. and E. van Wincoop. 2003. “Gravity with Gravitas: A Disadvantage, Transport Costs and Trade.” World Bank Economic
Solution to the Border Puzzle.” American Economic Review 93 Review 15: 451–79. Washington, DC: World Bank.
(1): 170–92.
Lindert, P. H. and J. G. Williamson. 2003. “Does Globalization Make the
———. 2004. “Trade Costs.” Journal of Economic Literature 42 (3): World More Unequal?” Globalization in Historical Perspective, ed.
691–751. M. D. Bordo, A. M. Taylor, and J. G. Williamson. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press for the NBER. 227–70.
Blomberg, S. B. and G. Hess. 2006. “How Much Does Violence Tax
Trade?” The Review of Economics and Statistics 88 (4): 599–612. Martinez-Zarzoso, I. and L. Marquez-Ramos. 2005. “Does Technology
Foster Trade? Empirical Evidence for Developed and Developing
Bradford S. and R. Z. Lawrence. 2004. Has Globalization Gone Far
Countries.” Atlantic Economic Journal 33: 55–69.
Enough? Washington DC: Institute for International Economics.
McCallum, J. 1995. “National Borders Matter: Canada-U.S. Regional
31
Cairncross, F. 1997. The Death of Distance: How the Communications
Trade Patterns.” American Economic Review 85 (3): 615–23.
Revolution Is Changing our Lives. London: Orion Business Books.
Messerlin, P. A. and J. Zarrouk. 2000. “Trade Facilitation: Technical
CEPII (Centre d’Étude Prospectives et d’Information Internationales).
Regulation and Customs Procedures.” The World Economy 23 (4):
2008. Data retrieved March 18.
577–93.
Clark, X., D. Dollar, and A. Micco. 2004. “Port Efficiency, Maritime
Moenius, J. 2004. “Information versus Product Adaptation: The Role of
Transport Costs and Bilateral Trade.” Journal of Development
Standards in Trade.” Available from the Social Science Research
Economics 75 (2): 417–50.
Network (SSRN) at http://ssrn.com/abstract=608022.
Disdier, A. and K.C. Head. 2008. “The Puzzling Persistence of the
Rauch, J. E. 1999. “Networks versus Markets in International Trade.”
Distance Effect on Bilateral Trade.” Review of Economics and
Journal of International Economics 48 (1):7–35.
Statistics 90 (1): 37-48.
Rogers, J. and H. P. Smith. 2001. “Border Effects within the NAFTA
Djankov, S., C.L. Freund, and C.S. Pham. 2006. “Trading on Time.”
Countries.” Washington, DC: Board of Governors of the Federal
World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3909.
Reserve System.
Washington DC: World Bank.
Rogoff, K. 1996. “The Purchasing Power Parity Puzzle.” Journal of
Evans, C.L. and J. Harrigan. 2005. “Distance, Time, and Specialization:
Economic Literature 34: 647–68.
Lean Retailing in General Equilibrium.” American Economic
Review 95 (1): 292–313. Sachs, J. D. and A. M. Warner. 1995. “Natural Resource Abundance
and Economic Growth.” NBER Working Paper No. W5398.
Fink, C., A. Mattoo, and I.C. Neagu. 2002. “Trade in International
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Maritime Services: How Much Does Policy Matter?” World Bank
Economic Review 16 (1): 81–108. Sadikov, A. M. 2007. “Border and Behind the Border Trade Barriers and
Country Exports.” IMF Working Paper 07/292. Washington, DC:
Friedman, T. 2005. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First
International Monetary Fund.
Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Shepherd, B. and J. S. Wilson. 2006. “Road Infrastructure in Europe
Gallup, J.L., J.D. Sachs, and A.D. Mellinger. 1999. “Geography and
and Central Asia: Does Network Quality Affect Trade?” World
Economic Development.” International Regional Science Review
Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4104. Washington, DC:
22 (2): 179–232.
World Bank.
Gani, A. and B.C. Prasad. 2006. “Institutional Quality and Trade in
United Nations. 2008. Commodity Trade Statistics Database
Pacific Island Countries.” Asia-Pacific Research and Training
(Comtrade). Data retrieved March 18.
Network on Trade Working Paper Series 20.
Wilson, J. S., C. L. Mann, and T. Otsuki. 2004. “Assessing the Potential
Giovannini, A. 1988. “Exchange Rates and Traded Goods Prices.”
Benefit of Trade Facilitation: A Global Perspective.” World Bank
Journal of International Economics 24: 45–68.
Policy Research Working Paper 3224. Washington, DC: World
Gronau, R. 1974. “Wage Comparisons: A Selectivity Bias.” Journal of Bank.
Political Economy 82: 1119–1143.
WTO (World Trade Organization). 2007. International Trade Statistics
Grossman, G. 1998. “Comment.” The Regionalization of the World 2007. Available at http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/
Economy, ed. J. A. Frankel. Chicago: University of Chicago for the its2007_e/its07_toc_e.htm.
NBER. 29–31.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 32
Appendix A: Composition of the Enabling Trade Index
This appendix provides details about the construction Subindex B: Border administration
of the Enabling Trade Index (ETI).
Pillar 3: Efficiency of customs administration
The ETI is composed of four subindexes: the market
3.01 Burden of customs procedures
access subindex; the border administration subindex; the 3.02 Customs services index (hard data)
transport and communications infrastructure subindex;
and the business environment subindex.These subindexes Pillar 4: Efficiency of import-export procedures
4.01 Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance 2
are, in turn, composed of the 10 pillars of the ETI
4.02 Time for import (had data)
shown below: tariff and non-tariff barriers, proclivity 4.03 Documents for import (hard data)
to trade, efficiency of customs administration, efficiency 4.04 Cost to import (hard data)
of import-export procedures, transparency of border
administration, availability and quality of transport infra- Pillar 5: Transparency of border administration
5.01 Irregular payments in exports and imports
structure, availability and quality of transport services,
5.02 Corruption Perceptions Index (hard data)
availability and use of ICTs, regulatory environment,
and physical security.These pillars are calculated on the
basis of both “hard data” and “Survey data.” Subindex C: Transport and communications
The Survey data are mainly derived from the infrastructure
responses to the World Economic Forum’s Executive
Opinion Survey and range from 1 to 7. Survey data Pillar 6: Availability and quality of transport
infrastructure
from the World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index
(LPI) Survey have also been included; the hard data Availability of transport infrastructure
6.01 Airport density (hard data)
were collected from various sources.The LPI data and
6.02 Transshipment connectivity index (hard data)
the hard data are described in detail in the Technical 6.03 Paved roads (hard data)
Notes and Sources section at the end of this Report. All 6.04 Road congestion (hard data)
of the data used in the calculation of the ETI can be
32 Quality of transport infrastructure
found in the Data Tables section of the Report. 6.05 Quality of air transport infrastructure
The hard data indicators used in the ETI, as well 6.06 Quality of railroad infrastructure
as the results from the LPI survey, are normalized to a 6.07 Quality of roads
1-to-7 scale in order to align them with the Executive 6.08 Quality of port infrastructure
Opinion Survey’s results.1
Pillar 7: Availability and quality of transport services
Each of the pillars has been calculated as an 7.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index (hard data)
unweighted average of the individual component vari- 7.02 Ease and affordability of shipment 2
ables.The subindexes are then calculated as unweighted 7.03 Competence of the logistics industry 2
averages of the included pillars. In the case of the avail- 7.04 Ability and ease of tracking 2
7.05 Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination 2
ability and quality of transport infrastructure pillar,
7.06 Postal service efficiency
which is itself composed of two subpillars (availability
of transport infrastructure and quality of transport Pillar 8: Availability and use of ICTs
infrastructure), the overall pillar is the unweighted aver- 8.01 Firm-level technology absorption
age of the two subpillars.The overall ETI is then the 8.02 Mobile telephone subscribers (hard data)
8.03 Broadband Internet subscribers (hard data)
unweighted average of the four subindexes.The vari-
8.04 Internet users (hard data)
ables of each pillar and subpillar are described below. 8.05 Telephone lines (hard data)
If a variable is one of hard data, this is indicated in
parentheses after the description.
Subindex D: Business environment
Subindex A: Market access Pillar 9: Regulatory environment

9.01 Ease of hiring foreign labor
Pillar 1: Tariff and non-tariff barriers 9.02 Openness of bilateral Air Service Agreements
1.01 Tariff barriers (hard data) (hard data)
1.02 Non-tariff barriers (hard data) 9.03 Prevalence of foreign ownership
9.04 Business impact of rules on FDI
Pillar 2: Proclivity to trade
2.01 Breadth of international markets Pillar 10: Physical security
2.02 Extent of regional sales 10.01 Reliability of police services
2.03 Openness to multilateral trade rules (hard data) 10.02 Business costs of crime and violence 3
2.04 Share of duty-free imports (hard data) 10.03 Business costs of terrorism 3
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 33

Appendix A: Composition of the Enabling Trade Index (cont’d.)
Notes
1 The standard formula for converting each hard data variable to the
1-to-7 scale is
country score – sample minimum

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

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

extreme outliers in the data.
2 The LPI data are derived from the World Bank Logistics Perception
Index (LPI) Survey, which is based on a 1-to-5 scale. LPI data
were normalized to a 1-to-7 scale using the above formula in
order to align it with the Executive Opinion Survey results.
3 We take the average of these two variables to create a composite

variable measuring the business costs of country-level violence.
33
(Cont’d.)
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 34
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 35
1.2: The Doha Round Negotiations on Trade Facilitation

CHAPTER 1.2 Successive Rounds of multilateral trade negotiations
under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) and now the World Trade Organization (WTO)
The Doha Round Negotiations have succeeded in substantially freeing up global trade
flows. Over the past 60 years, the average level of import
on Trade Facilitation tariffs on manufactured products of the industrialized
countries has been cut from a range of 20 to 30 percent
RICHARD EGLIN, World Trade Organization (WTO) to less than 4 percent. Non-tariff barriers—from quanti-
tative restrictions to rules of origin, product regulations,
and the like—have been regulated under WTO rules,
which has substantially reduced their trade-restrictive
and distorting effects.The result is that business has been
able to compete more freely and fairly in global markets,
consumers have had a bigger selection of better-quality
products at lower prices to choose from, and governments
have been able to rely on the dynamics of comparative
advantage to increase growth and promote economic
development.Trade has flourished and expanded 27-fold
in volume terms since the GATT was created in 1948,
an increase of three times more than global production.
Many of these issues are captured by the Enabling
Trade Index (ETI) discussed in Chapter 1.1. As tradi-
tional trade barriers have come down, and in some cases
been eliminated, attention has turned to facilitating
trade flows by tackling other obstacles that may be less
obvious than tariffs or quotas but that, nonetheless,
interfere with the ease of moving goods across borders. 35
Among these obstacles are cumbersome data and docu-
mentation requirements, restrictive administrative regu-
lations, disproportionate fees and charges, and excessive
formalities and other unwieldy border procedures, all of
which impose high costs on trade and on business and
consumers.The case was made at the WTO Ministerial
Conference in 1996 for examining how multilateral
action by WTO Member governments might help to
reduce these costs without interfering with legitimate
border management objectives such as revenue collec-
tion and security. After some years of analysis and debate
in the WTO—a typical precursor to an agreement to
launch formal negotiations—it was agreed in mid-2004
to address these obstacles by adding Trade Facilitation to
the list of subjects that was being negotiated in the
Doha Round.
What is at stake?
Over the past few years, a wealth of empirical evidence
has been gathered on the transaction costs that are
imposed on international trade by poor-quality border
management and logistics. Moving goods from the farm
or factory gate to markets overseas often involves a long
and complicated supply chain, with the risk that a single
bottleneck along the way can seriously affect the entire
process. Connecting efficiently to markets is particularly
critical for developing countries, whose firms and farm-
ers typically do not enjoy a high enough margin of com-
petitiveness internationally to be able to absorb high
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 36
transaction costs.Their ability to move their produce transaction costs, and for many of them the costs of
across borders quickly, reliably, and cheaply can mean poor trade facilitation have a bigger impact than their
the difference between their success or failure in inte- tariffs on the domestic price of imported goods. In
grating into the global economy. short, the stakes involved in completing the Trade
The WTO Trade Facilitation negotiations do not Facilitation negotiations and implementing the results
pretend to target the entire logistical supply chain. A sig- successfully are high for many WTO Members, particu-
nificant share of the costs of getting goods to markets larly the majority of developing countries.
arises in areas such as ocean and inland transport, port
management, and warehousing. For the most part, these
areas lie well outside the purview of the WTO, although Negotiating objectives
the Doha Round negotiations on Trade in Services can Mandates for formal WTO negotiations are often fought
play an important role in helping to increase competi- over bitterly by governments, since they set the parame-
tiveness, productivity, and efficiency in these activities. ters for the final results.These mandates can end up laced
The Trade Facilitation negotiations cover a relatively with compromise language that conceals unresolved
narrow, but still significant, link in the chain—the differences at the time a Round is launched, and when
actions that governments take to control and administer these surface further down the road, as inevitably they
the way in which goods move across their national bordo, they risk bringing the negotiations to a halt while
ders, through the various documentary and physical they are sorted out.
inspection stages to clearing customs and receiving The mandate for the Trade Facilitation negotiations
approval from border agencies such as the health and is refreshingly clear and straightforward. It sets out three
safety or revenue authorities. objectives:
There are no precise figures of the costs that poor
trade facilitation, narrowly defined, imposes on business • to clarify and improve GATT rules on the move-
and consumers, but data collected by the World Bank ment, release, and clearance of goods, including
for its excellent annual report on the costs of “Doing goods in transit, with the aim of reducing the trans-
Business” in its member countries come close.These action costs of trade;
36 data cover all of the official procedural requirements
involved in exporting and importing a standardized con- • to develop special provisions for developing coun-
tainer of goods, and measure them in terms of the num- tries and least-developed countries (LDCs) and pro-
ber of documents required, the time taken from start to vide them with technical assistance and capacity-
finish, and the overall cost of meeting the requirements. building support that will help them to implement
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and better trade facilitation policies and practices; and
Development (OECD) countries set the benchmark for
best practice as a regional group, requiring on average • to improve communication and cooperation
about 5 separate documents and clearing the goods in between the customs authorities of WTO
an average of 10 days at an average cost of about Members.
US$950 per container.1 In contrast, in sub-Saharan
Africa almost double the number of documents are The most important target of these negotiations is to
required: goods take from 35 days (for exports) to 44 assist developing countries and LDCs to implement
days (for imports) to clear at an average cost per con- trade facilitation reforms and to adopt better practices
tainer of between US$1,660 (for exports) and US$1,986 that will enable them to move goods across their borders
(for imports).The overall world champion at trade facil- more efficiently than they do today.The negotiations are
itation is Singapore, where 4 documents are required not inconsequential for the industrial countries such as
and goods are cleared in, at most, 5 days at an average the United States or those in the European Union.They
cost of around US$400 per container. At the other end too have scope to make reforms and improve their prac-
of the scale are many of the low-income developing tices, and better GATT rules will bring outside pressure
countries, in particular the landlocked developing coun- on them to move in that direction as well as helping to
tries whose trade facilitation costs can mushroom as a avoid unnecessary trade disputes between them from
result of the effort required to move goods in transit by flaring up, as they have done at times in the past.
road or rail through their neighbors to their nearest Overall, however, it is the developing countries and
international port.2 LDCs that have the most to gain.They have the biggest
Handicapping the world’s least competitive produc- deficit to make up in reaching standards of international
ers and poorest consumers with additional transaction best practice and the accent has been placed firmly on
costs of US$1,000 or more for each container of goods assisting them do that in practical terms by providing
that they manage to export or import is clearly absurd. them with technical and, where necessary, financial sup-
The trade barriers they face in their main export mar- port, not on litigating against them through the WTO’s
kets are, in most cases, far less significant than these legal system.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 37

Clarifying and improving GATT rules Steps to facilitate transit traffic are the major objec-
Three GATT Articles are at the center of the Trade tive of these negotiations for many landlocked countries
Facilitation negotiations: Article V, on facilitating transit that, as noted in the figures cited from Doing Business,
trade, Article VIII on limiting border fees and formalities, are paying a very expensive price to get their exports
and Article X on making trade regulations transparent so and imports to and from their nearest ports. Proposals
that foreign traders can understand them and work with have been made to strengthen the nondiscrimination
them more easily in their day-to-day business activities. provisions (most-favored nation, or MFN, and national
These Articles all date back to the original GATT treatment) of GATT Article V, to reduce transit fees and
agreement of 1948, and although they have stood the charges and simplify transit formalities and documenta-
test of time remarkably well they are undoubtedly in tion, to limit inspections and controls by using bonded
need of modernization to reflect the ways in which transport, and to promote regional transit arrangements.
commercial and business practices have changed. In one respect at least, these proposals may be tricky to
A good example is the use of the Internet to pub- deal with since for transit countries, many of whom are
lish trade regulations, to allow documentation require- themselves low-income developing countries, the
ments to be completed online, and to help border agen- prospect of dealing with substantially increased transit
cies use modern information technology to improve the traffic from their neighbors can threaten to overload
efficiency and cost-effectiveness of their own operations. their road and rail infrastructure, which is already weak.
Other proposals that have been tabled under the rubric This is an area, therefore, in which the logistical supply
of clarifying and improving GATT Article X to create chain needs attention—not only through the WTO
better and easier access to information for traders negotiations but also by development agencies and bilat-
include the establishment of national enquiry points that eral donors to help invest in upgrading transport facili-
serve as a one-stop shop for information about trade- ties and creating new transit corridors.Trying to restrict
related legislation and procedures; procedures to notify or regulate transit traffic through excessive border con-
traders of upcoming changes in laws and regulations so trols is, in every respect, a second-best alternative.
that they can adjust their business practices ahead of In total, proposals for new or improved GATT dis-
time and avoid running into problems after the goods ciplines have been tabled on about 50 issues. Part of the
have already arrived at the docks; the provision of success of the Trade Facilitation negotiations is the fact 37
advance rulings about how goods will be treated when that these proposals have originated from across the
they arrive at customs, in terms of tariff classification or whole spectrum of WTO Member governments, reflect-
customs valuation, for example; and the creation of ing a high level of engagement by developing countries
appeal procedures for traders to allow them, where nec- and LDCs. In several cases, they have joined forces with
essary, to challenge decisions of customs or other border the major industrialized countries to help get their
agencies in an objective and transparent manner. point across.The original negotiating proposal to elimi-
The task of updating GATT Article VIII on border nate consular fees, for example, was jointly sponsored by
fees and formalities has attracted the largest number of Uganda and the United States, and Switzerland has co-
proposals.These cover a lot of ground. One proposal aims sponsored proposals on improving transit rules with a
to reduce border fees and charges by requiring that they number of low-income, landlocked, developing coun-
be set in line with the actual costs of border administra- tries as well as landlocked countries in Eastern Europe.
tion. Another is to agree on common standards that can While alliances of this sort are not unheard of in other
be used to simplify documentation requirements and areas of the Doha Round, they have been particularly
harmonize them internationally as far as possible. A evident in the Trade Facilitation negotiations and they
particularly valuable proposal for many traders is the have created the sense of common purpose that is so
establishment of a “single window” that allows all docu- important for crafting a multilateral consensus around an
mentation and data requirements for importation, agreement that aims to serve the collective welfare of
exportation, and transit to be submitted at the same time the whole membership. All WTO Members are both
and once only, cutting out the duplication of effort that importers and exporters of merchandise trade, and all of
is involved in dealing with many different border author- them have a vested commercial interest in seeing the
ities and agencies separately. Other proposals are that WTO transaction costs of their trade reduced, in their own
Member governments should eliminate requirements for countries as well as in their trading partners.The
pre-shipment inspection, stop charging consular fees, prospect is for a win-win outcome for all concerned.
and open up any system they have of mandatory cus-
toms brokers to much wider participation by foreign Support for developing countries
traders than is the case at present.There are proposals, One reason that the start of negotiations on Trade
too, to recognize and adopt modern customs practices, Facilitation was delayed until 2004 was opposition from
such as allowing the expedited release and clearance of developing countries to including the package of
goods, using risk assessment techniques and authorized “Singapore Issues” in the Doha Round. These issues—
trader schemes, and carrying out post-clearance audits. Foreign Investment, Competition Policy, Government
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 38
Procurement, and Trade Facilitation—were promoted assistance under this needs-assessment program, and the
heavily, by the European Union in particular, at the secretariat is organizing missions at the rate of five or six
WTO’s Ministerial Conference in Singapore in 1996. countries per month to respond to these requests, with
Trade Facilitation was always the least contentious of the the help of customs experts from other intergovernmen-
four issues, but even so it did raise concerns, especially tal agencies such as the World Bank and the World
among low-income developing countries, that it would Customs Organization as well as from the national
overload the capacity of these countries to upgrade their administrations of other WTO Members. Over the
trade infrastructure by requiring them to take on addi- course of a one-week workshop held in each country’s
tional, expensive but unfunded WTO obligations.When national capital, representatives from all relevant border
proposals to launch negotiations on the other three agencies meet together to study the proposals, learn
Singapore Issues were finally dropped at the WTO’s from the experts how other countries manage their cus-
Cancun Ministerial Conference in 2003, attention toms and border procedures, and assess what steps they
turned to crafting a negotiating mandate for Trade would need to take to raise their own trade facilitation
Facilitation that would allay these concerns. practices up to international norms. Experience has
The result provided ex ante assurance to developing shown that, beyond the preparation of a detailed needs
countries and LDCs on three points: they would receive assessment, one of the most valuable and rewarding
help to participate fully in the negotiations so that the results of the exercise is to generate better understanding
substantive issues of most commercial interest to them and closer cooperation among the different national
would be taken fully on board; they would receive gen- agencies involved in the border management process.
erous technical assistance and capacity-building support That alone can begin yielding practical results on the
to implement the results of the negotiations; and, on a ground and lower the transaction costs of the country’s
somewhat more defensive note, they would not be trade, even before official negotiations have been com-
required to undertake new WTO obligations until that pleted.
assistance and support has been provided. Once the The finished needs assessment for each WTO
negotiations got going and it became clear that develop- Member government is an important input to the com-
ing countries and LDCs were enthusiastic about sharing pletion of the negotiating process back in the WTO
38 fully in the potential benefits of a final agreement, atten- headquarters in Geneva. Negotiators are currently
tion turned to designing an effective delivery mecha- working on a framework to implement the eventual
nism to ensure that the technical assistance and capacity- Trade Facilitation agreement that would see developing
building support is provided and that it does produce countries and LDCs scheduling their trade facilitation
real trade facilitation results on the ground, where it reforms in three categories:
counts.
Enhancing the ability of low-income developing • those reforms that they have already undertaken or
countries to participate effectively in the negotiating that they consider can be undertaken relatively easi-
process may sound like a mere detail, but it matters a ly and that they can therefore agree to implement
great deal for those that can afford to maintain only a straight away, as soon as the agreement is finalized;
very limited staff at their permanent missions in Geneva
and that require the presence of customs and other • a second category that the national needs-assess-
experts from capitals at the negotiating table to make ment exercise has shown they would require time
sure that their own commercial interests are well repre- to carry out; and
sented. A facility has therefore been set up to cover the
costs of periodically bringing experts from low-income • a third category for which they require not only
countries to Geneva for the negotiating sessions, thanks time but also technical assistance and capacity-
to funding that, to date, comes from Norway and the building support in order to complete satisfactorily.
United Kingdom.
As for the second and third points of assurance pro- Since the trade facilitation situation on the ground differs
vided in the negotiating mandate, negotiations to create from country to country, each Member government’s
an effective delivery mechanism for technical assistance schedule is likely to differ too, but that is not a real con-
and capacity-building support are still underway, but the cern.The aim is not to line up all WTO Members at
broad lines that will be involved are already fairly clear. the start, but to help them all to reach the finish success-
The first step, which is already being organized by fully, especially those that need the help most.
the WTO Secretariat, involves expert support to indi- Following up on the third category of commitments
vidual developing countries to help them review their in a Member government’s schedule—those that require
current trade facilitation practices and to assess what not only time but also technical assistance and capacity-
more they would need to do to implement in full the building support to implement fully—will clearly be an
package of draft proposals that is on the table today. essential part of the process. It will require close cooper-
About 70 WTO Member governments have requested ation between the WTO and other intergovernmental
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 39

agencies with expertise and experience in the area of the LDCs.This reflects their belief that the eventual
trade facilitation as well as direct cooperation among Trade Facilitation agreement will yield significant bene-
individual WTO Members—those that require assistance fits for their trade expansion and economic development.
on the one hand and those that are in a position to sup- Great care is being taken to craft meaningful development
ply it on the other.The WTO is not a development provisions—in WTO jargon, “Special and Differential
agency, much less a development bank, and it has no Treatment” provisions—into the agreement that will
intention of moving into that area of activity. Under its ensure it produces genuine change and makes a real dif-
Aid-for-Trade program, the WTO aims to help its low- ference to the ease with which developing countries can
income Member governments to advocate their case for expand their trade.
increased development financing from development In sum, the prospects for a successful conclusion to
banks and bilateral donors to allow them to build trade- the Trade Facilitation negotiations are good, and the
related capacity. It will use that program to make the benefits for business and consumers from a new agree-
case for providing capacity-building support for trade ment will be significant.These negotiations do not have
facilitation projects, among others. Completing the the high political profile of some other parts of the
implementation of this third category of commitments Doha Round, but that is no bad thing when it comes to
will take time, but—given the size of the returns that making steady progress at the technical expert level in
can confidently be expected from each dollar invested in Geneva. Once completed, the new agreement will add
facilitating trade—there should be no doubt about its another page to the WTO rulebook that underwrites
eventual success. the openness and stability of the international trading
system, and it will signal real changes on the ground in
Member governments’ trade facilitation policies and
Prospects for success practices that will allow traders to get goods across bor-
Although the Trade Facilitation negotiations began ders more quickly, reliably, and cheaply than they can
only three years after the rest of the Round had been today.
launched, they have more than made up for their late
start. At the time of writing, all of the main elements of
an eventual Trade Facilitation agreement have been Notes 39
tabled in proposals by WTO Member governments, the 1 World Bank 2007.
process of reviewing and refining those elements and 2 The biggest loser, according to the World Bank figures cited in
turning them into draft legal provisions has begun, and Doing Business 2008, is landlocked Chad, whose trade facilitation
costs to import a container of goods stand at US$5,520 and
an extensive program of technical assistance for develop- whose exercise takes over 100 days.
ing countries LDCs is well underway in their capitals to
help each of them assess what reforms they will need to
carry out in order to implement the agreement when it References
finally comes into force. World Bank. 2007. Doing Business 2008. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Trade Facilitation is being treated as part of what is
termed the “Single Undertaking” of the Doha Round.
This means that it cannot be split off or completed sep-
arately from other subjects under negotiation, such as
Agriculture and Services. Accepting the Single Under-
taking formulation was a necessary condition for some
Member governments to agree to start negotiations on
Trade Facilitation. It is a formulation that is credited
with having made the Uruguay Round negotiations a
comprehensive success in the 1990s.Tying all of the
negotiating subjects together prevents any attempt at
cherry-picking when it comes to agreeing on the over-
all results, and results that are broadly popular for all
WTO Members (such as Trade Facilitation) can help
leverage through others for which finding consensus is
an altogether more difficult affair. Equally, of course, the
Single Undertaking may cause delays to Trade Facilitation
if problems develop elsewhere on other negotiating
issues, but at the moment there is no sign of that having
happened to any significant extent.
One hallmark of these negotiations has been the
engagement of developing countries, including many of
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 40
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 41
1.3: Additional Taxes and the Indirect Evidence on Trade Protection

CHAPTER 1.3 World Trade has grown rapidly in the last decades, but
goods do not yet ship freely from place to place. Discus-
sions on trade barriers usually focus on tariffs, but non-
Additional Taxes and the tariff measures are increasingly considered to be major
obstacles to trade.This is why both types of barriers are
Indirect Evidence on Trade included as key components of the Enabling Trade
Index (ETI), discussed in Chapter 1.1.
Protection There are different methods of measuring trade
barriers.The direct method is to consider tariffs, while
MONDHER MIMOUNI, XAVIER PICHOT, and LIONEL FONTAGNÉ,
indirect methods are to consider either deviations from
International Trade Centre (ITC) the Law of One Price (LOP) or from expected trade
patterns.The latter method is either based on the resid-
uals derived from augmented gravity equations,1 or it
relies on the methodology of border effects.2
The bottom line of the related empirical literature
indicates that the direct evidence of tariff barriers accounts
for only a negligible part of actual barriers to trade or,
more broadly, of trade costs. Hence, a new strand of lit-
erature is progressively addressing non-tariff barriers to
trade. Among these non-tariff barriers, “other taxes and
charges” levied on imported products are often very high.
To the best of our knowledge, these additional taxes
are not compiled on an exhaustive basis at the world
level. In this chapter, we propose a classification system,
we begin to collect these data, and we compare the
magnitude of these additional taxes with that of tariffs.
We conclude that such additional taxation may be very 41
large but is concentrated in a limited number of sectors.
This evidence suggests that further investment in the
collection of this type of data is warranted, and lends
support to the comprehensive nature of the ETI.
How trade costs differ from statutory tariffs

Trade costs include all costs incurred in getting a good
to a final user. Additional costs incurred when goods are
shipped abroad include transportation costs (including
both freight costs and costs related to time) and policy
barriers (such as tariffs and non-tariff barriers). Costs
associated with the use of different currencies as well as
legal and regulatory costs have also been shown to affect
trade. On top of this come information costs and con-
tract enforcement costs. Last, local distribution costs
(wholesale and retail) will greatly increase the total of
additional costs.The large majority of these costs are
included in the ETI, demonstrating the great variety of
issues to be tackled in further enabling trade.
Anderson and van Wincoop (2004) construct a
measure of total trade barriers as a representative rich
country (the United States) ad valorem tax equivalent
estimate.3 This equivalent includes all transport, border-
related, and local distribution costs from foreign producer
to final user in the domestic country. Their conclusion
We are indebted Carolin Averbeck, Mathieu Loridan, Laurence

Zandomenighi, Olga Skorobogatova, and Carla Vaca for their help in the
collection of the primary data.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 42
is that direct policy instruments, such as tariffs and the In other words, additional taxes are authorized as long as
tariff equivalents of quotas, are less important than other they are not used in a discriminatory manner; however,
policies. A rough estimate of the tax equivalent of typical it is not easy to identify in which cases discrimination
trade costs for industrialized countries is 170 percent.4 occurs. Additional customs charges, for instance, are de
This number breaks down as follows: 21 percent facto discriminating against imports. Excise duties on
transportation costs have to be added to 44 percent bor- products that are neither exported nor manufactured
der-related trade measures (possibly including additional domestically but imported only (rum in Iceland, for
taxes), plus 55 percent retail and wholesale distribution instance) affect imports but not domestic production,
costs.Transportation costs include both directly meas- and so on. Accordingly, we adopt an approach that is
ured freight costs and a 9 percent tax equivalent of the open minded and takes into account all taxes, whatever
time value of goods in transit.The border-related barrier their purpose.
is a combination of direct observation and inferred
costs. All in all, total international trade costs are the sum
of 44 percent and 21 percent, hence 74 percent.5 A tentative classification of additional taxes
This is to be compared with the direct evidence on In order to shed light on these taxes, extensive informa-
border costs: tariff barriers for a country such as the tion and data have been collected for a series of coun-
United States are typically negligible on average; and, tries.We propose a tentative classification as follows:
more generally, on average are less than 5 percent for
rich countries even when the largely protected agricul- • A first series of charges are collected at the border.
tural sector is taken into account. This is the group called customs. What we group
Anderson and van Wincoop rely on estimations of here are typically inspection charges, customs serv-
ad valorem equivalents of non-tariff barriers when it ice charges, statistical charges, and so on.
comes to obtaining the 44 percent border-related trade
measures.The traditional means for obtaining such fig- • A second series of charges are very similar to tariffs,
ures relies on a theoretically founded gravity equation in even if they are not recorded as such.This group is
which information on the presence of non-tariff meas- called pseudo-tariffs, and it includes safeguard clause
42 ures (NTMs) as documented in UNCTAD’s Trade tariffs, temporary additional tariffs, transport equal-
Analysis and Information System (TRAINS) database is ization taxes, and so on.
introduced. Using the estimated value of the price elas-
ticity of imports (the sensitivity of imports to changes in • A third category groups all additional charges levied
price), the impact of the NTMs on the volume of trade on behalf of regional unions: we call this group
can be translated into an ad valorem tariff equivalent. regional taxes.
Kee et al. (2006) propose the most extensive computa-
tion of such ad valorem equivalents.6 • A fourth category corresponds to all excise duties.
Still, NTMs, as partially recorded in TRAINs, are Very often alcohol and tobacco are affected, but
only part of the story. Fontagné et al. (2005) show that there are other rationales, such as luxury and sin
deviations from the expected trade patterns are typically taxes.This is the group we call excise duties.
large when international trade is compared with domes-
tic trade, which provides the correct benchmark in • The next category is used on behalf of the protec-
terms of economic integration.7 The very large ad val- tion of the environment and public health. From
orem equivalents of border effects are resilient to the recycling fees and taxes on solid wastes and petrole-
introduction of tariffs and TRAINs-type NTMs.This um to charges for national health insurance, the
means that additional regulation, charges, and hidden scope of this category is very wide.We group all
obstacles must hinder trade. Additional charges are one these charges under the item environment.
example of hidden charges, and have not been investi-
gated thoroughly so far despite being clearly recognized In addition to these five categories are the follow-
in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) ing three groups of taxes: one corresponding to “intel-
part II article III: lectual property” levies, one corresponding to “sales
taxes” and a group, designated not elsewhere specified
The contracting parties recognize that internal taxes (NES), for additional unclassified taxes.8
and other internal charges, and laws, regulations and In the tables and figures of this chapter, pseudo
requirements affecting the internal sale, offering for stands for pseudo-tariffs, excise stands for excise duties,
sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use of IPT stands for intellectual property levies, sales stands for
products, and internal quantitative regulations requir- sales taxes, and NES stands for the unclassified taxes.
ing the mixture, processing or use of products in
specified amounts or proportions, should not be
applied to imported or domestic products so as to
afford protection to domestic production.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 43

Data and country coverage developed countries, 36 developing countries, and 23
The data on additional taxes have been collected for a least-developed countries.
series of countries on their official administrative websites.
These data are then merged with the United
Nations Statistics Division COMTRADE data (used for Sectoral evidence: The most-affected sectors
weighting the data) and the International Trade Centre’s In Table 1, we consider the different instruments and
Market Access Map database of tariffs. their average level throughout our sample of countries.
We use the simple Harmonized System, or “HS,” We observe that the most-affected sector is prepared
classification of the sectors (see the appendix for more foodstuffs, the result of high excise duties in particular.
details) to present our results, but all calculations are The remaining additional taxes are, on average, negligi-
done at the more granular HS-6 level.We include 2 ble, although they may indeed be very high for some
sectors or some instruments in certain countries.
Table 1: Average additional taxes for the country sample, by sector (2007), percent
Total
additional
Description Customs Environment Excise IPT Pseudo Regional Sales NES taxes VAT
Live Animals; Animal Products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 7.7
Vegetable Products 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.6 7.4
Animal or Vegetable Fats and Oils and Their Cleavage 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.3 10.4
Products; Prepared Edible Fats; Animal or Vegetable Waxes
Prepared Foodstuffs; Beverages, Spirits, and Vinegar; 0.1 0.0 36.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.5 37.5 10.5
Tobacco and Manufactured Tobacco Substitutes
Mineral Products 0.2 0.1 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 7.0 13.2
Products of the Chemical or Allied Industries 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.7 12.7
Plastics and Articles Thereof; Rubber and Articles Thereof 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.6 13.2 43
Raw Hides and Skins, Leather, Furskins and Articles Thereof; 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.8 13.6
Saddlery and Harness; Travel Goods, Handbags, and Similar
Containers; Articles of Animal Gut (Other Than Silk-worm Gut)
Wood and Articles of Wood; Wood Charcoal; Cork and 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 12.6
Articles of Cork; Manufactures of Straw, of Esparto or of
Other Plaiting Materials; Basketware and Wickerwork
Pulp of Wood or of other Fibrous Cellulosic Material; 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.5 13.0
Recovered (Waste and Scrap) Paper or Paperboard;
Paper and Paperboard and Articles Thereof
Textiles and Textile Articles 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.6 14.2
Footwear, Headgear, Umbrellas, Sun Umbrellas, 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.6 14.8
Walking-Sticks, Seat-Sticks, Whips, Riding-Crops and
Parts Thereof; Prepared Feathers and Articles Made
Therewith; Artificial Flowers; Articles of Human Hair
Articles of Stone, Plaster, Cement, Asbestos, Mica or 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.6 12.4
Similar Materials; Ceramic Products; Glass and Glassware
Natural or Cultured Pearls, Precious or Semiprecious 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 1.0 11.2
Stones, Precious Metals, Metals Clad with Precious
Metal, and Articles Thereof; Imitation Jewellery; Coin
Base Metals and Articles of Base Metal 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.5 12.4
Machinery and Mechanical Appliances; Electrical 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 10.9
Equipment; Parts Thereof; Sound Recorders and
Reproducers, Television Image and Sound Recorders and
Reproducers, and Parts and Accessories of Such Articles
Vehicles, Aircraft, Vessels and Associated Transport Equipment 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.4 12.7
Optical, Photographic, Cinematographic, Measuring, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 13.5
Checking, Precision, Medical or Surgical Instruments and
Apparatus; Clocks and Watches; Musical Instruments;
Parts and Accessories Thereof
Arms and Ammunition; Parts and Accessories Thereof 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 11.4
Miscellaneous Manufactured Articles 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 13.4
Works of Art, Collectors’ Pieces and Antiques 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 11.3
Source: ITC, based on national data.

Note: Pseudo = pseudo-tariffs, excise = excise duties, IPT = intellectual property levies, sales = sales taxes, regional = regional taxes, and NES = unclassified
taxes. Total additional taxes includes customs + environment + excise + IPT + pseudo + regional + sales + NES.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 44
Country evidence pared with the 20.7 percent statutory protection. In

What are the most restrictive countries? In Table 2, other words, the additional protection of foodstuffs in
countries are ranked by decreasing order of the sum of Iceland is 10 times the statutory protection.
all additional taxes, excluding value-added tax (VAT). The same observation is to be made for Germany,
Antigua and Barbuda is the prominent country in terms which has 111.5 percent additional charges for prepared
of additional taxes, with an average additional tax of foodstuffs coming on the top of the 17.5 percent statu-
48.9 percent in 2007.The country is followed by tory protection.
Iceland (26.4 percent) and Morocco (20.2 percent).We Other affected products include minerals in Iceland;
find eight additional countries exhibiting an average works of art in Mozambique, Antigua and Barbuda, and
additional tax above 10 percent. Mayotte, arms in Papua New Guinea, rawhide in
Guinea, machinery in Antigua, vehicles in Ethiopia, and
so on.
How do additional taxes compare with statutory Last, we ask whether there is a clear relationship of
protection? substitution or of complementarity between these two
We now compare applied tariffs and the sum of all addi- barriers to trade. In other words, do these two types of
tional taxes (except VAT) by country and by sector, additional taxes offset each other in some way, being
using an appropriate weighting scheme.9 applied to the same goods, or do they complement each
In Table 3, we list the most-affected sectors at the other? We do not find evidence of either at the global
country level and compare them with the level of offi- level here. Using our 1,282 sector-country pairs for
cial tariffs.We also provide the share of the affected sec- 2007, we simply look at the correlation between the
tors in the imports and exports of the countries con- two modes of protection in Figure 1. Figure 1 displays
cerned. Country-sector trading pairs are ranked in Table this visually: the horizontal axis provides the perspective
3 by decreasing importance of additional taxes. of tariff duties and the vertical axis is for the additional
The highest additional protection is observed for taxes, both being bounded at 100 percent. Clearly, there
“vehicles” in Antigua and Barbuda: the 234.6 percent is no clear positive or negative relationship between the
additional tax is to be compared with the 17.1 percent two modes of protection; rather, the relationship is idio-
44 statutory applied protection. syncratic in our sample.
The next highest is for Iceland and prepared food-
stuffs.The 203.7 percent additional tax is to be com-
Figure 1: The relationship between tariffs and additional taxes, percent
95.0
85.0
75.0
65.0
Tariff duties
55.0
45.0
35.0
25.0
15.0
5.0
5.0 15.0 25.0 35.0 45.0 55.0 65.0 75.0 85.0 95.0
Additional taxes
Source: Authors’ calculations.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 45

Table 2: Average additional taxes by country, percent (2007)
Total
additional
Country Customs Environment Excise IPT Pseudo Regional Sales NES taxes VAT
Antigua and Barbuda 9.8 22.4 16.7 0 0 0 0 0 48.9 0

Iceland 0 11.1 15.2 0 0 0 0 0 26.4 23.5
Morocco 20.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.2 16.1
Saint Kitts and Nevis 4 0 13.3 0 0 0 0.3 0 17.6 0
Grenada 3.4 0 13.8 0 0 0 0 0 17.2 0
Mayotte 0 0 17.1 0 0 0 0 0 17.1 0
Gambia, The 0 1.1 0 0 0 0 13.8 1.5 16.5 0
Ethiopia 5.1 0 7.6 0 0 0 0 2.9 15.7 12.7
Pakistan 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 12.7 0 13.2 0
Sierra Leone 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 10.5 0 10.7 0
Bangladesh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.6 10.6 14.4
Sri Lanka 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 9.1 9.5 7
Jordan 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.4 1.5 8.9 0
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 8.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.2 0
Madagascar 0 7.2 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 8 13.6
Bahamas 6.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.7 0
Dominica 3 1.4 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 6.2 13.4
Bhutan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.8 5.8 0
Singapore 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 4.9 0 5.2 0
Germany 0 0 4.9 0 0 0 0 0 4.9 18.3
Mauritania 1 0.1 0.4 0 0 0 0 2.9 4.4 9.1
Guinea 2 0 0.2 0 0.8 0.9 0 0.4 4.3 14.3
Nicaragua 0 0 3.9 0 0 0 0 0 3.9 12.6
Papua New Guinea 0 0 3.8 0 0 0 0 0 3.8 9.9
Mauritius 0 0 3.4 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 7.6
Zambia 0 0 3.3 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 13.8
Panama 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 3.2 3.2 0
Burkina Faso 1 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 0 2.9 0 45
Côte d’Ivoire 1 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 0 2.9 0
Guinea-Bissau 1 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 0 2.9 0
Mali 1 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 0 2.9 0
Niger 1 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 0 2.9 0
Senegal 1 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 0 2.9 0
Togo 1 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 0 2.9 0
Benin 1 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 2.8 0
Lebanon 0 0 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 2.6 6.4
Congo (Democratic Republic) 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 11.3
Algeria 0 0 0.2 0 1 0 0 0.2 1.5 7.6
Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 17
Mozambique 0 0 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 13
China 0 0 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 13.8
Ghana 0 0.5 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.7 2.4
Ecuador 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0
Argentina 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0
Djibouti 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0
South Africa 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 10.9
Uganda 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 9
Peru 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0
Angola 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.4
Bahrain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Colombia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Georgia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.7
Kosovo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.9
Kuwait 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Qatar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Saudi Arabia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tanzania 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.5
United Arab Emirates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vanuatu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.3
Source: ITC, based on national data

taxes. Total additional taxes includes customs + environment + excise + IPT + pseudo + regional + sales + NES.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 46
Table 3: Statutory and additional protection (all country-sector pairs with additional taxes above 30 percent),
percent (2007)
Total
Customs additional Share of Share of
Country Description duty taxes VAT imports exports
Antigua and Barbuda Vehicles, Aircraft, Vessels and Associated Transport Equipment 17.1 234.6 0.0 51.1 87.5
Iceland Prepared Foodstuffs; Beverages, Spirits, and Vinegar; Tobacco and 20.7 203.7 13.2 3.6 7.7
Manufactured Tobacco Substitutes
Germany Prepared Foodstuffs; Beverages, Spirits, and Vinegar; Tobacco 17.5 111.5 12.2 2.8 2.2
and Manufactured Tobacco Substitutes
Iceland Mineral Products 0.1 90.9 24.5 9.8 2.5
Mozambique Works of Art, Collectors’ Pieces and Antiques 19.4 62.6 17.0 0.1 0.0
Bangladesh Prepared Foodstuffs; Beverages, Spirits, and Vinegar; Tobacco 21.6 61.5 15.5 3.9 0.3
and Manufactured Tobacco Substitutes
Antigua and Barbuda Arms and Ammunition; Parts and Accessories Thereof 19.6 60.0 0.0 0.1 n/a
Papua New Guinea Arms and Ammunition; Parts and Accessories Thereof 0.0 60.0 10.0 0.0 n/a
Guinea Raw Hides and Skins, Leather, Furskins and Articles Thereof; Saddlery and 18.7 48.6 12.9 0.3 0.0
Harness; Travel Goods, Handbags, and Similar Containers; Articles of
Animal Gut
Madagascar Mineral Products 0.4 44.1 1.1 20.7 10.3
Bangladesh Arms and Ammunition; Parts and Accessories Thereof 15.8 44.1 19.5 0.0 0.0
Antigua and Barbuda Machinery and Mechanical Appliances; Electrical Equipment; Parts 8.9 42.0 0.0 9.4 0.7
Thereof; Sound Recorders and Reproducers, Television Image and Sound
Recorders and Reproducers, and Parts and Accessories of Such Articles
Mayotte Works of Art, Collectors’ Pieces and Antiques 10.0 41.0 0.0 n/a n/a
Antigua and Barbuda Natural or Cultured Pearls, Precious or Semiprecious Stones, Precious 21.6 40.0 0.0 0.6 0.6
Metals, Metals Clad with Precious Metal, and Articles Thereof; Imitation
Jewellery; Coin
Antigua and Barbuda Works of Art, Collectors’ Pieces and Antiques 20.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
46 Papua New Guinea Vehicles, Aircraft, Vessels and Associated Transport Equipment 0.3 36.5 10.0 12.4 0.1
Mayotte Miscellaneous Manufactured Articles 9.9 35.9 0.0 2.6 3.5
Saint Kitts and Nevis Articles of Stone, Plaster, Cement, Asbestos, Mica or Similar Materials; 13.7 35.3 0.0 1.9 n/a
Ceramic Products; Glass and Glassware
Antigua and Barbuda Miscellaneous Manufactured Articles 16.9 35.2 0.0 1.1 0.1
Ethiopia Prepared Foodstuffs; Beverages, Spirits, and Vinegar; Tobacco and 18.4 35.2 14.9 2.9 1.8
Bhutan Prepared Foodstuffs; Beverages, Spirits, and Vinegar; Tobacco and 57.1 35.1 0.0 2.2 0.1
Sri Lanka Footwear, Headgear, Umbrellas, Sun Umbrellas, Walking-Sticks, 25.0 33.8 14.3 0.3 0.9
Seat-Sticks, Whips, Riding-Crops and Parts Thereof; Prepared Feathers
and Articles Made Therewith; Artificial Flowers; Articles of Human Hair
Antigua and Barbuda Articles of Stone, Plaster, Cement, Asbestos, Mica or Similar Materials; 11.3 33.6 0.0 0.7 0.0
Ceramic Products; Glass and Glassware
Mayotte Footwear, Headgear, Umbrellas, Sun Umbrellas, Walking-Sticks, 10.0 33.5 0.0 0.6 n/a
Seat-Sticks, Whips, Riding-Crops and Parts Thereof; Prepared Feathers
and Articles Made Therewith; Artificial Flowers; Articles of Human Hair
Ethiopia Natural or Cultured Pearls, Precious or Semiprecious Stones, Precious 35.0 32.7 15.0 0.1 0.0
Jewellery; Coin
Saint Kitts and Nevis Prepared Foodstuffs; Beverages, Spirits, and Vinegar; Tobacco and 21.7 32.5 0.0 10.0 5.9
Mozambique Natural or Cultured Pearls, Precious or Semiprecious Stones, Precious 12.5 32.4 17.0 0.0 0.1
Jewellery; Coin
Ethiopia Vehicles, Aircraft, Vessels and Associated Transport Equipment 20.5 32.2 12.5 18.6 0.1
Iceland Wood and Articles of Wood; Wood Charcoal; Cork and Articles of Cork; 1.4 30.4 24.5 1.8 0.0
Manufactures of Straw, of Esparto or of Other Plaiting Materials;
Basketware and Wickerwork
Antigua and Barbuda Textiles and Textile Articles 11.1 30.4 0.0 0.4 0.4
Antigua and Barbuda Plastics and Articles Thereof; Rubber and Articles Thereof 10.5 30.4 0.0 0.9 0.2

Note: Pseudo = pseudo-tariffs; excise = excise duties, IPT = intellectual property levies, sales = sales taxes, and NES = unclassified taxes. Total additional taxes
includes customs + environment + excise + sales + IPT + pseudo + regional + NES. Pairs are sorted by decreasing total additional taxes.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 47

What are the most-affected products? What are the policy implications of these findings?
The use of additional taxes is very much concentrated The analysis of the data collected so far suggests that
in sectors in which human health or ethical concerns multilateral negotiations on tariffs might not be address-
are predominant.Table 4 shows the most-affected prod- ing the right issues, at least in certain sectors. It shows
ucts (in certain markets).The largest product/sector pairs that some worries expressed by countries with regard to
are observed for developed economies and alcohol. A the impact of trade liberalization on their economies
1,000 percent additional tax is imposed on gin and could be beside the point.
geneva whiskey in Iceland. Similar levels of taxation are In order to illustrate this point, we compute the
observed for tobacco in Germany. Grape wines face a average cuts of tariffs currently under discussion in the
354 percent additional taxation in Bangladesh. As illus- Doha Round for countries considered here, on all prod-
trated in Table 4, a high taxation level can affect any sec- ucts (see the appendix for further details).This computa-
tor independently of the development level of the tion provides a specific percentage of average reduction
applying country. of the protection, after proper weighting, across products
within sectors and across countries within sectors.
Table 4: Illustrative selection of high additional taxes in our sample (individual importers and HS-6 products)
HS-6 Total additional

Country group Country code Description taxes (%)
Developed Iceland 220850 Gin and geneva >1,000

Developed Germany 240120 Tobacco, unmanufactured, partly or wholly stemmed or stripped >1,000
Developing Sri Lanka 240220 Cigarettes containing tobacco 342.9
Developing Antigua and Barbuda 870323 Automobiles with reciprocating piston engine displacing > 1,500 cc to 3,000 cc 290.0
Developing China 220600 Fermented beverages NES (for example, cider, perry, mead, etc.) 249.5 47
Developing Mauritius 240310 Smoking tobacco, whether or not containing tobacco substitutes in any proportion 230.0
Developing Mauritius 220720 Ethyl alcohol and other spirits, denatured, of any strength 200.0
Developing South Africa 382460 Sorbitol (other than D-glucitol) 185.2
Developing South Africa 240310 Smoking tobacco, whether or not containing tobacco substitutes in any proportion 176.4
Developing Lebanon 240220 Cigarettes containing tobacco 108.0
Developing Algeria 220830 Whiskies 104.0
Developing Nicaragua 271091 Waste oils containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated 100.0
terphenyls (PCTs) or polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs)
Developing Papua New Guinea 950430 Games, coin or disc-operated, other than bowling alley equipment 100.0
Developing Algeria 220860 Vodka 100.0
Developing Colombia 610711 Men’s/boys’ underpants and briefs, of cotton, knitted 95.0
Least-developed Bangladesh 220410 Grape wines, sparkling 354.0
Least-developed Guinea 340119 Organic surface-active agents (other than soap); surface-active preparations, 336.1
washing preparations (including auxiliary washing preparations) and cleaning
preparations, whether or not containing soap, other than those of heading
34.01: Organic surface-active agents, whether or not put up for retail NES.
Least-developed Bangladesh 220300 Beer made from malt 254.0
Least-developed Madagascar 271011 Light oils and preparations 204.0
Least-developed Djibouti 220410 Grape wines, sparkling 160.0
Least-developed Uganda 240310 Smoking tobacco, whether or not containing tobacco substitutes in any proportion 150.0
Least-developed Madagascar 220830 Whiskies 135.0
Least-developed Zambia 220410 Grape wines, sparkling 125.0
Least-developed Ethiopia 220840 Rum and tafia 113.0
Least-developed Mauritania 220410 Grape wines, sparkling 107.0
Least-developed Ethiopia 842211 Dish washing machines of the household type 93.0

Note: Pseudo = pseudo-tariffs; excise = excise duties, IPT = intellectual property levies, sales = sales taxes. Total additional taxes includes customs + environment
+ excise + sales + IPT + pseudo + regional + NES.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 48
Table 5: Statutory protection and additional taxes before and after liberalization (sectoral average for the country
sample), percent
Total
Customs Total additional
Customs duty after additional taxes after
Description duty simulation taxes simulation
Prepared Foodstuffs; Beverages, Spirits, and Vinegar; Tobacco and Manufactured Tobacco Substitutes 20.7 14.0 37.5 19.4
Mineral Products 2.0 1.8 7.0 3.9
Vehicles, Aircraft, Vessels and Associated Transport Equipment 11.7 6.5 1.4 0.9
Animal or Vegetable Fats and Oils and Their Cleavage Products; Prepared Edible Fats; Animal or Vegetable Waxes 11.7 7.8 1.3 0.9
Natural or Cultured Pearls, Precious or Semiprecious Stones, Precious Metals, Metals Clad with Precious Metal, 4.0 3.1 1.0 0.7
and Articles Thereof; Imitation Jewellery; Coin
Raw Hides and Skins, Leather, Furskins and Articles Thereof; Saddlery and Harness; Travel Goods, Handbags, 7.2 4.7 0.8 0.7
and Similar Containers; Articles of Animal Gut (Other Than Silk-worm Gut)
Products of the Chemical or Allied Industries 4.5 3.4 0.7 0.5
Textiles and Textile Articles 11.6 6.6 0.6 0.5
Vegetable Products 10.9 6.7 0.6 0.5
Plastics and Articles Thereof; Rubber and Articles Thereof 6.9 4.9 0.6 0.5
Footwear, Headgear, Umbrellas, Sun Umbrellas, Walking-Sticks, Seat-Sticks, Whips, Riding-Crops and Parts 12.2 7.0 0.6 0.5
Thereof; Prepared Feathers and Articles Made Therewith; Artificial Flowers; Articles of Human Hair
Articles of Stone, Plaster, Cement, Asbestos, Mica or Similar Materials; Ceramic Products; Glass and Glassware 8.3 5.9 0.6 0.5
Pulp of Wood or of other Fibrous Cellulosic Material; Recovered (Waste and Scrap) Paper or Paperboard; 3.7 3.1 0.5 0.4
Paper and Paperboard and Articles Thereof
Base Metals and Articles of Base Metal 4.8 3.8 0.5 0.4
Machinery and Mechanical Appliances; Electrical Equipment; Parts Thereof; Sound Recorders and Reproducers, 3.8 2.4 0.5 0.5
Television Image and Sound Recorders and Reproducers, and Parts and Accessories of Such Articles
Live Animals; Animal Products 18.3 9.1 0.4 0.4
Miscellaneous Manufactured Articles 4.5 3.1 0.4 0.3
Optical, Photographic, Cinematographic, Measuring, Checking, Precision, Medical or Surgical Instruments 4.0 3.0 0.4 0.3
48 and Apparatus; Clocks and Watches; Musical Instruments; Parts and Accessories Thereof
Wood and Articles of Wood; Wood Charcoal; Cork and Articles of Cork; Manufactures of Straw, of Esparto 3.2 2.3 0.3 0.2
or of Other Plaiting Materials; Basketware and Wickerwork
Works of Art, Collectors’ Pieces and Antiques 5.1 3.4 0.2 0.2
Arms and Ammunition; Parts and Accessories Thereof 8.4 6.4 0.2 0.1

taxes. Total additional taxes includes customs + environment + excise + sales + IPT + pseudo + regional + NES.
Now we contemplate the impact of a possible trade Conclusion

liberalization extended to additional taxes.We apply to Under regional and multilateral negotiations, consider-
the additional taxes considered, for each country, the able efforts are being made to reduce tariffs, eliminate
national average reduction of tariffs.10 The effects are lim- non-tariff barriers, and facilitate border measures.
ited to certain sectors and products, which are usually However, very little effort is made to reduce additional
revealed as being the most sensitive ones. import taxes that, as this chapter shows, come in various
In Table 5, the data from Table 1 concerning the forms and are used for a variety of reasons.These addi-
average additional taxation (excluding VAT) for the dif- tional taxes can be used to circumvent the commitments
ferent sectors are reproduced in the column entitled made by countries to reduce their tariffs or, for reasons
“Total additional taxes.” After applying the national of national preferences, to protect certain categories of
reduction of tariffs to the total additional taxes, we products.These measures may result in much higher
obtain the figures in the next column. rates of protection than those imposed by tariffs, thus
We observe that additional taxation for foodstuffs contributing to a slowdown in international trade for
would be cut by half, pointing to the fact that tariffs on certain categories of products. Including the component
prepared foodstuffs would be reduced less than the aver- of import taxes issues in the next round of trade negoti-
age in the countries of our sample that impose addition- ations may result in relatively lower fiscal revenues, but it
al taxes in this sector. More importantly, we observe that will have a significant effect on reducing barriers to
in this sector, cutting tariffs would reduce protection by trade and thus to enabling the growth of world trade.
6.7 percentage points, while cutting additional taxes
would cut them by an additional 18.1 percentage
points, a nearly threefold difference.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 49

Notes
1 For a description of gravity equations for assessing the drivers of
trade between countries, see Box 1 in Chapter 1.1 of this volume.
The residuals derived from traditional gravity equations are the
“unexplained” part of trade between trading partners, part of
which can be explained by trade barriers.
2 This methodology compares external trade flows, by sector and

partner, with the corresponding “internal exports” (domestic
sales) and control for external/internal distances, production and
consumption patterns, and so on. The question is ultimately how
much a country trades in a sector with a certain partner as com-
pared to domestic sales, caeteris paribus.
3 Anderson and van Wincoop 2004.
4 170 percent is cumulating the 74 percent trade cost and the 55

percent retail and distribution costs (2.70 = 1.74 x 1.55).
5 This is calculated as follows: 1.74 = 1.21 x 1.44
6 Kee et al. 2006.
7 Fontagné et al. 2005.
8 We also have information on the VAT but do not treat it because

VAT, according to the WTO rules, must in principle be levied
exactly in the same way on domestic and imported products.
9 We start from the HS-6 level and use a reference group method.
10 In order to obtain these figures, we apply for each country the

average tariff reduction resulting from the application of the
“modalities” (formula of tariff reduction) currently on the negotia-
tion table of the ongoing Doha Development Agenda negotiations
at the WTO. Accordingly, a unique coefficient of reduction is
applied to every additional tax within a country, calibrated by the
average tariff reduction of that country.
49
References
Anderson, J. E. and E. van Wincoop. 2004. “Trade Costs.” Journal of
Economic Literature 42(3): 691–751.
Fontagné L., T. Mayer, and S. Zignago. 2005. “Trade in the Triad: How
Easy Is the Access to Large Markets?” Canadian Journal of
Economics 38(4): 1401–30.
Kee, H.L., A. Nicita, and M. Olarreaga. 2006. Estimating Trade

Restrictiveness Indices. Policy Research Working Paper No. 3840.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 50
Appendix A: Data
Sector aggregation • Base Metals and Articles of Base Metal (Chapters

The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding 72–83)
System, generally referred to as the “Harmonized
• Machinery and Mechanical Appliances; Electrical
System” or simply “HS,” is an international product
Equipment; Parts Thereof; Sound Recorders and
nomenclature developed by the World Customs
Reproducers,Television Image and Sound
Organization (WCO).The nomenclature comprises
Recorders and Reproducers, and Parts and
about 5,000 commodity groups/products divided into
Accessories of Such Articles (Chapters 84–85)
21 sections, which (in general) group goods produced in
the same sector of the economy: • Vehicles, Aircraft,Vessels and Associated Transport
Equipment (Chapters 86–89)
• Live Animals; Animal Products (Chapters 01–05) • Optical, Photographic, Cinematographic,
• Vegetable Products (Chapters 6–14) Measuring, Checking, Precision, Medical or
Surgical Instruments and Apparatus; Clocks and
• Animal or Vegetable Fats and Oils and Their
Watches; Musical Instruments; Parts and Accessories
Cleavage Products; Prepared Edible Fats; Animal or
Thereof (Chapters 90–92)
Vegetable Waxes (Chapter 15)
• Arms and Ammunition; Parts and Accessories
• Prepared Foodstuffs; Beverages, Spirits, and Vinegar;
Thereof (Chapter 93)
Tobacco and Manufactured Tobacco Substitutes
(Chapters 16–24) • Miscellaneous Manufactured Articles (Chapters
94–96)
• Mineral Products (Chapters 25–27)
• Works of Art, Collectors’ Pieces and Antiques
• Products of the Chemical or Allied Industries
(Chapter 97)
(Chapters 28–38)
50 • Plastics and Articles Thereof; Rubber and Articles
Thereof (Chapters 39–40) Tariff Data
Applied tariffs come from ITC’s version of Market
• Raw Hides and Skins, Leather, Furskins and Articles Access Map.This covers customs tariffs applied by 185
Thereof; Saddlery and Harness;Travel Goods, importing countries to products from 239 countries
Handbags, and Similar Containers; Articles of and territories. Bound tariffs come from the WTO
Animal Gut (Other Than Silk-worm Gut) Consolidated Tariff Schedule Database. Import taxes applied
(Chapters 41–43) by 61 countries—2 developed countries, 36 developing
• Wood and Articles of Wood;Wood Charcoal; Cork countries, and 23 least-developed countries—were
and Articles of Cork; Manufactures of Straw, of compiled for this chapter.
Esparto or of Other Plaiting Materials; Basketware Our aggregation method starts with a simple average
and Wickerwork (Chapters 44–46) from the tariff tine to the HS-6 digit level comprising
some 5,000 different products. At any other aggregation
• Pulp of Wood or of other Fibrous Cellulosic
level however, it is not a simple average. In calculating
Material; Recovered (Waste and Scrap) Paper or
average tariffs or taxes for these aggregations, the trade
Paperboard; Paper and Paperboard and Articles
pattern of the importing country’s reference group is
Thereof (Chapters 47–49);
used as a weighting.
• Textiles and Textile Articles (Chapters 50–63) Tariff simulations use the latest modalities agreed
under multilateral negotiations.1 The reductions were
• Footwear, Headgear, Umbrellas, Sun Umbrellas,
applied to bound tariffs by country and product category.
Walking-Sticks, Seat-Sticks,Whips, Riding-Crops
For bound duties not consolidated, a base rate augment-
and Parts Thereof; Prepared Feathers and Articles
ed by 20 percent was used. Following the reductions, we
Made Therewith; Artificial Flowers; Articles of
use in our calculations the new reduced tariff if the
Human Hair (Chapters 64–67)
reduced bound tariff is lower than the most-favored
• Articles of Stone, Plaster, Cement, Asbestos, Mica or nation (MFN) applied tariff rate.
Similar Materials; Ceramic Products; Glass and Taking into account that no agreement has been
Glassware (Chapters 68–70) reached so far in the ongoing Doha Development
Agenda (DDA) negotiations, concerning the following
• Natural or Cultured Pearls, Precious or
tariff reduction formulas, we use the average range for
Semiprecious Stones, Precious Metals, Metals Clad
the different reductions. Furthermore, we do not take
with Precious Metal, and Articles Thereof; Imitation
into account potential product-exclusion lists.
Jewellery; Coin (Chapter 71)
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 51

Appendix A: Data (cont’d.)
Formula applied For Non-Agriculture Market Access (NAMA)

For agricultural products, a tiered formula is used products, developed and developing countries shall apply
depending on the country group. the following formula on a line-by-line basis:
Developed country members shall reduce their final
bound tariffs in equal annual installments over five years (a or b) ⫻ t 0
t1 ⫽
in accordance with the following tiered formula: (a or b) ⫹ t 1
Bands Reduction Reduction used where
0% ⬍ FBT or AVE* ⱕ 20% [48–52] % 50% t 1 ⫽ final bound rate of duty

20% ⬍ FBT or AVE * ⱕ 50% [55–60] % 57.5%
t 0 ⫽ base rate of duty
50% ⬍ FBT or AVE * ⱕ 75% [62–65] % 63.5%
75% ⬍ FBT or AVE * [66–73] % 69.5% a ⫽ [8–9] ⫽ coefficient for developed Members
(8.5 used in our simulation)
* FBT or AVE: final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent.
b ⫽ [19–23] ⫽ coefficient for developing Members
(21 used in our simulation)
Developing country members shall reduce their final

bound tariffs in equal annual installments over eight
Least-developed country members are not required to
years in accordance with the following tiered formula:
undertake reductions in bound duties.
Bands Reduction** Reduction used
0% ⬍ FBT or AVE * ⱕ 30% [32–35] % 33.5% Note

30% ⬍ FBT or AVE * ⱕ 80% [37–40] % 38.5% 1 WTO, Committee on Agriculture (TN/AG/W/4/Rev.1), February
2008. WTO, Negotiating Group on Market Access
80% ⬍ FBT or AVE * ⱕ 130% [41–43] % 42% (TN/MA/W/103), February 2008.
130% ⬍ FBT or AVE * [44–49] % 46.5% 51
** Corresponding in two-thirds of the cut for developed-country members
(rounded off in the closest integer).
Small and vulnerable economies (SVEs) shall reduce

their final bound tariffs in equal annual installments
over eight years in accordance with the following tiered
formula:
Bands Reduction** Reduction used
0% ⬍ FBT or AVE * ⱕ 30% [22–25] % 23.5%

30% ⬍ FBT or AVE * ⱕ 80% [27–30] % 28.5%
80% ⬍ FBT or AVE * ⱕ 130% [31–33] % 31%
130% ⬍ FBT or AVE * [34–39] % 36.5%

** Corresponding in 10 points less than for developing-country members.
Least-developed countries (LDCs) members are not

required to undertake reductions in bound duties.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 52
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 53
1.4: Connecting to Compete: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy

CHAPTER 1.4 The increase in global production sharing, the shorten-
ing of product life cycles, and the intensification of
global competition all highlight logistics as a strategic
Connecting to Compete: source of competitive advantage. Given their importance
to facilitating trade in goods, the efficiency and costs
Trade Logistics in the Global related to trade logistics constitute key components of
the Enabling Trade Index (ETI), discussed in Chapter
Economy 1.1 of this Report. The present chapter complements
Chapter 1.1 by providing a detailed analysis of the trade
JEAN-FRANÇOIS ARVIS, MONICA ALINA MUSTRA, and
logistics so important for enabling the free flow of
JOHN PANZER from The World Bank goods internationally.
LAURI OJALA and TAPIO NAULA from the Turku School of Technological advances and economic liberalization
Economics, Finland have created new opportunities for countries to harness
global markets for economic growth and development.
But expanded supply chains and global production net-
works put a new premium on moving goods in a pre-
dictable, timely, and cost-effective way. Being able to
connect to what has been referred to as the “physical
internet” is fast becoming a key determinant of a coun-
try’s competitiveness.1 For those able to connect, the
physical internet brings access to vast new markets; but
for those whose links to the global logistics web are
weak, the costs of exclusion are large and growing.
Whether it is a cause or a consequence, no country has
grown successfully without a large expansion of its trade.
Well-connected countries can have access to many
more markets and consumers: a country as distant from 53
most major markets as Chile can be a major player in
the high-end world food market, supplying fresh fish
and perishable fruits to consumers in Asia, Europe, and
North America. But for the poorly connected, the costs
of exclusion are considerable and growing, and the risks
of missed opportunities loom large, especially for the
poorest landlocked countries, many of them in Africa.
In this highly competitive world, the quality of
logistics can have a major bearing on a firm’s decisions
about which country to locate in, which suppliers to
buy from, and which consumer markets to enter. High
logistics costs and—more particularly—low levels of
service are a barrier to trade and foreign direct invest-
ment (FDI), and thus to economic growth. Countries
with higher overall logistics costs are more likely to miss
the opportunities of globalization.
Take landlocked Chad, for example. Importing a
20-foot container from Shanghai to its capital
N’djamena takes about ten weeks at a cost of US$6,500.
Importing the same container to a landlocked country
in Western or Central Europe would take about four
weeks and cost less than US$3,000.The shipping costs
and delays from Shanghai to Douala, the gateway for
Chad, and to West European ports are essentially the
same. And the same international freight forwarding
company would handle the container from Douala to
N’djamena and within Europe. So what accounts for the
large difference in time and cost?
The answer lies in better processes, higher-quality
services, and the operating environment.The forwarder
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 54
in Europe would use a seamless, paperless system to approach to supply chain performance (see Appendix A:
manage the inland shipment from its 8-hectare campus Structure and composition of the LPI). It provides the
in the gateway port of Le Havre.The transport inside first in-depth cross-country assessment of the logistics
Europe would take less than three days. And to add gap and constraints facing countries. Given their
value for its client and generate more business, the for- uniqueness and significance, the LPI data have also been
warder would provide additional services, such as used extensively in the Enabling Trade Index discussed
improving the client’s internal distribution practices. in Chapter 1.1. Specifically, LPI survey data have been
In Chad the process would be different. Although used to measure several aspects of the efficiency of
only five days should be needed to move the container import-export procedures as well as the availability and
from Douala to N’djamena, the actual time would likely quality of transport services.
be as long as five weeks. In a difficult governance and
security environment, the freight forwarding company
would be trying simply to avoid a breakdown in its Key messages
client’s supply chain. It would maintain company staff The LPI provides some insights on the cost of poor
along the trade corridor to physically track the goods logistics to country competitiveness—and the sources of
and trade documents. And it would have to be ready to those higher costs. A key insight from the survey of
mediate with the trucking syndicate, the security forces, logistics professionals is that, although costs and timeliness
and myriad government agencies. are of paramount importance, traders are primarily con-
cerned with the overall reliability of the supply chain.
Costs related to hedging against uncertainty have become
Measuring logistics performance a significant part of logistics costs in many developing
Improving logistics performance has become an impor- countries. Equally, the cost and quality of logistics are
tant development policy objective.The performance of determined not just by infrastructure and the perform-
customs, trade-related infrastructure, inland transit, logis- ance of public agencies, but also by the availability of
tics services, information systems, and port efficiency are quality and competitive private services. Moreover, in
all critical to whether countries can trade goods and many developing countries, problems of adverse geogra-
54 services on time and at low cost.This trade competitive- phy are compounded by a weak modern services sector
ness is central to whether countries can harness global- because of poor institutions or overregulation.
ization’s new opportunities for development. The LPI shows how different countries are doing
International logistics encompasses an array of in the area of trade logistics, and what they can do to
actions ranging from transportation, consolidation of improve their performance. Country performance is largely
cargo, warehousing, and border clearance to in-country influenced by the weakest link in the supply chain: poor
distribution and payment systems. performance in just one or two areas can have serious
This sequence cannot be easily summarized in a repercussions on overall competitiveness. It also points to
single indicator. Nor is it easy to collect, on a global significant differences in logistics performance across
basis, the information to build a performance measure. countries and regions, reflecting not only the expected
Information on time and costs associated with some disparities between developed and developing countries
important logistics processes—such as port time, time to —especially the least-developed, landlocked countries—
clear customs, and transport—provides a good starting but, more important, significant differences among devel-
point and in many cases is readily available. But this oping countries at similar levels of development. Countries
information, even when complete, cannot be easily that top the LPI ranking are typically key players in the
aggregated in a single consistent cross-country dataset logistics industry, while those at the bottom are often
because of essential differences in the supply chain trapped in a vicious circle of overregulation, poor-quality
structure among countries. Perhaps more important, services, and underinvestment. Among developing coun-
many critical elements for good logistics performance— tries, logistics overachievers are also those experiencing
such as the transparency of processes and the quality, economic growth led by manufactured exports.
predictability, and reliability of services—cannot be cap- Although performance outcomes such as domestic
tured from the information available on time and costs. costs or the time taken to reach a destination are impor-
To address this, the World Bank, with its professional tant, traders mostly value the performance of logistics
and academic partners, has produced the (first) Logistics services available to them: the reliability and predictability
Performance Index (LPI) to start closing the knowledge of the supply chain matter most. For example, traditional
gap and help countries develop logistics reform programs measures of performance such as direct freight costs and
to enable trade and enhance their competitiveness.2 average delays, while important, may not capture the over-
Complementing existing international sets of competi- all logistics performance and thus the ability of countries
tiveness indicators—such as the World Bank’s Doing to use trade for growth.The predictability and reliability
Business measures and the World Economic Forum’s of shipments, while more difficult to measure, are more
Global Competitiveness Index—the Logistics Perform- important for firms and may have a more dramatic
ance Index and its indicators propose a comprehensive impact on their ability to compete.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 55

Indeed, professionals view the friendliness of border growing, diversifying economy is likely to have the will
processes primarily in terms of the transparency and the and the means to improve its logistics performance.
predictability of clearance procedures. Even where Countries seeking to benefit more from globalization
countries have already implemented a customs modern- need to identify the key aspects of logistics performance,
ization program, the coordination of border procedures in particular in terms of their impact on competitiveness.
between customs and other agencies (responsible, say, for The Enabling Trade Index 2008 (ETI), discussed in
sanitary and phytosanitary standards) is an important Chapter 1.1 of this volume, is a detailed composite
concern. Although much progress has been made in index measuring the factors and policies facilitating the
telecommunications and information technology, most free flow of goods over borders and to destination. It
logistics professionals are not satisfied with the quality of therefore covers many of the issues covered by the LPI,
the physical infrastructure in many developing coun- as well as market access issues (tariffs and non-tariff bar-
tries. Even where customs has been modernized, the riers, national proclivity to trade) and regulatory and
coordination of border procedures between customs and security-related issues. Many of the LPI data have been
other agencies remains an important concern. Logistics used in computing the ETI for measuring aspects of the
performance is more and more determined by the avail- efficiency of import-export procedures as well as the
ability of quality, competitive private services such as availability and quality of transport services.
brokering and warehousing. The added value of the LPI is that it provides a global
Countries doing fairly well in logistics are also like- benchmark of logistics efficiency and service quality not
ly to do well in growth and competitiveness, export treated specifically in the World Bank’s Doing Business
diversification, and trade expansion. Improvements in series.3 Further, it provides critical input into the ETI and
the supply chain contribute significantly to competitive- a detailed analysis of key issues related to enabling trade.
ness by reducing transaction costs. At the same time, a The LPI rankings are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: The First Logistics Performance Index

Country/Economy LPI Rank Score Country/Economy LPI Rank Score Country/Economy LPI Rank Score Country/Economy LPI Rank Score 55
Singapore 1 4.19 India 39 3.07 Gambia, The 77 2.52 Serbia and Montenegro 115 2.28
Netherlands 2 4.18 Poland 40 3.04 Iran 78 2.51 Guinea-Bissau 116 2.28
Germany 3 4.10 Saudi Arabia 41 3.02 Uruguay 79 2.51 Laos 117 2.25
Sweden 4 4.08 Latvia 42 3.02 Honduras 80 2.50 Jamaica 118 2.25
Austria 5 4.06 Indonesia 43 3.01 Cambodia 81 2.50 Togo 119 2.25
Japan 6 4.02 Kuwait 44 2.99 Colombia 82 2.50 Madagascar 120 2.24
Switzerland 7 4.02 Argentina 45 2.98 Uganda 83 2.49 Burkina Faso 121 2.24
Hong Kong SAR 8 4.00 Qatar 46 2.98 Cameroon 84 2.49 Nicaragua 122 2.21
United Kingdom 9 3.99 Estonia 47 2.95 Comoros 85 2.48 Haiti 123 2.21
Canada 10 3.92 Oman 48 2.92 Angola 86 2.48 Eritrea 124 2.19
Ireland 11 3.91 Cyprus 49 2.92 Bangladesh 87 2.47 Ghana 125 2.16
Belgium 12 3.89 Slovak Republic 50 2.92 Bosnia and Herzegovina 88 2.46 Namibia 126 2.16
Denmark 13 3.86 Romania 51 2.91 Benin 89 2.45 Somalia 127 2.16
United States 14 3.84 Jordan 52 2.89 Macedonia, FYR 90 2.43 Bhutan 128 2.16
Finland 15 3.82 Vietnam 53 2.89 Malawi 91 2.42 Uzbekistan 129 2.16
Norway 16 3.81 Panama 54 2.89 Sri Lanka 92 2.40 Nepal 130 2.14
Australia 17 3.79 Bulgaria 55 2.87 Nigeria 93 2.40 Armenia 131 2.14
France 18 3.76 Mexico 56 2.87 Morocco 94 2.38 Mauritius 132 2.13
New Zealand 19 3.75 Sao Tome and Principe 57 2.86 Papua New Guinea 95 2.38 Kazakhstan 133 2.12
United Arab Emirates 20 3.73 Lithuania 58 2.78 Dominican Republic 96 2.38 Gabon 134 2.10
Taiwan, China 21 3.64 Peru 59 2.77 Egypt 97 2.37 Syria 135 2.09
Italy 22 3.58 Tunisia 60 2.76 Lebanon 98 2.37 Mongolia 136 2.08
Luxembourg 23 3.54 Brazil 61 2.75 Russian Federation 99 2.37 Tanzania 137 2.08
South Africa 24 3.53 Guinea 62 2.71 Zambia 100 2.37 Solomon Islands 138 2.08
Korea, Rep. 25 3.52 Croatia 63 2.71 Senegal 101 2.37 Albania 139 2.08
Spain 26 3.52 Sudan 64 2.71 Côte d’Ivoire 102 2.36 Algeria 140 2.06
Malaysia 27 3.48 Philippines 65 2.69 Kyrgyz Republic 103 2.35 Guyana 141 2.05
Portugal 28 3.38 El Salvador 66 2.66 Ethiopia 104 2.33 Chad 142 1.98
Greece 29 3.36 Mauritania 67 2.63 Liberia 105 2.31 Niger 143 1.97
China 30 3.32 Pakistan 68 2.62 Moldova 106 2.31 Sierra Leone 144 1.95
Thailand 31 3.31 Venezuela, RB 69 2.62 Bolivia 107 2.31 Djibouti 145 1.94
Chile 32 3.25 Ecuador 70 2.60 Lesotho 108 2.30 Tajikistan 146 1.93
Israel 33 3.21 Paraguay 71 2.57 Mali 109 2.29 Myanmar 147 1.86
Turkey 34 3.15 Costa Rica 72 2.55 Mozambique 110 2.29 Rwanda 148 1.77
Hungary 35 3.15 Ukraine 73 2.55 Azerbaijan 111 2.29 Timor-Leste 149 1.71
Bahrain 36 3.15 Belarus 74 2.53 Yemen, Rep. 112 2.29 Afghanistan 150 1.21
Slovenia 37 3.14 Guatemala 75 2.53 Burundi 113 2.29
Czech Republic 38 3.13 Kenya 76 2.52 Zimbabwe 114 2.29
Source: Arvis et al., 2007a.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 56
Figure 1: Logistics performance and diversification of exports, 2005
100
Percent of top 10 exports in total exports
R 2 = 0.4293
80
60
40
20
0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Logistics Performance Index score
Source: UN COMTRADE; authors’ calculations.
56
The LPI gap, trade, and FDI: Good logistics performers 2 and Technical Note 2 in the appendix) than other
benefit more from globalization countries at the same income level.
The LPI gap (the difference between a country’s actual These significant correlations should be interpreted
LPI ranking and its expected ranking, based on its level in terms of their association rather than causality.
of income) also highlights the association between logistics Improvements in the supply chain contribute sig-
performance and trade and FDI outcomes. Good logistics nificantly to competitiveness by reducing transaction
performers benefit more from globalization. Logistically costs. At the same time, a growing, diversifying economy
friendly countries are more likely to have better global is likely to have the will and the means to improve its
value chain integration and attract export-oriented FDI. logistics performance.
Since trade and FDI are the key channels for the inter- Countries seeking to benefit more from globaliza-
national diffusion of knowledge, poor logistics may tion need to identify the key aspects of logistics per-
impede access to new technology and know-how, there- formance, in particular in terms of their impact on
fore slowing the rate of productivity growth. Conversely, competitiveness.This is the subject of the next section.
increased trade creates demand for good logistics, put-
ting pressure on facilitating reforms and sustaining a Logistics and competitiveness: Why predictability and
market for modern services. reliability matter more than freight costs
This is demonstrated by cross-country analyses of Just as strong logistics performance is associated with
the relationship among growth, export diversification or increased trade in developing countries (described
trade expansion, and the LPI. Countries ranked highly above), firm-level competitiveness is extremely sensitive
on the LPI also tended to have more diversified exports. to the quality of the logistics environment in which it
For non–oil-exporting developing countries, the standard operates. A firm’s competitiveness is influenced by cost
deviation of this gap is 0.3, while overachievers have a and performance of its supply chain, and thus depends
LPI gap of at least 0.5 (Figure 1). on the overall logistics environment—but the main
Likewise, countries undergoing trade expansion impact on a firm’s competitiveness is less through cost
(increased trade-to-GDP ratio) tended to also be those than through the predictability of the deliveries.
outperforming on the LPI relative to their level of Firms have to bear the direct costs associated with
income (those with a positive LPI gap). A logistics over- moving goods, such as freight costs, port and handling
achiever with an LPI gap of 0.5 experiences 2 percent charges, procedural fees (such as bonds), agent fees, and
more trade expansion, 1 percent more annual growth, or side payments. But they also have to absorb the induced
exports 40 percent more variety of products (see Figure costs associated with hedging for the lack of predictability
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 57

and reliability of the supply chain (Figure 2).4 They may Figure 2: Structure of logistics costs supported by
need to carry higher inventories of supplies or finished traders
products, or switch to more expensive modes of trans-
portation to be sure to meet delivery schedules.5
Induced costs are inversely related to predictability Direct costs Induced costs
and also tend to rise steeply with declining logistics per-
formance. For example, suppliers to the same automobile
Freight and other
costs associated
+ Cost of non-delivery or
avoidance of non-delivery,
with shipment storage, delivery
manufacturer will carry 7 days of inventory in Italy but
35 days in Morocco. Some retailers in African countries
maintain three months of inventories or more. Bangladesh Source: Arvis et al., 2007b.
has to ship, on average, 10 percent of its garment pro-
duction by air to be certain to meet the schedules of
European buyers.
The high induced costs of unpredictability in the international logistics providers, as well as to better
international supply chain are a major constraint for performance of the railroad from Abidjan, following a
companies and countries trying to diversify into higher- well-executed privatization program.
value production. In global production chains, countries Induced costs in countries with good logistics per-
face the double challenge of maintaining an efficient formance are much lower than those for countries with
chain not just for exports but also for imported inputs low logistics performance (Figure 3), differences that can
and components.This can be a particular burden for determine a product’s competitiveness in international
least-developed countries, where inputs often cannot be markets. By contrast, direct logistics costs tend to be
sourced regionally. much more similar across countries and across different
Improvements in the quality of the supply chain can logistics performance levels.They are therefore less of a
thus open new opportunities to entrepreneurs, even in differentiating factor in a country’s ability to compete.
otherwise constrained countries. Southern Mali and Domestic freight services are tradable, at least regionally.
Burkina Faso can consider diversifying into exports of The costs of capital and some direct inputs, such as fuel,
fresh mangoes (three-week shelf life) as well as cotton are also fairly comparable, even in countries at very dif- 57
exports (typically stored at ports for months), thanks ferent levels of development. For developing countries,
to greater cooperation between local operators and the lower cost of labor may be offset by lower produc-
tivity, hence the U curve for direct costs.
Figure 3: Direct freight costs vs. induced costs, assessed by respondent
1.0
Induced costs
0.8 Direct freight costs
Normalized scale
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Logistics Performance Index score
Source: Arvis et al., 2007a.

Note: The normalized scale is a nonmonetary measure of the relative level of costs across countries, as assessed by respondents in the survey. The curves are fit-
ted to a logistics model, with a utility quadratic in the LPI. Induced costs = the percent of respondents saying that import shipments are not cleared and deliv-
ered in time. Direct costs = the percent of respondents saying that overall direct logistics costs are high by international standards.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 58
Excluding landlocked countries, the average inland formance is determined not just by infrastructure and
costs (port and hauling) of importing a 40-foot contain- the performance of public agencies, but also by the
er or semitrailer, for all countries in the survey, is about availability of quality and competitive private services—
US$700: typically 1.5 percent of the value of goods or services such as trucking, customs brokering, and ware-
the equivalent of two weeks of inventories, much less housing.
than the actual costs in many developing countries once The LPI and its indicators also suggest that policy-
large induced costs are factored in.6 This average masks makers should look beyond the traditional “facilitation
wide differences. Large coastal countries, such as Russia agenda” largely focused on trade-related infrastructure
and the United States, have higher costs because of long and information technology in customs, already widely
domestic distances. Other countries are primarily trad- recognized for their importance.To close the logistics
ing overland, as in Eastern Europe, which increases the gap, they should pursue improvements in the markets
costs. for logistics services, reduce coordination failures (espe-
Higher overall import costs are observed in low cially those of public agencies active in border control),
logistics performers. In Africa, even in the larger coastal and build strong domestic constituencies to support
economies of Nigeria and Kenya, the cost of importing reform.
or exporting a 40-foot container is in excess of Moreover, the LPI suggests that there are strong
US$2,000. Costs are also increased by the low economies synergies among reforms to customs, border management,
of scale for multimodal infrastructure or structural infrastructure, and transport regulations. Reforms in
imbalances of volumes of trade along corridors. In some these different areas have a mutually reinforcing effect
regions, especially in Africa and Central Asia, the freight along all links in the logistics supply chain, directly con-
costs are augmented by a proliferation of official and tributing to predictability and performance. Countries
unofficial payments. In western Africa, facilitating pay- performing well have a comprehensive approach,
ments and mandatory procedural fees double the direct improving all the key logistics in parallel; those with a
cost of transportation.7 piecemeal approach, targeting a single link in the logis-
The competitive position of countries at an inter- tics chain, may see initial results but no lasting improve-
mediate development level tends to be eroded if they ments. A comprehensive reform of logistics and trade
58 have low logistics performance and thus much higher facilitation is thus essential. But too few developing
induced costs. Firms in lowest performing countries are countries have created a virtuous circle of improve-
even worse off, since they have to support both high ments. Countries at the bottom of the LPI rankings are
freight costs and very high induced costs (see Figure 3). typically trapped in a vicious circle of overregulation,
The above trends show that the higher logistics poor-quality services, and underinvestment.
costs borne by traders in poor environments are only Reforms to improve logistics should follow an
partially associated with freight transport. And because integrated approach, focusing on the interaction among
of their endogenous nature, these costs can thus be low- infrastructure and public and private services, addressing
ered by better domestic systems and policies.The large coordination failures, and identifying constituencies
differences observed between countries can be explained for reform.To be effective, reforms should improve the
by the fact that the overall performance of a country is predictability and reliability of shipments and not just
largely influenced by the weakest link in its supply focus on reducing average costs and delays. For instance,
chain. Poor performance, even in only one or two areas, traditional measures of performance such as direct
can have very strong implications for overall country freight costs and average delays, while important, may
performance.This insight is important for the design of not capture the overall logistics performance and thus
effective reforms. the ability of countries to use trade for growth.The
predictability and reliability of shipments, while more
difficult to measure, are more important for firms and
Conclusions: Lessons for reform may have a much greater impact on their ability to
By providing a comprehensive assessment of the gaps compete.
and constraints in logistics performance, the LPI and This effort will demand a more integrated, compre-
other information derived from the Logistics hensive approach to supply chain–related reforms,
Performance Survey can help policymakers, private according to the performance of countries, with impli-
stakeholders, and international organizations quantify cations for policymakers and development agencies. For
the constraints countries face in connecting globally. the most severely constrained countries—typically land-
The LPI provides some insights on the costs of locked countries in Africa and Central Asia—innovative
poor logistics to country competitiveness—and the solutions may need to be found, and international
sources of those higher costs. Beyond cost and time donors will have an important role.
taken to deliver goods, the predictability and reliability Cross-cutting reforms need to be supported by
of supply chains is increasingly important in a world of broad constituencies. Creating an effective logistics
just-in-time production sharing. Equally, logistics per- environment requires consistent improvements and the
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 59

continuing participation of all stakeholders, who can Daley, J. M., and P. R. Murphy. 1999. “Revisiting Logistical Friendliness:
Perspectives of International Freight Forwarders.” Journal of
demand concrete and practical improvements in per- Transportation Management: 65–71.
formance. Although the problems to be addressed are
De Wulf, L. and J. Sokol, eds. 2004. Customs Modernization Initiatives:
rather specific, the ability to tackle them depends largely Case Studies. Washington, DC: World Bank.
on a country’s overall governance and institutional ———. 2005. Customs Modernization Handbook. Washington, DC:
context. International companies can bring global World Bank.
knowledge and pressure for change. But the support of Guasch, J. and J. L. Kogan. 2003. “Just in Case Inventories: A Cross
local constituencies of exporters, operators, and public Country Analysis.” Policy Research Working Paper No. 3012.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
agencies is crucial.
Labaste, P. 2003. “Linking Farmers to Market, Exporting Malian
In identifying the key problem areas and constraints, Mangoes to Europe.” Working Paper 60. Africa Region.
the LPI and its indicators also aim to help guide the Washington, DC: World Bank.
preparation of more in-depth, country-specific assess- Makillie, P. 2006. “The Physical Internet.” The Economist. June 15.
ments and strategies, such as trade and transport facilita- Ojala L. and C. Qeiroz, eds. 2004. “Transport Sector Restructuring in
tion audits,8 that are needed to generate concrete the Baltic States towards EU Aaccession.” Working Paper No.
31123, March. Washington, DC: World Bank.
improvements in logistics performance.
The LPI rankings and indicators provide robust Ojala, L., T. Naula, and T. Hoffmann. 2005. “Trade and Transport
Facilitation: Audit of the Baltic States (TTFBS).” Working Paper
benchmarks that may help policymakers—and particu- No. 31121. Europe and Central Asia Region, World Bank,
larly the private sector—build the case for reform. By Washington, DC.
showing countries how they compare with their com- Raven, J. 2001. Trade and Transport Facilitation: A Toolkit for Audit,
petitors, and shining a light on the costs of poor logistics Analysis, and Remedial Action. Washington, DC: World Bank.
performance, it is hoped that the LPI and its indicators Rodrigues, A.M, D. J. Bowersox, and R. J Calantone. 2005. “Estimation
of Global and National Logistics Expenditures: 2002 Data
may help countries break out of the vicious circle of Update.” Journal of Business Logistics 26 (2): 1–16.
“logistics unfriendliness.”
Wilson, J., T. Otsuki, and C. Mann. 2004. “Assessing the Potential
Benefit of Trade Facilitation: A Global Perspective.” Policy
Research Working Paper No. 3224. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Notes World Bank. 2005. World Development Indicators 2005. Washington
1 Makillie 2006. DC: World Bank.
59
2 The survey would not have been possible without the support
and participation of the International Federation of Freight
Forwarders Associations (www.fiata.com), the Global Express
Association (www.global-express.org), the Global Facilitation
Partnership for Transportation and Trade (www.gfptt.org), and 10
major international logistics companies. The survey was designed
and implemented with Finland’s Turku School of Economics
(www.tukkk.fi/english/), which worked with the Bank to develop
the concept in 2003.
3 These are a series of annually published reports and databases

that can be found at www.doingbusiness.org.
4 Arvis et al. 2007b.
5 Guasch and Kogan 2003.
6 The typical value of a container of consumer goods is US$50,000,

while the inventory value is about 0.1 percent per day (Arvis et al.
2007b).
7 Arvis et al. 2007b.
8 Raven 2001.
References
Arvis, J. -F., M. Bellier, and G. Raballand. 2006. “Success Factors for
Improving Logistics in a Middle-Income Country.” Transport Notes
Series 35. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Arvis, J.-F., M. A. Mustra, J. Panzer, L. Ojala, and T. Naula. 2007a.

Connecting to Compete: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy:
The Logistics Performance Index and its Indicators. Washington,
DC: World Bank. Available at http://www.worldbank.org/lpi.
Arvis, J.-F., G. Raballand, and J.-F. Marteau. 2007b. “The Cost of Being
Landlocked: Logistics Costs and Supply Chain Reliability.” Policy
Daley, J. M., D. R. Dalenberg, and P. R. Murphy. 1993. “Doing Business

in Global Markets: Perspectives of International Freight
Forwarders.” Journal of Global Marketing 6 (4): 53–68.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 60
Appendix A: Structure and composition of the LPI
Freight forwarders and express carriers are in a privileged carriers. It relies on the experience and knowledge of
position to assess how countries perform on logistics. professionals.Their views matter: they have a direct
They manage operations from factory and warehouse to impact on the choice of shipping routes and gateways
port, from port to overland transit, and through one or and can influence the firms’ decisions about the location
more borders to destination, with each link testing a of production, choice of suppliers, and selection of tar-
country’s logistics infrastructure performance.The World get markets.
Bank’s Logistics Performance Survey taps into the first- The indicators summarize the performance of
hand knowledge of logistics professionals worldwide, countries in seven areas that capture the current logistics
providing a comprehensive picture of supply chain per- environment (Box A1).They range from traditional areas
formance—from customs procedures, logistics costs, and such as customs procedures, logistics costs (such as
infrastructure quality to the ability to track and trace freight rates), and infrastructure quality to new areas
shipments, timeliness in reaching destination, and the such as the ability to track and trace shipments, timeli-
competence of the domestic logistics industry. ness in reaching a destination, and the competence of
the domestic logistics industry. None of these areas
alone can ensure good logistics performance.
The Logistics Performance Index and its indicators The selection of these areas is based on the latest
The Logistics Performance Index and its indicators have theoretical and empirical research,1 and on extensive
been constructed from information gathered in a world- interviews with logistics professionals involved in inter-
wide survey of the companies responsible for moving national freight logistics.2 The LPI synthesizes this infor-
goods and facilitating trade around the world—the mation in a composite index to allow for comparisons
multinational freight forwarders and the main express (see Table 1 in the text).
60
Box A1: Building the Logistics Performance Index
The Logistics Performance Index (LPI) is built on information structed using the principal component analysis method in
from a Web-based questionnaire completed by more than 800 order to improve the confidence intervals.
logistics professionals worldwide—the operators or agents of Each respondent was also asked to evaluate the logistics
the world’s largest logistics service providers. Each respondent performance and the environment and institutions in support of
was asked to rate performance in seven logistics areas for logistics operations in the country in which they are based.5
eight countries with which they conduct business. For each (This wealth of additional information on different aspects of
respondent, the eight countries were automatically generated logistics was used to interpret the LPI as well as to validate and
by the survey engine based on trade flows, income level, geo- cross-check the information underlying it. The questionnaire is
graphical position of respondent countries (coastal or land- available at www.worldbank.org/lpi.)
locked), and random selection.1 The country selection matrix is
presented in Figure A1 in Technical Note 1. Performance was
evaluated using a 5-point scale (1 for the lowest score, 5 for the Notes
highest). The seven areas of performance are:2 1 Although respondents know best the countries with which they
trade most, relying on trade statistics alone would leave small and
• efficiency of the clearance process by customs and other low-income economies uncovered.
border agencies, 2 In Arvis et al. 2007a, Appendix Table A1, the short names for these
• quality of transport and information technology infrastructure seven areas of performance are: customs, infrastructure, interna-
for logistics, tional shipments, logistics competence, tracking and tracing,
domestic logistics costs, and timeliness.
• lease and affordability of arranging international shipments,
• competence of the local logistics industry, 3 See Table A2 in Technical Note 1 and Arvis et al. 2007a, Appendix
Table A1; the Logistics Performance Index is also available at
• ability to track and trace international shipments, www.worldbank.org/lpi.
• domestic logistics costs, and
4 Domestic costs were found to be uncorrelated to the other areas
• timeliness of shipments in reaching destination. in the LPI. Therefore, being less significant, this component was
dropped from the composition of the index.
More than 5,000 individual country evaluations were used to 5 Arvis et al. 2007a, Appendix Tables A2 and A3; the Logistics
prepare the Logistics Performance Index, which covers 150 Performance Index is also available at available at
countries.3 The LPI was aggregated as a weighted average of www.worldbank.org/lpi.
the seven areas of logistics performance.4 The index is con-
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 61

Appendix A: Structure and composition of the LPI (cont’d.)
The LPI and its indicators are given on a numerical high- and low-performing countries much larger than
scale, from 1 (worst) to 5 (best).This scale can also be for any other question in the survey. Some of the rea-
used to interpret performance outcomes measures. For sons for this are discussed at the end of this appendix.
example, the analysis based on the additional country This section draws upon the qualitative information
information gathered in the survey indicates that, on provided by international operators based in the coun-
average, having an LPI lower by one point (say, 2.5 tries being evaluated to provide insights on the key
rather than 3.5) implies six additional days for getting institutions and processes determining logistics perform-
imports from the port to a firm’s warehouse and three ance; it then analyzes the importance of reliability in
additional days for exports. It also implies that a ship- logistics performance for competitiveness.
ment is five times more likely to be subject to a physical
inspection at entry. Quality of infrastructure
Telecommunications and information technology (IT)
infrastructure are an essential component of modern
Key factors determining logistics performance trade processes.The physical movement of goods now
To provide a more complete picture of the key factors entails the efficient and timely exchange of information.
determining logistics performance, the Logistics In countries in the LPI’s top two quintiles, logistics
Performance Survey asked logistics professionals about operators rarely have any issues with the quality of the
the institutions and processes supporting logistics opera- telecommunications and IT infrastructure, but close to
tions in the countries in which they are based (Table half of them express concerns in countries ranging from
A1). It asked them to assess critical attributes of the sup- average to lowest performers. In sub-Saharan Africa, 43
ply chain, including timeliness of deliveries, quality of percent of respondents see this as an issue.5
transport and IT infrastructure, efficiency of border The quality of transport infrastructure remains a
clearance processes, competence of the local logistics concern in close to or more than half of the logistics
industry, and domestic costs of services as well as pro- operators in average, low, and lowest performers.That
vide time and cost data.3 61
concerns also exist in even the highest and high per-
The questions in the Logistics Performance Survey forming countries reflects the challenge of maintaining
delved into the quality of infrastructure, the competence physical infrastructure at a level able to satisfy rapidly
of private and public logistics service providers, the roles growing demands.
of customs and other border agencies, such governance
issues as corruption and transparency, and the reliability Competence of private and public logistics service
of the trading system and supply chains.4 Reliability providers
(measured by the predictability of the clearance process The performance of the supply chain depends on the
and the timely delivery of shipments) emerged as a key quality of services delivered by the private sector
concern, with the difference in satisfaction between the through customs brokers and road transport operators—
Table A1: How logistics professionals assess institutions and processes

Top quintile Second quintile Third quintile Fourth quintile Bottom quintile
Highest High Average Low Lowest
Percent of respondents performance performance performance performance performance
Concerned about the quality of telecommunications and IT infrastructure 6 7 41 27 46

Concerned about the quality of the physical transport infrastructure 17 28 59 46 57
(ports, roads, warehouses)
Satisfied with customs 55 32 19 18 11
Satisfied with other border government agencies 38 13 10 9 18
Satisfied with private logistics services1 59 34 18 16 11
Satisfied with professional organizations 46 28 6 21 17
Concerned with frequent solicitation of informal payments 6 23 34 49 56
Satisfied with transparency of border processes2 72 44 38 33 26
Imports cleared and delivered as scheduled 87 69 32 39 13
Source: Arvis et al. 2007a, Appendix Tables A2, A3.

Notes:
1 Aggregation of customs brokers, distributors, and road operators.
2 Aggregation of the results of the predictability of changes in regulations and transparency of the customs clearance process.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 62
and on the competence and diligence of public agencies and the absence of competition lead to corruption or
in charge of border procedures. In these areas, the three poor services—such as those provided by “suitcase busi-
bottom quintiles generally fare much worse than the top nessmen” at border posts. Often the mere presence of
quintile, and the differences in quality are as significant these operators disturbs the clearance process and hin-
as those for infrastructure (see Table A1). For example, ders the emergence of competent local logistics opera-
the satisfaction with customs brokers is fairly high for tors who can work with international operators.
the upper-middle-income countries (around 50 per-
cent), but it is only 8 percent for private providers in Customs and other border agencies
sub-Saharan Africa.6 Clearance at the border is not only a matter of customs
For the lower performers, the dissatisfaction with diligence. Law enforcement agencies and ministries of
the quality of trade logistics services applies to both the agriculture and industry also intervene in the process.
private and public sectors. In those countries where Customs performance tends to be better than that of
logistics performance is high, there is more satisfaction other border agencies; on average, customs clearance
with private providers than with public providers.The accounts for a third of import time (Box A2).This
negative view of private providers in the lower perform- underscores the importance of addressing the coordina-
ers is an important insight.Too often in developing tion of border agencies, especially in countries that
countries, and notably in Africa, inadequate regulations already have attained good customs clearance.
Box A2: Modernizing border processes
62 Clearance processes by customs and other agencies are delays in Africa (56 percent) and Latin America (43 percent).3
among the most important links in the global supply chain. Key Physical inspections and the time needed for clearance are
facilitation principles have been addressed by several interna- also strongly associated with overall logistics performance. But
tional agreements (such as the Kyoto convention, the World only one-third of the time to import is explained by the customs
Trade Organization (WTO)’s General Agreement on Tariffs and process, the rest by transportation, handling, or delays caused
Trade (GATT), and the current negotiations on trade facilitation by private operators.
at the WTO). In the Logistics Performance Survey, logistics pro-
fessionals provide in-depth evaluation in this critical area,
across countries.1
The Logistics Performance Survey results show a high Notes
degree of information technology (IT) use in Africa, 55 percent, 1 Arvis et al. 2007a, Appendix Tables A2, A3.
a credit to the United Nations Conference on Trade and 2 Information on the Asycuda program can be found at
Development (UNCTAD)’s Asycuda program and some home- http://www.asycuda.org/.
grown projects.2 Preshipment inspection is a major source of 3 Arvis et al. 2007a, Appendix Table A2.
Table: Customs and border processing performance, by quintile
OECD Non-OECD Europe & Latin Middle East Sub-

high high East Asia Central America & & North South Saharan
income income & Pacific Asia Caribbean Africa Asia Africa
Estimated percentage of physical inspections 3 22 22 14 25 45 36 48

Respondents agreeing that traders demonstrating high levels 54 25 41 51 42 42 57 17
of compliance receive expedited customs clearance
Respondents able to use IT to submit customs declaration 70 42 28 46 58 53 50 55
Time between accepted customs declaration and customs 1.0 1.7 2.1 1.7 2.7 1.9 2.4 4.2
clearance (days)
Average time to export (days) 2.3 2.9 3.9 2.8 3.9 3.7 3.6 8.1
Average time to import (days) 3.2 3.6 4.4 3.5 4.8 6.0 6.5 12.3
Cost to import a 40-foot container or semitrailer (US$) 663 572 819 936 1,000 609 880 2,124
Source: Arvis et al. 2007a, Appendix Tables A2, A3.

1 The World Bank’s classification of countries can be found at www.worldbank.org/data/
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 63

Corruption and transparency (in days) for delivery of goods confirms the same phe-
Logistics performance also depends on broader policy nomenon (Box A3).
dimensions, including the overall business environment, Taken together, all these factors—quality of infra-
the quality of regulation for logistics services, and, most structure, the competence of private and public logistics
important, overall governance.The way the local market service providers, the roles of customs and other border
for logistics services is regulated directly affects a coun- agencies, governance issues such as corruption and
try’s ability to use the physical internet to connect to transparency, and the reliability of the trading system and
global markets.The transparency of government pro- supply chains—confirm once again that logistics per-
curement, the security of property from theft and loot- formance is about predictability (see Table A1). Predict-
ing, macroeconomic conditions, and the underlying ability is central to the overall costs that companies
strength of institutions are critical factors in determining incur in logistics and thus to their competitiveness in
logistics performance. Unsurprisingly, ratings of the global supply chains.
domestic environment in such areas as corruption and
the transparency of processes and regulation reflect these
findings.The rating for transparency of border processes Technical Note 1: Selection of countries
consistently declines along with LPI scores for the fol- Figure A1 presents the matrix of how the eight countries
lowing groups of countries: poor performers in the LPI with which they conduct business are selected, based on
were also poor performers on transparency of border the respondent’s country of work.
processes (see Table A1). Solicitation of informal pay- The LPI methodology uses the World Bank Classi-
ments is rare among the top 30 countries but common fication of Countries.8 Table A2 classifies all World Bank
among lower performers (close to or more than 50 per- Member countries (184) and all other economies with
cent of responses).7 populations of more than 30,000 (208 total).9 The
country coverage by the Logistics Performance Index
Reliability of the trading system and supply chains (150 total) is also shown.
For operational and analytical purposes, economies 63
For traders at the origin or the destination of the supply
chain, what matters most is the quality and reliability of are divided among income groups according to 2005
logistics services, measured by the predictability of the gross national income (GNI) per capita, calculated
clearance process and timely delivery of shipments to using the World Bank Atlas method.The groups are:
destination (see Table A1, where these data appear in low income, US$875 or less; lower middle income,
bold).The difference in satisfaction between the high- US$876–3,465; upper middle income, US$3,466–
and low-performing countries on this question is much 10,725; and high income, US$10,726 or more. Other
larger than for any other question in the survey. analytical groups based on geographic regions are also
Performance data derived from the survey on the time used.
Box A3: Customs and border processing performance, by quintile
The Logistics Performance Survey captures the time to import much stronger in some countries in the bottom quintile—not
and export and, more important, the dispersion in time as a only in poor, landlocked countries, such as Chad, but also in
measure of predictability. Delays tend to increase with lower coastal Tanzania and Benin, which have import times of more
overall performance, but also with unpredictability. The effect is than a week.
Table: Customs and border processing performance, by region (percent)
Top quintile Second quintile Third quintile Fourth quintile Bottom quintile
Highest performance High performance Average performance Low performance Lowest performance
(no. of days) (no. of days) (no. of days) (no. of days) (no. of days)
Best time to import (best decile of shipments) 1.9 2.1 3.7 4.6 6.1
Median time to import 3.2 3.9 5.4 7.1 13.6
Source: Arvis et al. 2007a, Appendix Table A3.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 64
Technical Note 2: The Logistics Performance Index and The sample of countries excludes high-income
multivariate regressions countries and oil exporters.The results are robust to
Straightforward econometric analyses point to signifi- other choices of period (Table A3). Regression 1 meas-
cant association between the LPI and outcomes, such as: ures the LPI against the level of development (Log
[GNI/cap] 2005).The residual measures how much
• Medium-term growth over the years 1992–2005. the countries are performing logistically against their
potential (the standard deviation in LPI gap is 0.3).
• Trade expansion, defined as the overall annual Regressions 2 through 6 measure one of the growth,
change in trade openness over the same period. It is trade expansion, or diversification variables against the
excess of trade growth over GDP growth. LPI and Log (GNI/cap), or against the sole LPI gap.
• The index of trade diversification—the Theil index,

which can be interpreted as the natural logarithm
of the number of exported varieties.
Figure A1: Matrix: Six country-selection rules
Respondents from Respondents from Respondents from

LOW-INCOME COUNTRIES MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES HIGH-INCOME COUNTRIES
64
Five most important export Three most important export
partner countries partner countries
+ +
COASTAL COUNTRIES
Three most important partner The most important import

Respondents from
countries partner country

+
Four countries randomly,
one from each country group: Four countries randomly out of
a) Africa one list of five most important
b) East Asia + Central Asia export partner countries and
c) Latin America five most important import part-
d) Europe less Central Asia + ner countries
OECD +
Four countries randomly,
one from each country group:
a) Africa
Four most important export Three most important export b) East Asia + Central Asia
partner countries partner countries c) Latin America
+ + d) Europe less Central Asia +
Two most important import One most important import OECD
LANDLOCKED COUNTRIES
partner countries + partner country

Respondents from
Two landlocked countries +

Two landlocked countries
+
Two countries randomly,
one from each country group:
a) Africa + East Asia + Central
Asia + Latin America
b) Europe less Central Asia +
OECD
Source: Arvis et al. 2007a, p. 22.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 65

Table A2: Regional coverage of the Logistics Notes

Performance Index 1 The methodology developed by Daley and Murphy in 1993—using
a survey format, a four-point scale, and open-ended questions—
Total Number of LPI’s set out to measure the perceived importance and influence of dif-
countries countries coverage ferent component attributes that affect the logistical friendliness
in group/ ranked in of group/ of countries. In a follow-up study by Ojala and Qeiroz (2004), only
Income groups/world regions region the LPI region(%)
those characteristics identified as best encapsulating logistics per-
Low income 54 51 94 formance were included for evaluation.
Middle income 98 65 66 2 These interviews were conducted in the context of the Trade and
Lower middle income 58 41 71 Transport Facilitation Audits (TTFA) performed by the World Bank
and others (Raven 2001) and contributed substantially to refining
Upper middle income 40 24 60
the methodology.
Low & middle income 152 116 76
3 See Arvis et al. 2007a, Appendix Table A2 for Country-specific
East Asia & Pacific 24 13 54 environment and institutions data averages and Appendix Table
Europe & Central Asia 27 25 93 A3 for Country-specific performance data.
Latin America & Caribbean 31 21 68 4 In Appendix Table A2 of the World Bank’s 2007 Connecting to
Middle East& North Africa 14 11 79 Compete: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy Report, perform-
ance is evaluated in 30 subareas for which LPI quintiles, regional,
South Asia 8 7 88
or income group averages allow for meaningful comparisons. For
Sub-Saharan Africa 48 39 81 most countries the number of respondents in this section of the
High income 56 34 61 survey is too small to warrant a country statistic.
European Monetary Union 12 12 100 5 See Arvis et al. 2007a, Appendix Table A2.
High income (OECD) 24 23 96 6 See Arvis et al. 2007a, Appendix Table A2.
High income (non-OECD) 32 10 31
7 Arvis et al. 2007a, Appendix Table A2.
Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) 40 37 93
8 See the World Bank’s classification of countries, found at
Least developed countries (UN classification) 49 41 84 www.worldbank.org/data.
Landlocked developing countries 31 26 84 9 Details can be found at www.worldbank.org/data, under
(UN classification)
Classification.
Commonwealth of Independent States 12 10 83 65
Transitional 24 22 92
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries 12 10 83
TOTAL COUNTRIES 208 150 72
Source: Arvis et al. 2007a.
Table A3: Results of LPI multivariate regressions
Dependent variable
Regression 1 Regression 2 Regression 3 Regression 4 Regression 5 Regression 6
Independent variable LPI Growth Growth Trade expansion Trade expansion Theil index
LPI 2.0% 3.7% 1.05

(2.8)** (3.5)** (3.5)**
Log (GNI/cap) 0.422 –0.8% –2.1% 0.95
(7.1)** (–1.5)* (–2.7)** (4.4)**
LPI gap 2.0% 3.7%
(2.8)** (3.5)**
R2 0.35 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.11 0.44
F 50.9 3.9 7.8 6.4 12.1 38.5
No. of countries 97 97 97 97 97 97
Source: Arvis et al. 2007a.

Note: * = Significant at the 5 percent level; ** = significant at the 1 percent level.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 66
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 67
1.5: Facilitating Cross-Border Movement of Goods

CHAPTER 1.5 World trade has expanded very quickly over the past
decades.This expansion has been driven by several
important developments, including the changing nature
Facilitating Cross-Border of production, increased competition in international
commerce, successful multilateral trade negotiations, and
Movement of Goods: lower transport costs.The considerable reduction in tariffs
on goods crossing national borders has gradually moved
A Sustainable Approach the focus of trade policy from traditional trade barriers
to the remaining facilitation hurdles and bottlenecks.
POUL HANSEN and LILIANA ANNOVAZZI-JAKAB, United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
Development aspects of trade and transport facilitation
The success in export markets for developed and devel-
oping country firms alike depends more and more on
the ability of those firms to offer and promote efficient,
low-cost trade services and logistics. Policies related to
trade and transport facilitation and economic develop-
ment reflect this understanding and emphasize the idea
that trade can be a powerful engine for accelerating
economic growth, job creation, and poverty reduction.
The role of trade and transport facilitation

Trade and transport facilitation involve a wide range of
activities centered on lowering trade transaction costs
for firms in global commerce.These costs include the
price of moving freight from the factory to final desti-
nations. Among many other steps, firms must manage 67
border clearance procedures and pay trade services fees
after goods and services are produced.Trade and trans-
port facilitation, therefore, addresses a wide agenda in
economic development and trade that may include
improving transport infrastructure and services, reducing
customs tariffs, and removing non-tariff trade barriers
including administrative and regulatory barriers. Such
regulatory procedures in international trade go beyond
mere customs inspections to include fiscal controls, safety
and security measures, environment and health checks,
consumer protection mechanisms, and trade policy reg-
ulations.Trade facilitation looks at how the procedures
and controls governing the movement of goods across
national borders can be improved to reduce associated
costs and maximize efficiency while safeguarding legiti-
mate regulatory objectives.
Business costs may be a direct function of collecting
information and submitting declarations or an indirect
consequence of border checks in the form of delays and
associated time penalties.These costs can result in forgone
business opportunities and reduced competitiveness.This
is especially true for already disadvantaged countries
such as the many landlocked developing countries.
The above-mentioned barriers to trade and the
degree of trade facilitation and business friendliness con-
tribute to the extent and success of a country’s econom-
ic development.Trade facilitation can be measured in
many ways.The World Economic Forum’s Enabling
Trade Index provides, on the one hand, a peer review
among countries regarding how they are evaluated in
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 68
Table 1: Impact of landlocked condition, by GDP (2006)

Box 1: Trade facilitation: The potential gains Nominal GDP Per capita
Economy (US$, millions) GDP (US$)
The World Bank has, in 2004, conducted a study of port effi- Landlocked developing countries 262,535 688
ciency, customs, regulatory transparency, and service sector
Transit developing countries1 6,918,024 1,768
infrastructure. The study concluded that increasing global
capacity in trade facilitation by half, when compared with Source: UNCTAD GlobStat.
1 There is no official UN category of either “transit countries” or “transit
the global average, would increase world trade by US$377 developing countries.” The group of “transit developing countries” shown
billion, amounting to a 9.7 percent rise in global trade. The here is based on a list of countries in these categories, which was generat-
ed by the Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed
majority of gains resulting from such a capacity improvement Countries (LDCs), Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs), and Small
would stem from domestic reforms and capacity building. Island Developing States (SIDS) in 2004 under the heading “transit coun-
tries,” but excludes all developed transit countries as well as such devel-
The study estimates that about US$107 billion of the total oping countries as Mongolia, Afghanistan, and several Central Asian coun-
calculated gains would come from improvements in port tries that are both landlocked countries and important transit links. It is
accordingly presented here for purely informational purposes.
efficiency, about US$33 billion from improvements in the
customs environment, and US$83 billion from improvements
in the regulatory environment. The largest gain, of US$154
billion, would come from improvements in the service sector
Table 2: Impact of landlocked condition, by FDI (2006)
infrastructure as well as the increased use of information
technology. Direct investment in reporting Direct investment
economy (FDI inward) abroad (FDI outward)
US$ millions Percentage US$ millions Percentage
Source: Wilson et al., 2004. Economy (current price) of GDP (current prices) of GDP
Landlocked 11,366 4.33 338 0.13

developing
countries
Transit 169,701 2.45 68,640 0.99
developing
countries1
the global trade and transport facilitation field by practi- Source: UNCTAD GlobStat.
68 tioners, and, on the other hand, a self-assessment tool for 1 See note for Table 1.
countries regarding the areas in which they need to

focus their efforts to become more competitive.
Table 3: Impact of landlocked condition, by merchandise

Trade and transport facilitation and the special case of
import and export (2006)
landlocked developing countries
A landlocked country is a country enclosed or nearly Merchandise Percentage Merchandise Percentage
trade exports of world trade imports of world
enclosed by land, without direct coastal access to the Economy (US$ millions) total (US$ millions) total
sea.1 Being landlocked has always been considered disad- Landlocked 96, 722 0.80 93,156 0.76
vantageous, and historically countries have made efforts developing
countries
to avoid being landlocked. Landlocked countries are not
just cut off from sea resources but, much more impor- Transit 3,685,197 30.54 1,741,417 14.15
developing
tantly, they have no direct access to seaborne trade, countries1
which continues to be essential for a successful partici- Source: UNCTAD GlobStat.
pation in international commerce.The situation of these 1 See note for Table 1.
countries is in many cases aggravated by the fact that

the condition of being landlocked coincides with other
factors such as remoteness from major markets, tropical
climates, or considerable distance from the coast. Around For landlocked developing countries in particular, it
the world, coastal regions tend to be wealthier and more is important to address the issue of transit cooperation
heavily populated than inland ones. Apart from Europe’s with a view to reducing the freight cost of import and
highly successful landlocked countries (including export goods and thereby enhancing their competitive-
Switzerland, Austria, and Luxembourg), many of the ness.Table 4 illustrates the excessively high transport
poorest nations of the world—including a large number costs experienced by landlocked developing countries.
of African countries—are landlocked developing coun- In recent years, efforts to transform the circumstance
tries.Their plight continues to require urgent attention. of being landlocked from a destiny to a challenge that
Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide evidence of the negative can ultimately lead to being “landlinked” have steadily
impact of landlockedness of developing countries com- increased.There are more and more international and
pared with their neighboring developing countries when regional initiatives to reach out to landlocked countries,
measured by gross domestic product (GDP), foreign direct especially developing ones.The United Nations has a
investment (FDI), and merchandise import and export. special program to assist landlocked developing countries
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 69

Table 4: Transport costs: Landlocked developing regional, or even multilateral agreements. Although the
countries vs. world average latter mainly focus on general access and transit rights,2
regional agreements are mostly part of more detailed
Estimate of Value of Freight costs
freight cost imports (c.i.f., as percentage of regional integration efforts where the need for closer
Year Country group of imports US$ millions) import value
trade relations relies also on better transport links. In
2003 World average 379.2 7,053 5.4
some areas of the world, countries have signed so many
SOUTHERN AFRICA
of these agreements that they overlap and conflict with
2002 Malawi 101.0 695 14.5 each other, and simply end up not being enforced at all.
2000 Zambia 108.6 993 10.9
More or less liberalized transit regimes with fewer
WESTERN AFRICA restrictions on road transportation quotas or choice of
2001 Burkina Faso 92.5 656 14.1 routes have seen the light in recent years.The most suc-
2003 Mali 275.8 1,130 24.4 cessful ones are those implemented within the European
2003 Niger 117.3 490 23.9
Union, but successful solutions have also emerged in
EASTERN AFRICA Southeast Asia and in Southern Africa.
2003 Burundi 20.9 157 13.3 The transit issue and transit agreements are a serious
2004 Rwanda 61.0 284 24.1 topic for all countries.These agreements are often more
2004 Uganda 288.3 1,657 17.4
a compromise between the interests of the landlocked
Source: UNCTAD. and the transit countries than an optimal solution for
either.They are linked to wide-reaching legal and regu-
latory matters including customs regimes, transport and
quota restrictions, guarantee schemes, health and sanitary
that, among other things, focuses on the cross-border issues, security, and fraud, to name just a few. Although
difficulties and access possibilities of maritime transport solutions have certainly been sought, they often appear
of these countries. to lack crucial elements of trade and transport facilita-
tion, focus, and consequent enforcement.
Trade and transport facilitation and the transit issue
International trade faces transport constraints, especially 69
in developing countries. It is no longer so much that Barriers to the cross-border movement of goods
access to world markets is a problem; the problem is more Among the many barriers to the efficient cross-border
one of actually getting the goods to their destination movement of goods are the complexity of procedures,
without major delays and cost increases. If transporting expenses in both money and time, and insufficiencies in
goods means, in addition, having to cross the territory infrastructures and operations.
of a sovereign country—as is the case for goods from
landlocked countries or regions—time and costs can Complexity of procedures
rapidly become a major problem. Costs are the result of Despite significant growth in international trade, such
formal fees charged by the transit country, as well as trade operations and the related cross-border movements
operational costs and additional costs linked to the can be incredibly complex, involving many actors and
necessity of hiring experts and advisors to comply with administrative steps. Even in developed countries such as
formal requirements. In addition, transit has a strong time the United Kingdom, there are close to 60 or even more
component: time is needed to comply with requirements distinct regulatory procedures and regimes that affect
that can be more or less cumbersome and duplicating; cross-border operations.3 These operations fall into the
time is needed to actually cross the territory, which can wider categories of revenue collection and fiscal protec-
happen on long or obsolete roads or in compulsory tion, public safety and security, environment and health,
convoys; and time elapses between each of these active consumer protection, and trade policy. Procedures, doc-
steps of the transit procedure. For investors, traders, and umentary requirements, inspections, visas, and vehicle
businessmen, time and costs are the key indicators of regulations as well as general security issues can all
performance in any transit process, and they ultimately severely hamper the movement of goods across borders.
influence the competitiveness of a whole region. Examples of bottlenecks and barriers are numerous, and
Transit has become a major issue, and the way it is they constitute substantial administrative and financial
handled can have a decisive impact on the competitive- burdens for any trader. A positive change, therefore, has
ness of a country.Transit has, for a long time, been viewed an important impact, as shown by a recent study by the
as opposing the economic, political, military, trade, and Asian Development Bank on Central Asia. A simulation
transport interests and agendas of two parties—the tran- model calculated that the aggregate effects of better
sit country, in particular, those with access to cheaper regional cooperation in transport and customs transit
maritime transport on one side, and the landlocked could increase real GDP in, for example, the Kyrgyz
country dependent on such solutions on the other. In Republic by 112.3 percent.4
practice, this has given rise to solutions settled in bilateral,
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 70
The cost and time factor

The operational issues in the day-to-day movement of Box 2: Checkpoints: Africa
goods across borders require a well-functioning and
easy-to-operate interface between business and govern- Checkpoints and roadblocks are a serious detriment to trade
ment. Only transparent, reliable, internationally harmo- in Africa and cause extreme delays and increased transport
nized transport, customs, and road traffic codes—as well costs. Between Douala and Bertoua in Cameroon, for exam-
as legislation that is conducive to the development of a ple, 47 roadblocks were reported over a distance of about
strong, competitive business environment—can encourage 500 kilometers. According to the same source, nearly all
fair and open conditions and efficient transport services. Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)
Member States maintain checkpoints where drivers are
Institutional challenges that often result in duplication of
sometimes subjected to administrative harassment and
work among agencies and ministries and between coun-
numerous extortions. Thus, for example, on the highway link-
tries as well as a lack of coordination with the private ing Lagos and Abidjan (992 kilometers long), there are 69
sector overburden the process.The private sector can checkpoints—that is 7 checkpoints every 100 kilometers.
often do no more than comply with the requirements Payments at checkpoints include taxes, transit charges, and
and bear the costs that are associated not only with col- bribes, which vary according to the type of vehicle, the type
lecting, producing, transmitting, and processing required of goods transported, and the nationality of the transporters
information and documents, but also with the expenses or driver. They may involve the police, customs officers,
of setting up and financing guarantees, laboratory testing, and/or gendarmes. Some of these checkpoints are legal; oth-
inspection fees, stamp charges, service fees levied by ers unfortunately are not.
shipping lines and banks, labor and handling charges to
deliver goods to inspection facilities and to present goods,
storage charges, and possible out-of-hours surcharges. A
Source: United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, 2004.
lack of competition among service providers can further
aggravate the situation.
Any uncertainty in the process creates unpredictable
circumstances and delays, increases transactional costs,
70 and can even lead to the loss of business and opportuni-
ties.Typically such unpredictable circumstances are the
result of multiple and contradictory documentation Infrastructure and operational deficiencies
requirements or lengthy inspection procedures by Inadequate infrastructure, which can easily lead to
agencies that include customs, immigration, health and congestion at inspection facilities at any border inland
sanitary authorities, police and other security agencies, or in ports; a lack of staff; and non-harmonized working
and standardization or conformity assessment agencies. hours that are not necessarily business friendly can result
The lack of trust and coordination among agencies in unforeseen delays and add additional handling or
within one country and among agencies in neighboring storage charges. Infrastructure and capacity constraints
countries adds further unpredictability to the process. also remain a problem when it comes to roads, ports,
Unofficial payments are often an implicit requirement railway lines, handling and storage facilities as well as
to resolve such barriers. equipment, transport vehicles, or railway stock. Obsolete
The total time a vehicle takes to cross a border and inadequate information and communications equip-
from one country into another will ultimately depend ment and weak telecommunication links further aggravate
on the assignments carried out by the various border the situation and add to the hassles traders have to face
agencies in charge of control activities, as well as other on a day-to-day basis. A country’s logistics friendliness—
issues such as: that is, the ease of arranging freight operations to and
from a particular country—has become a major indicator
• delays that do not always occur because of border for stability and for a country’s propensity to attract
agencies—for example, drivers may wait before investment. Even the tendency to succumb to illegal
proceeding; payments appears to be linked to these issues, and those
countries that have a logistically friendly environment
• different formalities may sometimes be carried out are less likely to encounter large-scale corruption in
at the same time; and this sector.
The impact of all these barriers on transactional
• processing delays in the country of entry may spill costs and, eventually, on the volume of trade and the
over in the country of exit. competitiveness of a whole country cannot be overesti-
mated. In recent years, therefore, more and more efforts
have been made to find comprehensive solutions that
diminish the administrative, institutional, infrastructure,
and regulatory burdens on both the transit and the
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 71

Box 3: Crossing borders: Waiting times from Africa, Europe, and Central America
Africa and Ukraine. Excessive waiting periods have also been noted at
In a 2005 International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) sur- the Belarus–Russian Federation and Poland-Ukraine borders.
vey on working conditions among truck drivers performing road Waiting times in the South Caucasus are also relatively long.
haulage from seven central African countries to the port of Beyond continental Europe, extremely long waiting periods at
Douala in Cameroon, all drivers recounted prolonged waiting at border crossings with Asia have been reported (Iraq and Turkey,
the border crossings, ranging from at least 2 to up to 5 days. the Russian Federation, and the countries of Central Asia).
Furthermore, all of the drivers reported cases of police interven-
Central America
tions on their journeys to the port of Douala and mentioned that
Crossing borders along the Pan-American Highway, which is
they usually stayed between 7 and 15 days in the port of Douala
the major north–south highway in the region, continues to
before they commenced the return journey.
receive complaints from government and business representa-
Europe tives especially with regard to customs inspections which cre-
According to the Trade and Transport Facilitation in Southeast ate long delays at the borders, particularly at the border of
Europe Program (TTFSE), the maximum acceptable time accord- Costa Rica. One official noted that Mexico can transport goods
ing to European Union standards for clearance of a vehicle to Guatemala in 22 hours because of its fairly good road system
between two countries is 40 minutes. Since the introduction of and efficient customs procedures. It can then take an average
the single European market, border-crossing problems within of nine days to get to Panama because of road conditions and
the European Union are no longer a major issue, although there customs inspections.
are a few exceptions. Border-crossing-related difficulties are
concentrated in the east of the European continent and chiefly
concern border crossings with Belarus, the Russian Federation, Source: Compiled from the ITF Survey, 2005; TTFSE, 2002; ILO, 2006.
71
transiting country. Efforts attempt to reconcile the inter- With the particular aim of increasing the chances of
ests of these parties, and such efforts stress the positive landlocked countries and enlisting the support of the
effects a successful approach can have on the trade vol- neighboring transit country, the project focused on
ume and competitiveness of both. improving conditions of specific transport corridors
along which goods are being brought from the land-
locked country to the transit country’s seaport.The
The corridor- and cluster-based trade and transport decision to concentrate on just one major transport and
facilitation project trade link per region was taken with the deliberate
Development corridors, as in Southern Africa, and intention of achieving regional and local coordination
regional transit corridors, as in Southeast Asia, have been of trade and transport facilitation measures and of finding
continuously expanded and marketed.The UNCTAD- very practical, case-by-case, tailor-made solutions to the
led corridor- and cluster-based trade and transport facil- current problems in a particular regional setting.The
itation approach takes this one step further.This innova- project intended to build on consensus solutions and the
tive project—which is intended to be viable from both a realization that more traffic can improve the performance
development and a market-based perspective—is a joint of the landlocked country’s export industry on one side
effort by public and private operators and is the outcome and create more business in the transit country on the
of a concise analysis of all physical, organizational, and other. In order to do so, UNCTAD initiated “trade and
administrative operations of the transport supply chain. transport facilitation clusters.” Drawing on the role of
economic and business clusters that establish a link
Trade and transport facilitation clusters: Background and between geographical locations and economic perform-
concept ance, thus creating a network of firms embedded in
In 2005, UNCTAD initiated a major new approach to complex inter- and intrafirm relations, trade and trans-
tackle the barriers that continue to hamper the flow of port facilitation clusters bring together those most
goods across borders and to reduce significantly coun- involved in everyday trade and transit operations along
tries’ productivity, competitiveness, and attractiveness to the particular corridor.They include both government
foreign investment. One of the aims of the project was agencies, ranging from customs to fiscal or transport
to reduce the transit transaction cost, as illustrated in authorities, and private-sector operators such as importers,
Figure 1. exporters, freight forwarders, and customs brokers.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 72
Figure 1: Reduction in barriers to trade: A new approach
Reductions
• Time
• Cost
Elements
Cost
• Transshipment
• Transit charge
• Border facilitation
Time
Source: UNCTAD.
72
Supply chains and transit chain analysis
The basic rationale behind this new approach was to Box 4: The cluster members and their interest
create a synergy of interests, a better understanding of
the stakes and costs and of the need to build trust and • Landlocked country commercially oriented users
ultimately a sense of “ownership” on the part of the gov- require easy access to efficient transit transport services
ernment and the private stakeholders sides in both coun- in terms of timeliness, reliability, and cost-effectiveness.
tries concerned. It was assumed that, given the practical
nature of the approach, it would be much easier to achieve • Transit and landlocked country governmental agencies
such a convergence of interests and much easier to require overall confidence in terms of fiscal reliability,
physical security, environmental safety, transparency,
negotiate viable and acceptable solutions for all parties
and compliance, as well as the best use of existing
concerned. Similar to supply-chain optimization, where
infrastructures.
boundaries that traditionally segregated the different
segments of the chain are broken down and partnerships • Transit and landlocked countries’ commercially
are facilitated through a strategic application of technol- oriented service providers require unrestricted and
ogy, the cluster approach was seen to break down those profitable access to transit transport support services
barriers that hinder the provision of reliable and efficient markets in terms of fair competition and regional
services and help set free focus for important issues— market growth.
that is, the much-needed collaboration of landlocked and
transit countries. And again similar to the supply chain
analysis, it was intended to structure the cluster approach
as a systems approach (see Figure 2). By optimizing each
single step and making each participant aware of his
actions’ impact on the next participant, the performance
of the entire process would ultimately be improved.
Each partner should then be able to see the whole inte-
grated picture and not just his own separate part.
The combination of the institutional element,
technology, and business in a clearly defined local or
Source: UNCTAD, Cluster Development Guide, March 2005.
regional context made it much easier to have everybody
participate in and be knowledgeable about the actual
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 73

Figure 2: Corridor value chain
Transit service production
Factory Warehouse Transport Documentation Customs Customs Documentation Transport Warehouse Port Shipping
+ + + + + + +
Landlocked country Transit country
Source: UNCTAD.
73
situation along the chosen transit corridor. It also made other—as well as along the corridor itself (Figure 3).
it easier to adapt internationally recognized trade and The clusters therefore acted as a network that can inter-
transport facilitation measures to the very specific con- vene whenever and wherever necessary to avoid current
ditions of each corridor. Again, similar to supply chain and future bottlenecks and, through partnerships and
management, the cluster creation was accompanied by cooperation, to design viable, practical solutions.
enhanced information sharing and the active use of The mapping of logistics activities accompanying
information and communication technologies systems the transit process made it possible to identify current
to monitor backlogs in both landlocked and transit practices as well as to draw up the optimal solutions and
countries and to analyze major bottlenecks. ways to get to the destination. As mentioned earlier,
The supply chain analysis approach also served as trade and transport facilitation can be quite complex
the basis for mapping the sequences that link and influ- and can require an important institutional involvement.
ence the transit procedure to show internal processes However, when it comes to practical matters, changes
(one’s own contribution and setting) on one side and can be initiated on the local level along the chosen cor-
external processes (the “big picture”) on the other.The ridors without too much complication. An essential part
transit process was thus separated into suppliers—that is, of the project was therefore also the preparation of a
the trade and transport support services; the line of pro- toolkit—a repertoire of all the little steps and measures
duction—that is, the trade operations; and the final that can make all the difference—and a sustainable
product—that is, the actual import delivery or the structure driven by a cluster development agent.The
export shipment. Analyzing every single step of the structure was designed not to be too institutionalized to
physical transport chain and the accompanying docu- allow for better dialogue, and local overview was
mentary and procedural chain (the information chain, encouraged to improve the overall management struc-
which does not necessarily always coincide with the tures and increase sustainability.
actual movement of the goods) allowed for identification
of the weakest links.The groups or clusters of interested Setting up the project: Trade and transport facilitation
and involved partners in this trade and transport chain clusters
could then decide on where and how and when to The project was developed on three continents, in three
intervene to improve and prevent further obstacles along distinct subregions, and along three major transit trans-
the chosen corridor. Such clusters were established at port corridors.These corridors were chosen on the basis
the ends of the corridors—the seaport on one side and of the level of development and service already present
the inland point of departure or destination at the and potentially available in the future.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 74
Figure 3: Transit service assembling parts
Transit
Factory Warehouse Transport Documentation Customs Customs Documentation Transport Warehouse Port Shipping
Customs
Transport
Storage
Shipment
Customs
Transport
Customs
Landlocked country Transit country
Source: UNCTAD.
74
Africa: The Trans-Caprivi Corridor
Box 5: Setting up clusters and their activities The Trans Caprivi Corridor links landlocked Zambia
with the seaport of Walvis Bay in Namibia (the transit
• Diagnostic phases country). Clusters were set up in Lusaka (Zambia) and
Preliminary data collection, appraisal of the structure the port of Walvis Bay.
of the cluster, assessment of governance structure,
and definition of action plans Asia
In Asia, the chosen corridor linked landlocked Laos
• Trust Building with Bangkok and clusters were set up in Vientiane
To eliminate conflict among members and foster
(Laos), the border region between Thailand and Laos,
cooperation and information sharing
and Laem Chabang ports (the Bangkok cluster).
• Pilot Activities
To test cooperativeness of the cluster through activities South America
such as training The South American corridor linked Asunción in land-
locked Paraguay with the port of Montevideo in
• Capacity Building Uruguay. Clusters were established in the port of
Implemented by cluster members without external support Montevideo and in the Asunción area.
• Regular Activities
In order to enlist sufficient support for the project and
Started off as pilot activities to become a regular part
of the process its objectives, one of the major components was making
the project known, raising awareness of its immediate
• Strategic Activities and longer-term benefits, and preparing possible partici-
Medium- and long-term activities that require more pants for their role within the clusters. Subsequently,
investment and commitment by cluster members clusters and networks were set up and partnership
agreements were drafted and implemented.The various
clusters along the corridors were supposed to focus on
specific operational aspects to ensure the relevance of
Source: UNCTAD.
cross-border-activities for governments and industry
alike in a “feedback circle.”The participants in these
clusters, once identified, were formally convened and
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 75

Figure 4: Potential evolution of cluster activities
Landlocked country
Untraded exports Current trade New trade
Investment
Lower costs
Volumes
Transit country Transit services Shared services
Investment
Sea front PORT
Volumes
Source: UNCTAD.
75
actively participated in information exchange workshops and solve daily obstacles and also to plan for medium-
to drive the process toward the action plan. Key for and long-term actions.
this process was the strong support from high-level To support cluster activities, the project included
government officials and private-sector representatives, the development of information systems to monitor
whenever possible, in a balanced representation. improvements that resulted from the actions decided by
the clusters.The project was fully successful in that recip-
ient trading and transport communities not only adhered
Key findings from corridor and cluster projects to the project approach but also agreed to carry on their
Clusters, whether they group enterprises in the tradi- cluster activities beyond the project completion. Some
tional sense or are trade and transport clusters, will clusters have already secured financing, both internal and
potentially create economies of scale derived from the external, to support this next autonomous stage.The
proximity of the persons and groups involved (Figure 4). project execution has been externally audited and
Geographical concentration, however, is not sufficient to the resulting report will soon be made available by
make a cluster a successful venture.The driver of UNNCTAD.5
reforms is closer and better cooperation. Only when the Some interesting outcomes of the project include
group motivated by common challenges and opportuni- the fact that, at “corridor level,” operators in transit
ties actively participates in the work can a cluster claim countries appear to drive the process, actually taking
success and advance trade and transport facilitation mat- the lead for improving the transit corridor operation.
ters.This will ultimately distinguish successful clusters This was observed in the three pilot cases, an observa-
from underachieving ones.Trust building was therefore tion that challenges the common belief that transit
one of the most important ingredients when the clusters countries appear to be not really interested in making
were set up.This helped guarantee that tangible, practi- the trade life of landlocked countries easier. At the
cal, and immediate results could be achieved within a “higher central or macro level” in transit countries, such
short period of time. a “reality” usually stems from the low volumes generated
It was not necessarily common for the persons by landlocked developing countries, which make their
involved in the clusters to openly cooperate and partici- trade of relatively lesser relevance. Another remarkable
pate in negotiations, but in the three pilot cases, the par- hypothesis confirmed during the course of the project
ticipants, directly involved in the operation of their execution is that informal structures, such as the created
respective corridors, showed a sound capacity to analyze clusters, may find operational solutions and achieve
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 76
significant improvements without having to call for

bilateral official formal negotiations or agreements.
It is difficult to provide exact figures of the cost
saving potential deriving from the three corridor and
cluster projects. However, as an example, in the South
America project, the cost saving potential, calculated on
the basis of the actual operational costs, is estimated to
be around 30 percent of the total transport cost of a 40-
foot refer container shipped from Asunción (Paraguay)
to St. Petersburg (Russian Federation).
The three pilot corridors and their respective clus-
ters have developed tailored arrangements that probably
will be of interest to other regional transit corridors.
The cases will be documented and disseminated over
the course of 2008. A larger project meant to enable
adapted replications of the cluster corridor approach in
interested countries will follow, and the resulting report
will be published by UNCTAD during 2008.
Notes
1 According to the UN the Office of the UN-OHRLLS, there are 31
landlocked developing countries in the world. There is no official
UN category of either “transit countries” or “transit developing
countries”; for the purposes of this study, 34 countries were
included.
2 See, for example, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the

Law of the Sea, which gives landlocked countries a right of
76 access to and from the sea, without taxation of traffic through
transit states.
3 Grainger 2007.
4 ADB 2006.
5 See UNCTAD at http://r0.unctad.org/ttl/.
References
ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2006. Central Asia: Increasing Gains
from Trade through Regional Cooperation in Trade Policy,
Transport and Customs Transit. Asian Development Bank.
Grainger, A. 2007. “Supply Chain Security: Adding to a Complex

Operational And Institutional Environment.” World Customs
Journal 1 (2): 17–30.
ILO (International Labour Organization). 2006. “Labour and Social Issues

Arising from Problems of Cross-Border Mobility of International
Drivers in the Road Transport Sector.” September 22. Available at
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-6275229_ITM.
TTFSE (Trade and Transport Facilitation in Southeast Europe Program).

2002. TTFSE Manual. Available at
http://www.seerecon.org/ttfse/TTFSE_Manual.pdf ,
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development).

2005. Cluster Development Guide, March. Geneva: UNCTAD.
UNCTAD GlobStat database. Available at http://globstat.unctad.org/html/

index.html.
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. 2004. Economic

Report on Africa 2004: Unlocking Africa’s Trade Potential.
Available at http://www.uneca.org/era2004/.
Wilson, J. S., C. L. Mann, and T. Otsuki. 2004. Assessing the Potential

Benefit of Trade Facilitation: A Global Perspective. Policy
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 77
1.6: Countdown to 2015

CHAPTER 1.6 Access is an essential component of “openness,” enabling
open trade, interaction and exchange among people,
businesses, and nations. For more than 35 years, FedEx
Countdown to 2015: Improving Corporation has been actively involved in extending the
world’s access—enabling people and communities
Access and Openness to Help everywhere to connect with the physical goods, services,
markets, information, and ideas they need to improve
Achieve the Millennium their quality of life. As part of our commitment to
Development Goals access, we have actively contributed to the development
of the Enabling Trade Index (ETI) discussed in this
Report, which examines the factors, policies, and services
GENE HUANG, FedEx Corporation
facilitating the free flow of goods over national borders
and to destinations.The ETI ranks nations and
economies according to how well they facilitate global
trade through their market access, border administration,
business environment, and transport and communications
infrastructures.
We are particularly supportive of this endeavor
because, in many ways, the ETI builds on an earlier
study published by FedEx—the Access Index, which
aimed to quantify the concept of access and identify its
benefits.1 Some of the indicators explored in the Access
Index and the related Access Opportunities Index overlap
with those examined in the ETI, especially those per-
taining to transport and communications infrastructure.
However, the ETI introduces additional concepts and
indicators not previously explored, such as the burden of 77
customs procedures, quality of customs services, foreign
ownership restrictions, ease of hiring foreign labor, non-
tariff barriers, and openness to multilateral trade rules.
The ETI also has broader country coverage, and provides
more specific guidance for policymakers in the areas of
trade and transportation than earlier studies on interna-
tional competitiveness and development.
In the context of key findings from these indexes,
this paper explores the essential role of access and
enabling trade in creating and expanding opportunities
to improve social and economic conditions around the
world, especially as they relate to the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs).The United Nations (UN)
formulated the MDGs in 2000, with a target date for
achieving them by 2015. Specific goals include eradicat-
ing poverty and hunger, promoting gender equality and
empowering women, achieving universal education, and
ensuring environmental sustainability.
Access, in helping nations to achieve progress
toward the MDGs, improves quality of life.
What is access and why is enabling trade important?
In simplest terms, Access is a force that operates on

three variables: time, space and information. We gain
Access when we reduce the time and space
between us and the things we seek—people, places,
goods, capital, opportunities and much more—while
increasing the amount of information available about
these things.2
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 78
Access is the means of interaction and exchange among tributes to The New York Times and other publications,
people, businesses, and nations.The more it grows, the sums up why Hong Kong tops the list:
more our universe of possibilities expands. Access is
essential to openness—it facilitates open borders, open Hong Kong is a dynamic magnet for striving immi-
trade, and wide-open opportunities for individuals, busi- grants from the [Chinese] Mainland and the world.
nesses, and nations. The city is a bustling meritocracy, and its deep invest-
When governments reduce barriers to trade, they ments in digital infrastructure and business links to
the larger world have combined to create the most
provide businesses with access to global markets.With
access-friendly major city on the globe. The city is so
this access, businesses are given opportunities to expand
successful—and so important to China’s economic
and contribute to economic growth, which, in turn, can
vitality—that the Chinese government agreed to
contribute to eradicating poverty and improving living maintain Hong Kong’s open traditions for 50 years
standards. Additional access to global markets through after the British handover, preserving an experiment
networks such as the Internet allows entrepreneurs to in entrepreneurialism, freedom and self-reliance that’s
start businesses out of their homes and market their unlike any of China’s other autonomous regions.3
products throughout the world.The reduced importance
of location can empower women, who often find it Because it relies heavily on trade for its economic suc-
harder than men to relocate, and can help to promote cess, it is no surprise that Hong Kong appears at the top
gender equality. of the indexes.While it has made deep investments in
transport, digital, and other infrastructures that facilitate
access, it has, perhaps even more importantly, also creat-
Access can be measured ed and maintained a regulatory environment that
Although it drives economic growth and improves ensures openness to trade, investment, and information
human welfare around the world, the concept of access flows.
has always been somewhat elusive—it is easy to identify, The case of Hong Kong demonstrates that enabling
but difficult to quantify and measure.The Access Index access to information and investment flows and ensuring
measures a country’s potential to obtain physical goods a physical and economic structure that enables trade can
78 and information: help level the playing field for economies that have
small internal markets and limited domestic resources.
• Physical access dramatically reduces the economic The top four economies in both the Access Index and
constraint of geographic distance. It allows entirely the ETI rankings—Hong Kong, Singapore, the
new patterns of production, consumption, and eco- Netherlands, and Switzerland—all have small domestic
nomic development.The indicators representing markets.These economies rely heavily on trade for eco-
physical access explore measures of trade, such as nomic survival, as evidenced by the data on trade as a
export permits and hidden import barriers, as well percentage of GDP, shown in Table 1 for the top four
as transport, such as percent of total roads paved, economies in the Access Index.4
port infrastructure, air transport infrastructure, and
railroad infrastructure.
• Information access reduces uncertainty, enables Table 1: Access and the Economy
more timely decision-making, and spurs innovation
Access Trade GDP
for continuous improvement.The indicators repre- Index as % (US$ Population
Country/Economy Rank score of GDP millions) (millions)
senting information access explore telecommunica-
Hong Kong SAR 1 91.1 293.3 159,943 6.79
tions measures, such as telephone lines, mobile
Singapore 2 89.1 341.4 88,275 4.16
telephone subscribers, personal computers and Denmark 3 85.3 83.0 172,357 5.37
Internet users per 100 inhabitants, telephone costs, Switzerland 4 84.2 81.0 274,469 7.29
telephone infrastructure quality, and speed and cost
of Internet access.
The table in the appendix shows the ranks and scores of

the 75 countries covered in the Access Index. Where has access made a difference?
An analysis of the economic experience of various
countries highlights the clear association between open-
Access is a competitive advantage ness and prosperity, per capita growth, and development,
Topping both the ETI and the Access Index is Hong as measured by the UN Human Development Index.
Kong.Technology writer Ilan Greenberg, who con-
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 79

Openness enabling economic growth and improving Toward achieving the health-related MDGs, Chile
human welfare has implemented its Universal Access Plan for Comprehen-
In the following section we discuss the experiences of sive Services and Explicit Guarantees (AUGE).The AUGE
two countries, Chile and Estonia, which made openness provides access to a complete health system for all
to trade and access to information and investment flows Chileans through a human rights–based social guaran-
key pillars of their economic strategy. Improvements to tee.The social guarantee incorporates and defines the
the business environment accompanied these changes. principles of access, quality, opportunity, and financial
protection.The AUGE has supported initiatives that
Chile have given Chile a strong start toward achieving the
The case of Chile, the highest-ranking Latin American MDGs of reducing child mortality and improving
country in both the Access Index and the ETI, shows maternal health.
how an economic policy based on the principle of Chile’s success toward achieving the MDGs attests
openness and access has resulted in sustained growth and to the power of the access cycle: access enables business
a reduction of poverty. Chile demonstrated its commit- expansion and economic growth, which, in turn,
ment to enabling trade by introducing a uniform tariff improve human welfare. Improved human welfare leads
and implementing a total ban of non-tariff barriers, to higher levels of personal satisfaction and fulfillment,
which limited the scope for lobbying by vested interests which, in turn, lead to greater expectations for access.
in the process of setting tariffs. In addition, since the
beginning of its liberalization process in the early 1990s, Estonia
Chile has reduced tariffs progressively and has pursued One need look no further than Estonia, ranked first—in
free trade agreements with its key trading partners, both the Access Index and the ETI—among the 12
including Free Trade Treaties (FTT) with the European countries that have joined the European Union (EU)
Union in 2002 and the United States in 2004. Chile has since 2004, to see how access to information and global
also adopted a number of bilateral agreements with trade and investment flows through technology, trans-
Latin American countries, trading blocs such as the Asia- portation, and other essential infrastructures can benefit
Pacific Economic Cooperation Area (APEC), and coun- an economy. Estonia, which regained independence only
tries as diverse as Korea, Singapore, and Brunei.The less than two decades ago and has a population of just 79
outcome of this policy is that Chile has considerably 1.3 million, is one of the most Internet-savvy countries
lowered tariff rates and gained preferential access to in the world. After Estonia became independent from
markets that account for more than half of the world’s the former Soviet Union in 1991, the government com-
GDP. mitted to developing the country’s technical infrastruc-
The Chilean economy has benefited from access to ture, installing Internet access points in the countryside
these markets. From 2003 through 2007, annual growth and putting computers in every school. As a result,
ranged between 4 and 6 percent, for a five-year total of Estonia has one of the highest concentrations of wireless
nearly 25 percent.5 Trade significantly contributed to Internet access points in the world and more Internet
that growth, particularly through solid export earnings users per capita than most nations in Western Europe.12
in forestry, fishing, and mining.6 From 2002 to 2006, the According to New York Times reporter Robert Levine,
country’s exports more than tripled.7 Chile’s economy is
the most competitive in Latin America: according to the The [Estonian] government enshrined Internet access
World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report as a human right in the new constitution and now
2007–2008, Chile ranks 26th worldwide in terms of conducts almost all of its business online. Estonia
became a country of early adopters, where online
competitiveness, well ahead of the next-ranked country
banking took off and drivers can pay for parking with
from the region, Mexico, at 52nd place.8
virtual cash from their mobile phones.13
Chile’s economic success has meant real gains for its
citizens, as per capita income more than doubled
The investment in Internet access was just one of a
between 1990 and 2005.9 The rise in per capita income
series of commitments the Estonian government made
led to widespread support among citizens and political
to openness, including open trade, an open culture, and
groups for increased social spending, with much of it
an open economy. Estonia drastically reduced trade tar-
aimed at the poorest of the poor. Chile’s economic suc-
iffs and non-tariff barriers and abolished all export
cess, coupled with generously funded social and struc-
restrictions, making the nation a free-trade zone. It
tural reforms, has enabled it to become the first country
passed a law on the sale of land to ensure the property
in Latin America to achieve a 50 percent reduction in
rights of all foreign investors. It also abolished special
extreme poverty, a milestone in implementing the first
privileges for a few foreign investors, thereby attracting a
of the MDGs.10 Between 1990 and 2006, Chile reduced
broader range of companies.While courting foreign
poverty from 38.6 percent to 13.7 percent and extreme
investment, Estonia promoted a more entrepreneurial
poverty from 12.9 percent to 3.2 percent.11
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 80
domestic society by reforming the business environment, Respecting individuals, environment, and society
ensuring freedom of the press, privatizing many of its Economic growth, if poorly managed, can damage the
government-owned industries, and transforming gov- environment and social fabrics. However, economic
ernment-sponsored trade unions into free trade unions. growth can also serve as a catalyst for effective environ-
Former Estonian Prime Minister Mart Laar, who mental stewardship and social development. Improved
led the country during its critical years of reform, can infrastructure and efficient operations bring reductions
personally attest to the value of openness in trade: in pollution and enhance safety. Innovative technologies,
paired with efficient operations, help to ensure sustain-
Openness provides many advantages for a smooth able growth. Openness gives people choice and opportu-
and rapid transition to a market economy. It provides nity.
a rational set of market-determined processes for
resource allocation, introduces more competition,
Protecting the environment
allows countries to specialize according to their
As an example of a private-sector solution for environ-
comparative advantages, and lets the market rather
mentally friendly growth, FedEx worked with
than the government pick the winners. A policy
of openness also establishes an environment of
Environmental Defense to pioneer commercial hybrid
transparency, with clear market-based signals for vehicles.The first FedEx hybrid-electric trucks entered
producers.14 the roadways in 2004.The new vehicles provide 42 per-
cent better fuel economy than conventional diesel vehi-
Opening Estonia to foreign investment “created new cles and emit 30 percent fewer greenhouse gases. FedEx
working places, reconstructed old factories, brought new is expanding its hybrid program across the globe.To cre-
knowledge and technology, and made Estonia more ate demand for alternative energy vehicles, FedEx also
modern and competitive.”15 Foreign investment spurred provided the leadership to call for US government regu-
domestic entrepreneurialism and gave citizens the confi- lations that set efficiency standards for commercial
dence to pursue “nearsourcing” opportunities in software trucks.
engineering, for example, with companies in neighboring
Finland. Fueling entrepreneurship and empowering individuals
80 Largely as a result of its reforms in favor of openness The key to changing the lives of the world’s poor is
and access, Estonia has experienced the fastest economic to develop new distribution channels that provide a
growth in Europe during the past few years. Since the sustainable structure . . . engaging the poor as active
start of its reforms, Estonia’s economic growth has aver- consumers rather than passive recipients of charity.19
aged 6 percent per year, and in 2005 it was nearly 11
percent.16 Today, Estonia’s economy is among the freest Access is the key to developing successful entrepreneurs
in the world, ranking 12th in the 2008 Index of Economic from “passive recipients of charity.”With access to tech-
Freedom.17 Its economic success has afforded its citizens a nology, information, and markets, as well as access to
much improved quality of life, and demonstrates to microfinance, the poor have the capacity to improve
developing nations what may be achieved through their own situations. Access can fuel entrepreneurship
openness and access in terms of achieving progress provided that entrepreneurs have the capacities to take
toward the MDGs: advantage of access. Needless to say, access will be valu-
able only for healthy and empowered individuals.The
Poverty and inequality are decreasing in Estonia. Junior Achievement Company Program, sponsored by
According to the United Nations Human Development Junior Achievement Worldwide, serves as a model for
Index, Estonia has moved from the group of not-so- ways that developing nations may successfully promote
developed countries to the group of developed coun- entrepreneurship; FedEx Corporation supports and
tries. Estonia has low unemployment and low infla-
works with this organization.20
tion, and living standards are improving rapidly. The
The Junior Achievement Company Program devel-
budget is not only balanced, but also running a strong
ops entrepreneurial talent among high school students
surplus. Estonia has passed several social reforms,
such as health care and pension reform, and has
by having them organize and operate a business enter-
become a full member of both NATO and the prise from start to finish: the students learn to conceptu-
European Union. By nearly any standard, Estonia is alize, design, and produce a new product or service.
the most competitive economy among new EU mem- They learn the process of capitalizing a business by sell-
ber states. Only 10 years ago, Estonia clearly lagged ing stock in their companies.The students elect officers;
behind most Central and Eastern European countries, negotiate wholesale and retail prices; calculate break-
but it has since passed them and is fast approaching even points; prepare budgets; and pay wages, salaries, and
the living standards of Old Europe.18 commissions.They also conduct market research, create
advertising, and sell products. At the end of the program,
students liquidate their company, prepare a profit and
loss statement and balance sheet, and report their
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 81

success, or lessons learned, to their shareholders. In
2006, an estimated 242,163 student companies were Box 1: How access can facilitate a personal
developed in 67 countries around the world. Overall, revolution
Junior Achievement Worldwide implements programs in
nearly 100 countries and reaches more than seven mil- Vazquez was born in Villarrica, Paraguay, into a very poor
lion students each year. family, living on less than US$1 per day. She wanted to study
International programs and initiatives are not the clothing manufacturing to achieve a better standard of living,
and worked as a maid until she saved enough money to
only solution.The story of Maria Estela Gimenez
attend a program in Brazil.
Vazquez described in Box 1 demonstrates the potential
After returning to her native Paraguay, she received
of access to facilitate a “personal revolution” and help
microfinancing from a local cooperative that offers small
developing countries such as Paraguay achieve progress loans at reasonable interest rates. The funding enabled her
in MDGs aimed at empowering women and eradicating to slowly expand her business. However, her growth poten-
poverty. tial is limited by Paraguay’s lack of access to a safe and reli-
able transportation infrastructure. She says:
What can developing nations do to increase openness I can’t export my clothes outside Paraguay because
and access? the infrastructure is poor, and I rarely even sell out-
Economic growth is the best solution for achieving the side my neighborhood because it is difficult for a
MDGs. It enables nations to reduce poverty by provid- woman to travel alone. 1
ing individuals with opportunities to build better lives
for themselves. Economic growth also provides essential Imagine the degree of success an entrepreneur like Vazquez
funding to address goals for improved maternal health, could achieve if she had access to external markets through
the Internet, lower import and export costs, and reliable
reduced child mortality, decreased incidence of infec-
methods of distribution, including an improved transportation
tious diseases, and improved environmental sustainability.
infrastructure of paved roads, ports, and airports.
In addition, economic growth enables individuals and
governments greater autonomy in determining the pri-
orities among these goals. Note 81
1 Access Review 2007.
Embrace the essentials of openness
By embracing openness and access, nations pave the way
to achieving higher economic growth. First among the
essentials is creating a regulatory environment that is
conducive to trade, foreign investment, and entrepre-
neurial activity. Mart Laar, prime minister of Estonia entirely on the shoulders of governments.The private
during its years of economic reform, understood the sector can provide solutions as well. As a global service
primary need to eliminate obstacles to economic growth. provider in transport and logistics, with physical and
Among its reforms, his administration reduced trade tar- digital networks that span the world, FedEx is commit-
iffs and non-tariff barriers, abolished export restrictions, ted to enhancing access; it enables economic growth,
ensured the property rights of foreign investors, decreased which improves quality of life.
business taxes, and privatized state-owned businesses. Private-sector efforts to ensure sustainability are
Through these and other reforms, Laar’s administration crucial to its success, a position that FedEx has
made it easier and more attractive for foreign investors embraced, as shown by the environmental and youth
to set up shop in Estonia and for Estonian entrepreneurs programs described above. Some of the other issues that
to develop new business enterprises. can be tackled by the private sector are described below,
He understood that foreign investment can help a with examples of FedEx programs that address these
developing nation create the infrastructures and services issues.
that enable greater access and openness, including
telecommunications, Internet services, transportation Improving access for small businesses
systems and financial services.These infrastructures and To make it easier for entrepreneurs and small businesses
services form the backbone of an economy and provide to access the global market, FedEx has developed a port-
the means for continued growth by freeing individuals folio of personalized services, tools, and discounts. For
to pursue economic activities. example, the FedEx PyMex Membership Program sup-
ports small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in
It is not just up to governments—the private sector can Latin America and the Caribbean with strategic advice
help too and tools to make international shipping easy.The pro-
Although an effective regulatory framework is essential, gram provides educational seminars on all aspects of
responsibility for economic development does not rest exporting, including marketing support, packaging
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 82
design, and information about customs regulations. By 20 A second program supported by FedEx is the Healthy Women,
Healthy Economies program, sponsored by the Global Business
helping SMEs compete globally, FedEx can help them Coalition on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. This program
contribute to their country’s economic growth. combats HIV/AIDS through a three-pronged approach of health
services, education, and microfinance to support the economic
Since its introduction in Mexico in 2004, the empowerment of women and girls. The program operates under
FedEx PyMex Membership program has worked with the premise that women and girls who are economically empow-
ered, better educated, and have access to health care have oppor-
more than 11,000 SMEs throughout Argentina, Brazil,
tunities to negotiate their relationships and advocate for them-
Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, selves, making them less vulnerable to HIV/AIDS.
Mexico, and Puerto Rico. It has conducted more than
400 export seminars in collaboration with public- and
private-sector organizations. References
Access Review. 2007. “A Personal Revolution: Maria Estela Gimenez
Assisting governments Vazquez.” Access Review: Your Pass to a Changing World.
Atlanta, GA: Unboundary Inc., produced for FedEx Corporation.
The private sector can also work with governments to Available at http://commitment.fedex.designcdt.com/node/386.
increase access. For example, FedEx works with govern- CIA (United States Central Intelligence Agency). 2007. “Chile,”
ments in Latin American and the Caribbean to reduce The World Fact Book. Available at https://www.cia.gov/library/
publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ci.html (accessed February
and simplify customs and trade regulations, thereby
20, 2008).
helping SMEs tap new markets, grow their businesses,
European Commission. 2007. Chile: Country Strategy Paper:
and play a larger role in interregional and intercontinen- 2007–2013. April 11. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/external_
tal trade. relations/chile/csp/07_13_en.pdf (accessed February 20, 2008).
As a global citizen, FedEx is committed to connect- Gobierno de Chile. 2005. Millennium Development Goals, Executive
ing the world in responsible and resourceful ways. Summary. Available at http://www.pnud.cl/odm/resumen(ingles).pdf
(accessed February 26, 2008).
Greenberg, I. 2007. “East vs. East.” Access Review: Your Pass to a

Changing World. Atlanta, GA: Unboundary Inc., produced for
Notes FedEx Corporation.
1 The Access Index™ was commissioned by FedEx and developed
Heritage Foundation. 2008. Index of Economic Freedom. Available at
by SRI International, an independent, nonprofit research institute.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/index.cfm
The index quantifies the concept of access and identifies its bene-
(accessed February 27, 2008).
82 fits. The Access Index ranks 75 countries according to their
access to goods, services and information. An additional Access Laar, M. 2007. “The Estonian Economic Miracle.” Backgrounder.
Opportunities Index™ is composed of a series of three studies published by The Heritage Foundation, August 7. Available at
that measure the aggregate opportunities access provides to http://www.heritage.org/Research/WorldwideFreedom/bg2060.cfm
nations, businesses, and individuals throughout the world. The (accessed February 27, 2008).
three opportunity indexes gauge the extent to which each of
these groups is able to use access to improve its current condi- Levine, R. 2007. “Tallinn, Estonia: Full of Charm and Fully Wired.”
tion and future prospects. Access Review: Your Pass to a Changing World. Atlanta, GA:
Unboundary Inc., produced for FedEx Corporation.
2 See Lindsay 2007, p. 25.
Lindsay, G. 2007. “The Next Big Thing: Access to the Next Big Thing.”
3 See Greenberg 2007, p. 36. Access Review: Your Pass to a Changing World. Atlanta, GA:
4 See SRI International 2006, p. 13.
MDG Monitor. 2007a. “Chile: Progress by Goal.” Available at
5 See Velasco 2008, slide 15.
http://www.mdgmonitor.org/country_progress.cfm?c=CHL&cd=
6 See CIA 2007, Chile, “Economy.” 152 (accessed February 19, 2008).
7 See International Trade Centre, www. Intracen.org. ———. 2007b. “Chile: Taking Giant Steps in Drive to Implement
MDGs.” Available at http://www.mdgmonitor.org/factsheets_
8 World Economic Forum 2007. 00.cfm?c=CHL&cd=# (accessed February 25, 2008).
9 See MDG Monitor 2007b. Novogratz, J. 2007. “How Will Access Benefit the World’s Poor?”
Access Review: Your Pass to a Changing World. Atlanta, GA:
10 See MDG Monitor 2007b.
11 See MDG Monitor 2007b.
SRI International. 2006. How Greater Access Is Changing the World:
12 See Levine 2007, p. 55. A Landmark Study on the Relevance of Access to People,
Businesses and Nations. Available at http://commitment.fedex.
13 See Levine 2007, p. 56. designcdt.com/files/pdf/access_report_full_06.pdf (accessed
February 11, 2008).
14 See Laar 2007, p. 5–6.
United Nations. 2007. Human Development Index 2007–2008. Available
15 See Laar 2007, p. 6.
at http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ (accessed February 27, 2008).
16 See Laar 2007, p. 11.
Velasco, A. 2008. Chile’s Economy: Recent Performance and Prospects.
17 See The Heritage Foundation 2008. Presentation of Chilean Finance Minister, Andrés Velasco, to the
OECD Development Center on January 29. Available at
18 See Laar 2007, p. 11. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/55/40040445.pdf (accessed
February 20, 2008).
19 See Novogratz 2007, p. 19.
World Economic Forum. 2007. The Global Competitiveness Report
2007–2008. Basingstoke, UK and New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 83

Appendix A: Access Index Country/Economy Rankings and Scores
Country/Economy Rank Score Country/Economy Rank Score
Hong Kong SAR 1 91.1 Bulgaria 51 37.6

Singapore 2 89.1 China 52 37.6
Denmark 3 85.3 Ukraine 53 37.2
Switzerland 4 84.2 Romania 54 37.2
Netherlands 5 83.1 Trinidad and Tobago 55 36.0
Finland 6 82.6 Sri Lanka 56 35.9
Germany 7 82.1 Costa Rica 57 35.7
Sweden 8 81.9 Egypt 58 35.7
United Kingdom 9 80.5 India 59 34.9
France 10 79.0 Indonesia 60 33.7
Belgium 11 74.9 Colombia 61 32.7
United States 12 74.8 Venezuela 62 31.3
Canada 13 74.6 Dominican Republic 63 31.1
Austria 14 74.3 Peru 64 31.1
Norway 15 74.0 Philippines 65 27.4
New Zealand 16 73.7 Bolivia 66 26.3
Iceland 17 72.4 Zimbabwe 67 23.5
Australia 18 69.8 Paraguay 68 23.2
Japan 19 69.7 Honduras 69 23.2
Israel 20 69.1 Guatemala 70 21.5
Taiwan, China 21 68.3 Ecuador 71 20.8
Korea, Rep. 22 66.9 Nicaragua 72 18.5
Ireland 23 64.7 Vietnam 73 18.3
Portugal 24 64.5 Nigeria 74 17.3
Spain 25 64.0 Bangladesh 75 14.4
83
Estonia 26 63.0
Greece 27 62.9
Italy 28 61.9
Slovak Republic 29 60.3
Czech Republic 30 59.9
Slovenia 31 59.8
Chile 32 57.4
Malaysia 33 55.3
Latvia 34 51.2
Lithuania 35 50.9
Hungary 36 45.8
Thailand 37 44.4
South Africa 38 44.3
Turkey 39 43.4
Poland 40 41.8
Mauritius 41 41.5
Uruguay 42 41.4
Argentina 43 41.0
Jordan 44 40.4
Mexico 45 40.4
Russian Federation 46 40.3
Brazil 47 39.9
El Salvador 48 39.3
Jamaica 49 38.5
Panama 50 37.8
ET.part.A.r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page 84
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 85
Part 2
Country/Economy Profiles
and Data Presentation
2.1
Country/Economy Profiles
How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles

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

page profile for each of the 118 economies covered by Albania
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2008. Key indicators
Population (millions), 2007 .............................................3.2
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)........................28.8
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2007 ............3,256.1
GDP per capita (rank out of 118), 2007...........................70
GDP (US$ billions), 2007 ..............................................10.3 Real GDP growth (percent), 2007 ..................................6.0
Source: International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database (October 2007); United Nations Population Fund,
State of World Population 2007; The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2007 (CD version)
Main trade data
Page 1 Current account balance (share of GDP), 2007 ............–7.4

Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ................793.0
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ..............3,058.5
Trade as a percentage of GDP, 1994–2006
80 Albania World average
Commercial services exports (US$ millions)...........1,481.1 70
Commercial services imports (US$ millions)...........1,552.2
Goods RTAs notified to WTO ........................................2.0 60
WTO accession year ...................................................2000 50
Key indicators
Source: International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook 40
Database (October 2007); World Trade Organization, Statistics 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Database, Trade profiles 2007
Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook Database (Oct. 2007); WTO, Statistics
Database, Time series on merchandise & commercial services (Apr. 2008)
The first section presents a selection of key indicators Main trading partners, 2006
Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)
Exports and imports by sector, 2006
that provide a sense of the size of the country and its 100
80
Serbia: 5.1
Others: 6.8 Others: 21.3
Russian Fed.: 4.1
China: 6.0
100
80
68.4
■ Manufactures
■ Fuels and mining
60 Turkey: 7.6
60 73.8 products
economy. Population figures are from the United 40
20
EU25: 88.1
EU25: 61.0
40
20 15.8
12.8
■ Agricultural
products
Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)’s State of World

18.7
9.8
0 0
Exports destination Imports orgin Exports Imports
Source: World Trade Organization, Statistics Database, Source: World Trade Organization, Statistics Database,
Trade profiles 2007 Trade profiles 2007
Population 2007 and surface area data are from the World
Enabling Trade Index
Bank’s World Development Indicators 2007. GDP figures Rank
(out of 118)
2008 Index......................................................................................................73
Score
(1–7 scale)
3.7
Market access ...................................................................................................57 4.3
are from the International Monetary Fund (IMF)’s World Tariff and non-tariff barriers..............................................................................13
Proclivity to trade ..............................................................................................104
Border administration.......................................................................................64
5.7
2.9
3.9
Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................58 3.8
Economic Outlook Online Database (October 2007). Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................67
Transparency of border administration...........................................................70
Transport and communications infrastructure ..........................................106
4.4
3.5
2.5
Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .....................................102 2.8
Availability and quality of transport services...............................................118 2.3
Availability and use of ICTs................................................................................81 2.3
89
Business environment ......................................................................................82 4.2
Regulatory environment .....................................................................................73 4.3
Main trade data Physical security .................................................................................................78 4.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The second section presents main trade data that aim to

provide an overview of trade patterns and main trends
in each economy.This section is split into three parts:
The first part presents main trade-related indicators. imports and exports for each of the three main merchan-
Current account balance data are from the IMF’s World dise sectors of each economy: manufactures, fuels and
Economic Outlook Online Database (October 2007). mining products, and agricultural products. Note that no
Merchandise, commercial services, goods RTAs data, sector data are available for Chad, Mali, Mauritania, or
and WTO accession year come from the World Trade Uzbekistan. According to the WTO International Trade
Organization’s Statistics Database. Statistics (ITS), the breakdown by main commodity
The second part, found on the upper right-hand group definitions are the following: Agricultural products
side, shows a graph displaying the evolution of trade vol- refers to food (SITC Rev. 3 sections 0, 1, 4, and division
ume as a percentage of GDP, from 1994 through 2006 22) and raw materials (SITC Rev. 3 divisions 21, 23, 24,
(or over the subperiod for which data were available) for 25, and 26). Fuels and mining products includes ores and
the economy under review (blue line).The black line other minerals, as well as fuels and non-ferrous metals.
represents the evolution of trade for the world as a whole, Manufactures refers to iron and steel, chemicals, other
for comparison. Data used to calculate total trade volume semi-manufactures, machinery and transport equipment,
are from the World Trade Organization’s Statistics Database, textiles, clothing, and other consumer goods. Please note
Time series on merchandise and commercial services, repre- that the sum of shares may not add up to 100 because
senting the sum of total imports and exports of both the world total merchandise trade includes other com-
merchandise and commercial services.These trade values modities and transactions that are not part of the three
were then divided by each country’s GDP. GDP data main groups.These commodities are gold, arms and
come from the IMF’s World Economic Outlook Online ammunition, and commodities and transactions not clas-
Database (October 2007). sified elsewhere (SITC Rev. 3, section 9).
The third part displays two bar charts summarizing
trade flows between main trading partners, and mer- The Enabling Trade Index
chandise imports and exports by sector.The left-hand The bottom section of the page presents the economy’s
chart shows the share of total volume of merchandise performance on the Enabling Trade Index (ETI) and its
trade flows by origin and destination between each various components. For further analysis, the Data Tables
country and its main trading partners.The right-hand at the end of the Report provide detailed rankings and
chart shows the share of total volume of merchandise scores for each of the variables included in the ETI.
Page 2
Albania
The Enabling Trade Index in detail ■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
The Enabling Trade Index in detail INDICATOR
1st pillar: Tariff and non-tariff barriers

RANK/118 SCORE BEST PERFORMER SCORE
1.01 Tariff barriers .........................................................................56 .....■ ........5.2 Hong Kong SAR .............................0.0
Non-tariff barriers ..................................................................11 .....■ ........5.4
This page presents the rank achieved by an economy on 1.02
2.01
2nd pillar: Proclivity to trade
Breadth of international markets.........................................117 .....■ ........1.9
Uganda...........................................0.1
Germany ........................................6.8
2.02 Extent of regional sales.......................................................114 .....■ ........2.7 Germany ........................................6.7
each of the indicators entering the composition of the 2.03

2.04
Openness to multilateral trade rules.....................................57 .....■ ......62.2
Share of duty-free imports ....................................................90 .....■ .........22
Hungary........................................88.5
Hong Kong SAR ............................100
3rd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
ETI. Indicators are organized by pillar. Please refer to 3.01

3.02
Burden of customs procedures.............................................94 .....■ ........3.0
Customs services index ........................................................33 .....■ ........6.7
4th pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures

Singapore .......................................6.4
Lithuania.......................................10.2
4.01 Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance...........................103 .....■ ........2.0 Netherlands....................................4.0
the Appendix A of Chapter 1.1 for the detailed structure 4.02

4.03
4.04
Time for import......................................................................58 .....■ .........22
Documents for import...........................................................78....................9
Cost to import .......................................................................21 .....■ .......750
Singapore ..........................................3
Multiple economies1 ........................3
Singapore ......................................367
of the ETI. 5.01

5.02
5th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Irregular payments in exports and imports ...........................68 .....■ ........4.2
Corruption Perceptions Index................................................78 .....■ ........2.9
Denmark ........................................6.7
Multiple economies2 ......................9.4
6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
Next to the rank, a colored square indicates 6.01

6.02
6.03
Airport density .......................................................................92 .....■ ........0.3
Transshipment connectivity index .........................................91 .....■ .......404
Paved roads...........................................................................69 .....■ ......39.0
Norway.........................................10.9
United Kingdom ............................580
Multiple economies3 ..................100.0
6.04 Road congestion....................................................................19 .....■ .........12 Bangladesh .......................................1
whether the indicator constitutes an advantage (the blue 6.05

6.06
6.07
6.08
Quality of air transport infrastructure ....................................92 .....■ ........3.6
Quality of railroad infrastructure..........................................104 .....■ ........1.3
Quality of roads ...................................................................102 .....■ ........2.2
Quality of port infrastructure ...............................................114 .....■ ........2.1
Singapore .......................................6.9
Switzerland ....................................6.8
France ............................................6.7
Singapore .......................................6.8
square) or a disadvantage (black square) for the country. 7.01

7.02
7th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
Liner Shipping Connectivity Index.........................................92 .....■ ........2.3
Ease and affordability of shipment........................................95 .....■ ........2.3
China ..........................................127.8
Netherlands....................................4.1
7.03 Competence of the logistics industry .................................106 .....■ ........2.0 Netherlands....................................4.3
In order to identify variables as an advantage or disad- 7.04

7.05
7.06
Ability and ease of tracking .................................................117 .....■ ........1.7
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination ................116 .....■ ........2.1
Postal service efficiency......................................................100 .....■ ........2.4
Singapore .......................................4.3
Singapore .......................................4.5
Japan..............................................6.8
vantage, the following rules apply. 8.01

8.02
8.03
8th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Firm-level technology absorption ........................................102 .....■ ........3.8
Mobile telephone subscribers...............................................73 .....■ ......48.9
Broadband Internet subscribers ..........................................101 .....■ ........0.0
Sweden..........................................6.3
Luxembourg...............................151.6
Denmark ......................................31.7
8.04 Internet users ........................................................................63 .....■ ......15.0 Netherlands..................................88.9
8.05 Telephone lines .....................................................................74 .....■ ......11.3 Switzerland ..................................69.4
9th pillar: Regulatory environment

9.01 Ease of hiring foreign labor .....................................................4 .....■ ........5.9 Kuwait ............................................6.2
• For the top 10 economies in the overall ETI, any 9.02

9.03
9.04
Openness of bilateral Air Service Agreements .....................61 .....■ ........9.5
Prevalence of foreign ownership ..........................................96 .....■ ........4.3
Business impact of rules on FDI .........................................102 .....■ ........4.2
El Salvador ...................................33.7
Ireland ............................................6.5
Ireland ............................................6.5
10th pillar: Physical security
variables on which the economy is ranked 10th or 10.01

10.02
10.03
Reliability of police services ..................................................66 .....■ ........4.0
Business costs of crime and violence...................................79 .....■ ........3.9
Business costs of terrorism ..................................................88 .....■ ........4.8
Finland............................................6.7
Syria ...............................................6.7
Finland............................................6.6
higher are considered to be advantages. Any variables 1 Two economies: Denmark, Sweden
2 Three economies: Denmark, Finland, New Zealand
3 Nineteen economies: Armenia, Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hong Kong SAR, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mauritius,
Singapore, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom
ranked below 10 are considered to be disadvantages.

For example, in the case of Singapore, which is
ranked 2nd overall, its 3rd rank in the variable
“documents for import” makes this variable a
competitive advantage, whereas “non-tariff barriers,”
on which it ranks 84, constitutes a competitive
disadvantage for the country.
• For those economies ranked from 11th to 50th on

90 the overall ETI, any variables with higher rank than
the economy’s overall rank are considered to be
advantages. Any variables ranked equal to, or lower
than, the economy’s overall rank are disadvantages.
For instance, in the case of the Netherlands, ranked
11th overall, its rank of 1st for the “effectiveness
and efficiency of clearance” makes this variable a
competitive advantage. On the other hand, “airport
density,” in which the Netherlands ranks 94th,
represents a competitive disadvantage.
• For economies with an overall rank on the ETI

lower than 50, any variables for which the economy
has a rank of 50 or higher are considered to be
advantages. Any variables ranked below 50 are
considered disadvantages. For Mexico, ranked 65th
overall, the “share of duty-free imports” constitutes
a competitive advantage (35th), whereas the rela-
tively high “tariff barriers” constitutes a competitive
disadvantage (92nd).
For comparison, the last two columns on the page show

the best performer in each indicator, accompanied by
the score achieved.
List of Countries/Economies
List of Countries/Economies
Country/Economy Page Country/Economy Page Country/Economy Page
Albania 92 Hungary 178 Portugal 264

Algeria 94 India 180 Qatar 266
Argentina 96 Indonesia 182 Romania 268
Armenia 98 Ireland 184 Russian Federation 270
Australia 100 Israel 186 Saudi Arabia 272
Austria 102 Italy 188 Senegal 274
Azerbaijan 104 Jamaica 190 Singapore 276
Bahrain 106 Japan 192 Slovak Republic 278
Bangladesh 108 Jordan 194 Slovenia 280
Belgium 110 Kazakhstan 196 South Africa 282
Benin 112 Kenya 198 Spain 284
Bolivia 114 Korea, Rep. 200 Sri Lanka 286
Bosnia and Herzegovina 116 Kuwait 202 Sweden 288
Brazil 118 Kyrgyz Republic 204 Switzerland 290
Bulgaria 120 Latvia 206 Syria 292
91
Burkina Faso 122 Lesotho 208 Taiwan, China 294
Burundi 124 Lithuania 210 Tajikistan 296
Cambodia 126 Luxembourg 212 Tanzania 298
Cameroon 128 Macedonia, FYR 214 Thailand 300
Canada 130 Madagascar 216 Tunisia 302
Chad 132 Malaysia 218 Turkey 304
Chile 134 Mali 220 Uganda 306
China 136 Mauritania 222 Ukraine 308
Colombia 138 Mauritius 224 United Arab Emirates 310
Costa Rica 140 Mexico 226 United Kingdom 312
Croatia 142 Moldova 228 United States 314
Cyprus 144 Mongolia 230 Uruguay 316
Czech Republic 146 Morocco 232 Uzbekistan 318
Denmark 148 Mozambique 234 Venezuela 320
Dominican Republic 150 Namibia 236 Vietnam 322
Ecuador 152 Nepal 238 Zambia 324
Egypt 154 Netherlands 240 Zimbabwe 326
El Salvador 156 New Zealand 242
Estonia 158 Nicaragua 244
Ethiopia 160 Nigeria 246
Finland 162 Norway 248
France 164 Oman 250
Germany 166 Pakistan 252
Greece 168 Panama 254
Guatemala 170 Paraguay 256
Guyana 172 Peru 258
Honduras 174 Philippines 260
Hong Kong SAR 176 Poland 262
2.1: Country/Economy Profiles
Albania
Key indicators
Population (millions), 2007 .............................................3.2 GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2007 ............3,256.1
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)........................28.8 GDP per capita (rank out of 118), 2007...........................70
Main trade data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2007 ............–7.4 Trade as a percentage of GDP, 1994–2006
80 Albania World average

Main trading partners, 2006 Exports and imports by sector, 2006

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent) Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)
92
100 Serbia: 5.1 100
Others: 6.8 Others: 21.3 ■ Manufactures
80 Russian Fed.: 4.1 80
China: 6.0 ■ Fuels and mining
68.4
60 Turkey: 7.6
60 73.8 products
EU25: 88.1 ■ Agricultural

40 40 products
EU25: 61.0
12.8
20 20 15.8
18.7
9.8
0 0
Enabling Trade Index Rank Score

(out of 118) (1–7 scale)
2008 Index......................................................................................................73 3.7

Market access ...................................................................................................57 4.3
Tariff and non-tariff barriers..............................................................................13 5.7
Proclivity to trade ..............................................................................................104 2.9
Border administration.......................................................................................64 3.9
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................67 4.4
Transparency of border administration...........................................................70 3.5
Transport and communications infrastructure ..........................................106 2.5
Physical security .................................................................................................78 4.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”
Albania

INDICATOR RANK/118 SCORE BEST PERFORMER SCORE

1.02 Non-tariff barriers ..................................................................11 .....■ ........5.4 Uganda...........................................0.1

2.01 Breadth of international markets.........................................117 .....■ ........1.9 Germany ........................................6.8
2.03 Openness to multilateral trade rules.....................................57 .....■ ......62.2 Hungary........................................88.5
2.04 Share of duty-free imports ....................................................90 .....■ .........22 Hong Kong SAR ............................100

3.01 Burden of customs procedures.............................................94 .....■ ........3.0 Singapore .......................................6.4
3.02 Customs services index ........................................................33 .....■ ........6.7 Lithuania.......................................10.2

4.02 Time for import......................................................................58 .....■ .........22 Singapore ..........................................3
4.03 Documents for import...........................................................78....................9 Multiple economies1 ........................3
4.04 Cost to import .......................................................................21 .....■ .......750 Singapore ......................................367

5.01 Irregular payments in exports and imports ...........................68 .....■ ........4.2 Denmark ........................................6.7
5.02 Corruption Perceptions Index................................................78 .....■ ........2.9 Multiple economies2 ......................9.4

6.01 Airport density .......................................................................92 .....■ ........0.3 Norway.........................................10.9
93
6.02 Transshipment connectivity index .........................................91 .....■ .......404 United Kingdom ............................580
6.03 Paved roads...........................................................................69 .....■ ......39.0 Multiple economies3 ..................100.0
6.05 Quality of air transport infrastructure ....................................92 .....■ ........3.6 Singapore .......................................6.9
6.06 Quality of railroad infrastructure..........................................104 .....■ ........1.3 Switzerland ....................................6.8
6.07 Quality of roads ...................................................................102 .....■ ........2.2 France ............................................6.7
6.08 Quality of port infrastructure ...............................................114 .....■ ........2.1 Singapore .......................................6.8

7.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index.........................................92 .....■ ........2.3 China ..........................................127.8
7.02 Ease and affordability of shipment........................................95 .....■ ........2.3 Netherlands....................................4.1
7.04 Ability and ease of tracking .................................................117 .....■ ........1.7 Singapore .......................................4.3
7.05 Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination ................116 .....■ ........2.1 Singapore .......................................4.5
7.06 Postal service efficiency......................................................100 .....■ ........2.4 Japan..............................................6.8

8.01 Firm-level technology absorption ........................................102 .....■ ........3.8 Sweden..........................................6.3
8.02 Mobile telephone subscribers...............................................73 .....■ ......48.9 Luxembourg...............................151.6
8.03 Broadband Internet subscribers ..........................................101 .....■ ........0.0 Denmark ......................................31.7

9.02 Openness of bilateral Air Service Agreements .....................61 .....■ ........9.5 El Salvador ...................................33.7
9.03 Prevalence of foreign ownership ..........................................96 .....■ ........4.3 Ireland ............................................6.5
9.04 Business impact of rules on FDI .........................................102 .....■ ........4.2 Ireland ............................................6.5

10.01 Reliability of police services ..................................................66 .....■ ........4.0 Finland............................................6.7
10.02 Business costs of crime and violence...................................79 .....■ ........3.9 Syria ...............................................6.7
10.03 Business costs of terrorism ..................................................88 .....■ ........4.8 Finland............................................6.6
1 Two economies: Denmark, Sweden

Algeria
Key indicators
Population (millions), 2007 ...........................................33.9 GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2007 ............3,702.3
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)...................2,381.7 GDP per capita (rank out of 118), 2007...........................62
GDP (US$ billions), 2007 ............................................125.9 Real GDP growth (percent), 2007 ..................................4.8
Main trade data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2007............19.4 Trade as a percentage of GDP, 1994–2006
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ...........54,613.0
80 Algeria World average
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ............21,456.0
WTO accession year.............................................Observer 50


94
100 Others: 6.7 100 1.0
Turkey: 4.2
Brazil: 5.6
Others: 34.3 ■ Manufactures
80 Canada: 5.9 80
75.3
United States: 23.6 China: 5.0 products
60 60
United States: 5.9
98.8 ■ Agricultural
40 40 products
EU25: 54.0 EU25: 54.8
2.9
20 20
21.0
0 0 0.2

2008 Index....................................................................................................108 3.0

Market access .................................................................................................118 1.8
Tariff and non-tariff barriers............................................................................115 1.0
Efficiency of customs administration.............................................................102 2.6
Transport and communications infrastructure ............................................91 2.9
Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .......................................74 3.5
Regulatory environment ...................................................................................104 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Algeria


1.01 Tariff barriers .......................................................................113 .....■ ......15.6 Hong Kong SAR .............................0.0
1.02 Non-tariff barriers ..................................................................86 .....■ ......85.3 Uganda...........................................0.1

2.04 Share of duty-free imports ..................................................115 .....■ ...........6 Hong Kong SAR ............................100

3.01 Burden of customs procedures...........................................107 .....■ ........2.7 Singapore .......................................6.4

4.03 Documents for import...........................................................78 .....■ ...........9 Multiple economies1 ........................3
4.04 Cost to import .......................................................................86 .....■ ....1,378 Singapore ......................................367


95
6.04 Road congestion...................................................................n/a.................n/a Bangladesh .......................................1
6.06 Quality of railroad infrastructure............................................66 .....■ ........2.4 Switzerland ....................................6.8
6.07 Quality of roads .....................................................................73 .....■ ........3.1 France ............................................6.7
6.08 Quality of port infrastructure .................................................81 .....■ ........3.3 Singapore .......................................6.8

7.02 Ease and affordability of shipment......................................113 .....■ ........2.0 Netherlands....................................4.1
7.04 Ability and ease of tracking ...................................................97 .....■ ........2.3 Singapore .......................................4.3
7.05 Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination ..................91 .....■ ........2.8 Singapore .......................................4.5
7.06 Postal service efficiency........................................................82 .....■ ........3.1 Japan..............................................6.8

8.01 Firm-level technology absorption ..........................................90 .....■ ........4.2 Sweden..........................................6.3
8.03 Broadband Internet subscribers ............................................68 .....■ ........0.6 Denmark ......................................31.7
8.04 Internet users ........................................................................86 .....■ ........7.4 Netherlands..................................88.9
8.05 Telephone lines .....................................................................83 .....■ ........8.5 Switzerland ..................................69.4

9.01 Ease of hiring foreign labor .................................................110 .....■ ........3.7 Kuwait ............................................6.2
9.04 Business impact of rules on FDI ...........................................73 .....■ ........4.9 Ireland ............................................6.5

10.03 Business costs of terrorism ................................................105 .....■ ........4.3 Finland............................................6.6

Argentina
Key indicators
Main trade data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2007..............0.9 Trade as a percentage of GDP, 1994–2006
80 Argentina World average
70
Commercial services exports (US$ millions)...........7,235.9
60
Commercial services imports (US$ millions)...........8,136.1 50
20

96
100 100
80 Others: 36.9 80 31.7
60 United States: 15.8 60
products
China: 7.9 19.5 86.5
Chile: 11.2 ■ Agricultural
EU25: 19.0
40 United States: 11.4 40 products
Brazil: 15.8 45.8

20 Brazil: 37.0 20
EU25: 16.9 8.6
4.1
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................78 3.6

Market access ...................................................................................................89 3.6
Proclivity to trade ................................................................................................45 4.5
Availability and quality of transport services.................................................51 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Argentina



2.01 Breadth of international markets...........................................55 .....■ ........3.7 Germany ........................................6.8
2.02 Extent of regional sales.........................................................48 .....■ ........4.9 Germany ........................................6.7


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


97
6.05 Quality of air transport infrastructure ..................................103 .....■ ........3.2 Singapore .......................................6.9

7.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index.........................................34 .....■ ......25.6 China ..........................................127.8
7.03 Competence of the logistics industry ...................................39 .....■ ........3.0 Netherlands....................................4.3


9.01 Ease of hiring foreign labor ...................................................22 .....■ ........5.3 Kuwait ............................................6.2

10.01 Reliability of police services ................................................112 .....■ ........2.5 Finland............................................6.7

Armenia
Key indicators
GDP (US$ billions), 2007 ................................................7.8 Real GDP growth (percent), 2007 ................................11.1
Main trade data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2007.............-4.0 Trade as a percentage of GDP, 1994–2006
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) .............1,004.3
120 Armenia World average
Commercial services exports (US$ millions)..............360.4 100
Commercial services imports (US$ millions)..............407.3


98
100 100
Others: 17.4
■ Manufactures
80 United States: 6.4 Others: 40.3 80
Switzerland: 7.2 ■ Fuels and mining
57.5 products
60 Israel: 10.6 60 57.4
Iran, Islamic Rep.: 5.2
Russian Fed.: 11.6 Ukraine: 7.5 ■ Agricultural
40 Turkmenistan: 7.7 40 products
Russian Fed.: 13.7
22.4 18.0
EU25: 46.8
20 20
EU25: 25.7
14.5 16.1
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................61 3.9

Market access ...................................................................................................43 4.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Armenia


1.02 Non-tariff barriers..................................................................n/a.................n/a Uganda...........................................0.1





99
6.02 Transshipment connectivity index ........................................n/a.................n/a United Kingdom ............................580
6.03 Paved roads.............................................................................1 .....■ ....100.0 Multiple economies3 ..................100.0

7.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index ........................................n/a.................n/a China ..........................................127.8

8.02 Mobile telephone subscribers.............................................106 .....■ ......10.5 Luxembourg...............................151.6



ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 100
Australia
Key indicators
Population (millions), 2007 ...........................................20.6 GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2007 ..........42,552.6
Main trade data

Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) .........123,269.0
80 Australlia World average
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ..........139,252.0
Commercial services exports (US$ millions).........32,364.3 70
Commercial services imports (US$ millions).........31,645.8 60

WTO accession year ...................................................1995
40


100
100 100

80 Others: 41.7 80 18.0
60 Singapore: 6.1 60
products
United States: 6.2 76.2
Japan: 9.8
Korea, Rep.: 7.5 ■ Agricultural
United States: 14.0 51.4 products
40 EU25: 12.4 40
China: 12.5 China: 14.5

20 20
Japan: 19.8 14.5
EU25: 20.7 18.0
0 0 5.5

2008 Index......................................................................................................17 5.2

Market access ...................................................................................................44 4.7
Transparency of border administration.............................................................9 6.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 101
Australia






5.01 Irregular payments in exports and imports .............................7 .....■ ........6.3 Denmark ........................................6.7

6.01 Airport density .........................................................................3 .....■ ........7.4 Norway.........................................10.9
101

7.06 Postal service efficiency..........................................................9 .....■ ........6.4 Japan..............................................6.8

8.03 Broadband Internet subscribers ............................................17 .....■ ......19.1 Denmark ......................................31.7
8.04 Internet users ..........................................................................4 .....■ ......75.1 Netherlands..................................88.9



ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 102
Austria
Key indicators
Population (millions), 2007 .............................................8.2 GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2007 ..........44,308.3
Main trade data

150 Austria World average
Commercial services imports (US$ millions).........53,294.7
Goods RTAs notified to WTO ......................................23.0 90


102
100 100
80 Switzerland: 4.5 80
United States: 5.7 ■ Fuels and mining
60 60 74.0 products
83.0
■ Agricultural
40 EU25: 73.3 40 products
EU25: 68.3
20 20 17.7
8.4
8.4 8.3
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................15 5.4

Market access ...................................................................................................13 5.2
Proclivity to trade ..................................................................................................4 6.0
Efficiency of import-export procedures ............................................................9 5.9
Availability and quality of transport services...................................................5 5.8
Business environment ........................................................................................9 5.4
Physical security ...................................................................................................5 6.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 103
Austria


1.01 Tariff barriers ...........................................................................3 .....■ ........1.1 Hong Kong SAR .............................0.0

2.01 Breadth of international markets.............................................7 .....■ ........6.0 Germany ........................................6.8
2.02 Extent of regional sales...........................................................2 .....■ ........6.4 Germany ........................................6.7

3.01 Burden of customs procedures...............................................9 .....■ ........5.5 Singapore .......................................6.4

4.01 Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance...............................8 .....■ ........3.8 Netherlands....................................4.0
4.02 Time for import......................................................................11 .....■ ...........8 Singapore ..........................................3


103
6.07 Quality of roads .......................................................................7 .....■ ........6.2 France ............................................6.7

7.02 Ease and affordability of shipment..........................................3 .....■ ........4.0 Netherlands....................................4.1
7.03 Competence of the logistics industry .....................................4 .....■ ........4.1 Netherlands....................................4.3
7.05 Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination ....................3 .....■ ........4.4 Singapore .......................................4.5

8.02 Mobile telephone subscribers...............................................12 .....■ ....112.8 Luxembourg...............................151.6

9.02 Openness of bilateral Air Service Agreements .....................49 .....■ ......10.6 El Salvador ...................................33.7

10.01 Reliability of police services ....................................................8 .....■ ........6.2 Finland............................................6.7
10.02 Business costs of crime and violence.....................................6 .....■ ........6.4 Syria ...............................................6.7
10.03 Business costs of terrorism ....................................................6 .....■ ........6.2 Finland............................................6.6

ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 104
Azerbaijan
Key indicators
GDP (US$ billions), 2007 ..............................................31.1 Real GDP growth (percent), 2007 ................................29.3
Main trade data

120 Azerbaijan World average


104
100 100 5.7
Others: 17.3
80 Iran, Islamic Rep.: 4.6 80
Russian Fed.: 5.4 ■ Fuels and mining
Turkey: 6.1 Ukraine: 6.0
60 Israel: 10.7 Turkmenistan: 7.0
60 74.4 products
Turkey: 7.3 88.4
■ Agricultural
40 Russian Fed.: 22.4 40 products
EU25: 55.8
20 20 14.0
EU25: 29.8
5.7 11.4
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................76 3.7

Market access ...................................................................................................65 4.2
Border administration.....................................................................................112 2.6
Efficiency of import-export procedures ........................................................115 1.8
Transparency of border administration.........................................................114 2.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 105
Azerbaijan




3.02 Customs services index .......................................................n/a.................n/a Lithuania.......................................10.2

4.02 Time for import....................................................................104 .....■ .........56 Singapore ..........................................3
4.03 Documents for import.........................................................114 .....■ .........14 Multiple economies1 ........................3
4.04 Cost to import .....................................................................108 .....■ ....2,945 Singapore ......................................367

5.01 Irregular payments in exports and imports .........................112 .....■ ........2.9 Denmark ........................................6.7
5.02 Corruption Perceptions Index..............................................107 .....■ ........2.1 Multiple economies2 ......................9.4

105
6.04 Road congestion....................................................................11 .....■ ...........9 Bangladesh .......................................1





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 106
Bahrain
Key indicators
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)..........................0.7 GDP per capita (rank out of 118), 2007...........................28
Main trade data

200 Bahrain World average


106
100 100 6.9
32.9 ■ Manufactures
80 80
60 Others: 78.4 60
products
Others: 95.3 92.6 ■ Agricultural
40 40 60.9 products
20 Saudi Arabia: 5.3 20

Japan: 5.4
Saudi Arabia: 4.7 EU25: 10.9 0.5 6.2
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................37 4.5

Market access ...................................................................................................46 4.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 107
Bahrain


1.02 Non-tariff barriers ....................................................................5 .....■ ........3.6 Uganda...........................................0.1



4.02 Time for import .....................................................................n/a.................n/a Singapore ..........................................3
4.03 Documents for import ..........................................................n/a.................n/a Multiple economies1 ........................3
4.04 Cost to import ......................................................................n/a.................n/a Singapore ......................................367


107
6.06 Quality of railroad infrastructure ...........................................n/a .....■ .......n.a. Switzerland ....................................6.8


8.02 Mobile telephone subscribers.................................................7 .....■ ....121.7 Luxembourg...............................151.6

9.04 Business impact of rules on FDI .............................................8 .....■ ........6.0 Ireland ............................................6.5


ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 108
Bangladesh
Key indicators
Population (millions), 2007 .........................................147.1 GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2007 ...............444.0
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)......................144.0 GDP per capita (rank out of 118), 2007.........................111
Main trade data

80 Bangladesh World average
70
Commercial services exports (US$ millions)..............493.0
60

30

108
100 100
Others: 17.7
■ Manufactures
80 80
United States: 26.2 Others: 51.0 ■ Fuels and mining
63.7
60 60
products
92.1
Singapore: 4.3 ■ Agricultural
40 Japan: 9.6 40 products
EU25: 56.1 EU25: 9.9 14.7
20 India: 11.2 20
21.0
China: 13.9 0.7
7.2
0 0

2008 Index....................................................................................................110 3.0

Market access .................................................................................................104 2.9
Availability and use of ICTs..............................................................................109 1.7
Business environment ....................................................................................111 3.6
Physical security ...............................................................................................112 3.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 109
Bangladesh



2.03 Openness to multilateral trade rules...................................101 .....■ ......47.0 Hungary........................................88.5
2.04 Share of duty-free imports ..................................................102 .....■ .........15 Hong Kong SAR ............................100




6.01 Airport density .....................................................................118 .....■ ........0.1 Norway.........................................10.9
109
6.03 Paved roads.........................................................................107 .....■ ........9.5 Multiple economies3 ..................100.0
6.04 Road congestion......................................................................1 .....■ ...........1 Bangladesh .......................................1


8.04 Internet users ......................................................................116 .....■ ........0.3 Netherlands..................................88.9
8.05 Telephone lines ...................................................................108 .....■ ........0.8 Switzerland ..................................69.4



ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 110
Belgium
Key indicators
Main trade data

250 Belgium World average

50

Source: The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2007
(CD version)

110
100 100
■ Manufactures
60 60 78.1 71.8 products
■ Agricultural
EU25: 72.0
20 20 18.9
11.6
9.3 8.7
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................18 5.2

Market access ...................................................................................................16 5.1
Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .........................................8 5.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 111
Belgium







111
6.02 Transshipment connectivity index ...........................................2 .....■ .......574 United Kingdom ............................580
6.06 Quality of railroad infrastructure..............................................6 .....■ ........5.8 Switzerland ....................................6.8
6.08 Quality of port infrastructure ...................................................6 .....■ ........6.4 Singapore .......................................6.8



9.03 Prevalence of foreign ownership ............................................8 .....■ ........6.1 Ireland ............................................6.5


ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 112
Benin
Key indicators
Population (millions), 2007 .............................................9.0 GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2007 ...............690.5
GDP (US$ billions), 2007 ................................................5.4 Real GDP growth (percent), 2007 ..................................4.0
Main trade data

80 Benin World average
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) .................990.0


112
100 100

80 Others: 35.9 80 44.1
Niger: 5.3 Thailand: 6.7 products
60 Nigeria: 5.8 Côte d’Ivoire: 6.9 60
India: 6.9 Ghana: 7.2
6.3 21.4
■ Agricultural
China: 8.8 0.6 products
40 EU25: 10.1 40
20 China: 36.2 EU25: 38.5 20

42.2 34.2
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................98 3.3

Market access ...................................................................................................94 3.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 113
Benin







113



9.02 Openness of bilateral Air Service Agreements ...................110 .....■ ........3.9 El Salvador ...................................33.7


ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 114
Bolivia
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Bolivia World average


114
100 100
11.2
80 Others: 34.1 80
Peru: 5.9
60 Japan: 8.9 Chile: 8.3 60 78.2 products
Argentina: 9.3 EU25: 9.3 71.5
■ Agricultural
40 United States: 9.8 United States: 12.1 40 products
Argentina: 15.8
20 Brazil: 37.7 20
10.5
Brazil: 20.4 17.3 10.6
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................94 3.4

Market access ...................................................................................................84 3.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 115
Bolivia







115



9.03 Prevalence of foreign ownership ........................................106 .....■ ........4.0 Ireland ............................................6.5


ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 116
Bosnia and Herzegovina

Key indicators
Main trade data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2007 ..........–15.3 Trade as a percentage of GDP, 1994–2006
150 Bosnia and Herzegovina World average
WTO accession year.............................................Observer

60

(CD version)

116
100 100
Others: 10.5
Serbia: 13.2
80 80
Serbia: 9.7 60.9
Croatia: 18.7 products
60 60 45.0
Croatia: 16.7
■ Agricultural
40 40 products
EU25: 57.6 19.8
EU25: 47.1 25.5
20 20
13.1 18.9
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................89 3.5

Market access ...................................................................................................97 3.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 117
Bosnia and Herzegovina







117





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 118
Brazil
Key indicators
Population (millions), 2007 .........................................191.3 GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2007 ............6,841.6
GDP (US$ billions), 2007 .........................................1,295.4 Real GDP growth (percent), 2007 ..................................4.4
Main trade data

80 Brazil World average
70
Commercial services exports (US$ millions).........17,920.4
60
20

118
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 Others: 39.9 80
Others: 45.3 49.8 ■ Fuels and mining
69.1
60 60
products
Nigeria: 4.3
China: 6.1 China: 8.7 ■ Agricultural
Argentina: 8.5 Argentina: 8.8 products
40 40 19.2
United States: 18.0
United States: 16.3
20 20 24.3
EU25: 22.0 28.8
EU25: 22.1
0 0 6.2

2008 Index......................................................................................................80 3.6

Market access ...................................................................................................92 3.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 119
Brazil







119




10.02 Business costs of crime and violence.................................110 .....■ ........2.8 Syria ...............................................6.7

ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 120
Bulgaria
Key indicators
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)......................111.0 GDP per capita (rank out of 118), 2007...........................58
Main trade data

200 Bulgaria World average


120
100 100
Others: 33.0
80 80
Turkey: 6.1 53.3 ■ Fuels and mining
60 Turkey: 10.5 60
products
Russian Fed.: 15.6
40 40 products
EU25: 56.5 EU25: 49.7 33.3
20 20
13.8
10.3 5.0
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................60 3.9

Market access ...................................................................................................56 4.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 121
Bulgaria



2.03 Openness to multilateral trade rules.......................................5 .....■ ......83.8 Hungary........................................88.5




121





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 122
Burkina Faso
Key indicators
Population (millions), 2007 ...........................................14.0 GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2007 ...............499.6
Main trade data

80 Burkina Faso World average
Commercial services imports (US$ millions)..............345.4 60

40


122
100 100
Others: 23.8
80 80 6.5
2.7 ■ Fuels and mining
EU25: 15.4 South Africa: 4.9
62.0
60
United States: 7.1
60
products
Japan: 13.1
■ Agricultural
40 40 72.4 products
Côte d’Ivoire: 17.9
Ghana: 60.9
25.0
20 20
EU25: 29.7
12.5
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................99 3.3

Market access ...................................................................................................82 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 123
Burkina Faso





4.03 Documents for import...........................................................98 .....■ .........11 Multiple economies1 ........................3


123

7.06 Postal service efficiency.......................................................n/a.................n/a Japan..............................................6.8

8.02 Mobile telephone subscribers.............................................109 .....■ ........7.5 Luxembourg...............................151.6



ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 124
Burundi
Key indicators
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)........................27.8 GDP per capita (rank out of 118), 2007.........................118
Main trade data

Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ..................58.7
80 Burundi World average
70
Commercial services exports (US$ millions)..................6.5
60

30

124
100 100
Others: 11.3 6.7
2.7
Kenya: 7.1 Others: 31.8 ■ Manufactures
80 80
EU25: 20.2 ■ Fuels and mining
Tanzania: 4.9 products
60 Turkey: 8.1 60 79.2
UAE: 25.3
Japan: 8.8 90.3 ■ Agricultural
40 Kenya: 12.2 40 products
20 Switzerland: 36.2 EU25: 34.2

20
8.9
7.5
0 0

2008 Index....................................................................................................117 2.7

Market access .................................................................................................115 2.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 125
Burundi


1.01 Tariff barriers .........................................................................96 .....■ ......11.6 Hong Kong SAR .............................0.0





125
6.03 Paved roads.........................................................................105 .....■ ......10.4 Multiple economies3 ..................100.0





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 126
Cambodia
Key indicators
Main trade data

150 Cambodia World average


126
100 100
Others: 9.9

80 EU25: 21.2 80
60 Vietnam: 8.2
60
products
Hong Kong SAR: 22.0 97.5
Thailand: 11.2
■ Agricultural
40 Taiwan, China: 11.8 40 46.1 products
China: 16.5
2.4 5.3
0 0

2008 Index....................................................................................................113 3.0

Market access .................................................................................................108 2.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 127
Cambodia







127





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 128
Cameroon
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Cameroon World average

40


128
100 100 3.0
Others: 19.4
■ Manufactures
80 United States: 6.4 Others: 36.5 80 45.4
60 China: 6.3 60 66.6 products
■ Agricultural
Nigeria: 23.3
40 EU25: 74.3 40 35.2
products
20 20
EU25: 33.8 28.3
19.3
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................92 3.4

Market access ...................................................................................................87 3.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 129
Cameroon







129





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 130
Canada
Key indicators
Main trade data

100 Canada World average
80
Goods RTAs notified to WTO ........................................4.0


130
100 100
Others: 11.8
Others: 20.1
EU25: 6.6 ■ Manufactures
80 Mexico: 4.0 80
China: 8.7 55.6
60 EU25: 12.3 60 78.2
products
■ Agricultural
United States: 81.6 products
40 40
20 20
12.4
11.4 6.8
0 0

2008 Index........................................................................................................5 5.6

Market access .....................................................................................................3 5.9
Tariff and non-tariff barriers................................................................................2 6.1
Border administration.........................................................................................9 5.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 131
Canada



2.04 Share of duty-free imports ......................................................4 .....■ .........94 Hong Kong SAR ............................100

3.02 Customs services index ..........................................................5 .....■ ........9.0 Lithuania.......................................10.2

4.03 Documents for import.............................................................3 .....■ ...........4 Multiple economies1 ........................3

5.02 Corruption Perceptions Index..................................................8 .....■ ........8.7 Multiple economies2 ......................9.4

131
6.03 Paved roads ..........................................................................n/a.................n/a Multiple economies3 ..................100.0


8.03 Broadband Internet subscribers ..............................................9 .....■ ......23.6 Denmark ......................................31.7
8.05 Telephone lines .......................................................................3 .....■ ......64.1 Switzerland ..................................69.4



ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 132
Chad
Key indicators
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)...................1,284.0 GDP per capita (rank out of 118), 2007.........................104
Main trade data

150 Chad World average
Commercial services exports (US$ millions)................64.3 120

Main trading partners, 2006

132
100
Others: 9.0
China: 10.4
80
Others: 47.1
60
Cameroon: 7.1
40 United States: 80.6 Germany: 8.7
United States: 14.9
20
France: 22.2
0
Exports destination Imports orgin
Source: International Trade Centre, Trade Competitiveness

Map, Trade performance, accessed April 2008

2008 Index....................................................................................................118 2.6

Market access .................................................................................................101 3.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 133
Chad





4.02 Time for import....................................................................114 .....■ .......102 Singapore ..........................................3


133





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 134
Chile
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Chile World average


134
100 100
Others: 31.5 10.3 ■ Manufactures

Others: 30.0
80 80
Korea, Rep.: 5.7 China: 8.5
60 60 58.6 products
China: 11.4 Brazil: 12.7
Japan: 11.8
United States: 16.2
Argentina: 16.1
20 20 24.9
EU25: 23.5 EU25: 16.9 19.8
6.9
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................27 4.9

Market access ...................................................................................................40 4.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 135
Chile







135





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 136
China
Key indicators
Population (millions), 2007 ......................................1,331.4 GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2007 ............2,459.8
GDP (US$ billions), 2007 .........................................3,248.5 Real GDP growth (percent), 2007 ................................11.5
Main trade data

80 China World average
Commercial services imports (US$ millions).......100,326.8 60

40


Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent) Exports and imports by sector, 2006
136 100
100
Others: 30.1
80
Korea, Rep.: 4.6 80
60 Japan: 9.5 ■ Fuels and mining
73.2 products
China: 9.3 60
Taiwan, China: 11.0 ■ Agricultural
40
EU25: 18.8 Korea, Rep.: 11.3 40 products
20 EU25: 11.4
United States: 21.0 20
Japan: 14.6 20.0
0 4.0 3.4 6.5
Exports destination Imports orgin 0
Exports Imports
Source: World Trade Organization, Statistics Database, Trade profiles 2007
Note: China is cited as its own trading partner, as, according to the WTO, Source: World Trade Organization, Statistics Database,
its deep integration with the economy of Hong Kong makes it difficult to Trade profiles 2007
clearly separate foreign from domestic trade.

2008 Index......................................................................................................48 4.3

Market access ...................................................................................................71 4.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 137
China





4.04 Cost to import .........................................................................4 .....■ .......430 Singapore ......................................367


137

7.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index...........................................1 .....■ ....127.8 China ..........................................127.8




ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 138
Colombia
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Colombia World average
70
60

30

138
100 100

80 Others: 35.7 80 35.6
Ecuador: 5.1 ■ Fuels and mining
60 Venezuela: 11.1 Brazil: 7.2 60
products
82.6
China: 8.5
Mexico: 8.8
40 40 40.8 products
EU25: 13.3

20.2
10.4
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................75 3.7

Market access ...................................................................................................96 3.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 139
Colombia







139





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 140
Costa Rica
Key indicators
Main trade data

120 Costa Rica World average


140
100 100
Others: 33.3
■ Manufactures
80 Others: 40.0 80
Japan: 4.7 products
60 China: 4.6 Venezuela: 5.2 60 73.9
Mexico: 5.2
Hong Kong SAR: 4.7 ■ Agricultural
EU25: 14.9 EU25: 13.2 products
40 40
2.0
20 United States: 35.9 United States: 38.3 20 15.9

32.6
10.2
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................44 4.4

Market access ...................................................................................................10 5.3
Regulatory environment .......................................................................................7 5.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 141
Costa Rica







141



9.02 Openness of bilateral Air Service Agreements .......................9 .....■ ......22.0 El Salvador ...................................33.7


ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 142
Croatia
Key indicators
Main trade data

120 Croatia World average


142
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 Serbia: 5.3 China: 5.3 80
Bosnia and Russian Fed.: 10.1 ■ Fuels and mining
Herzegovina: 12.6 65.6 72.0 products
60 60
■ Agricultural
EU25: 63.2
19.5
20 20 18.5
14.6 9.4
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................42 4.5

Market access ...................................................................................................12 5.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 143
Croatia







143





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 144
Cyprus
Key indicators
Main trade data

140 Cyprus World average

60


144
100 100

80 Others: 44.5 80
Israel: 6.2 56.5
65.9 products
60 60
UAE: 4.6
■ Agricultural
40 40 products
EU25: 65.4
EU25: 51.0 25.0
20 20 19.7
17.8 12.9
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................39 4.5

Market access ...................................................................................................49 4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 145
Cyprus







145





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 146
Czech Republic
Key indicators
Main trade data

180 Czech Republic World average

60


146
100 100
■ Manufactures
60 60 79.3 products
89.4
■ Agricultural
EU25: 70.0
20 20
13.8
4.9
4.9 6.5
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................32 4.7

Market access ...................................................................................................33 4.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 147
Czech Republic







147





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 148
Denmark
Key indicators
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)........................43.1 GDP per capita (rank out of 118), 2007.............................5
Main trade data

100 Denmark World average
80
Goods RTAs notified to WTO ......................................23.0


148
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 Norway: 4.6 80
Norway: 5.7 China: 5.3 ■ Fuels and mining
60 60
products
76.5
■ Agricultural
EU25: 65.2
12.6
20 20 7.8
20.6
14.2
0 0

2008 Index........................................................................................................6 5.6

Market access ...................................................................................................15 5.2
Availability and use of ICTs..................................................................................7 5.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 149
Denmark





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


149
6.05 Quality of air transport infrastructure ......................................6 .....■ ........6.5 Singapore .......................................6.9


8.01 Firm-level technology absorption ............................................9 .....■ ........6.0 Sweden..........................................6.3



ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 150
Dominican Republic
Key indicators
Main trade data

140 Dominican Republic World average

60


150
100 100
Others: 32.1
80 80
Mexico: 6.7 ■ Fuels and mining
62.7
Haiti: 8.8 EU25: 10.8 products
60 60 84.9
EU25: 18.8 Venezuela: 13.4 ■ Agricultural
40 40 products
United States: 40.2 United States: 44.8 25.3

20 20
5.5
9.5 11.9
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................63 3.9

Market access ...................................................................................................85 3.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 151
Dominican Republic







151





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 152
Ecuador
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Ecuador World average


152
100 100
8.8
Others: 16.5
Chile: 4.4
■ Manufactures
80 80
Colombia: 5.6 Others: 40.5
Peru: 8.2 ■ Fuels and mining
69.3
60 EU25: 11.7 60 60.2
products
China: 6.8
Brazil: 7.3 ■ Agricultural
United States: 53.6 Colombia: 12.8

20 20 22.5
31.1
United States: 22.6
8.1
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................96 3.4

Market access ...................................................................................................77 4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 153
Ecuador




3.02 Customs services index ......................................................105 .....■ ........2.0 Lithuania.......................................10.2



153





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 154
Egypt
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Egypt World average

40


154
100 100
80 80
Others: 47.6 Others: 52.0 ■ Fuels and mining
49.9 products
60 60
United States: 8.7 Kuwait: 5.3 ■ Agricultural

54.0 products
40 India: 10.1 China: 5.8 40
Saudi Arabia: 6.9 16.8
United States: 7.8
20 EU25: 33.5 20
EU25: 22.3 24.2
15.4
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................87 3.5

Market access .................................................................................................111 2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 155
Egypt







155





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 156
El Salvador
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 El Salvador World average

50


156
100 100
Others: 20.4
■ Manufactures
80 Others: 36.9 80
EU25: 7.6
Nicaragua: 8.7 56.5
60 Venezuela: 5.0 60 74.2 products
Honduras: 14.0
Mexico: 7.6
EU25: 8.9
■ Agricultural
40 40 products
United States: 23.1 Guatemala: 10.4
23.6
4.6
20 United States: 31.2
20
Guatemala: 26.2 21.1
14.5
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................55 4.1

Market access ...................................................................................................29 5.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 157
El Salvador







157





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 158
Estonia
Key indicators
Main trade data

250 Estonia World average

50


158
100 100
Gibraltar: 4.6 China: 5.1
■ Manufactures
80 80
United States: 6.6 Russian Fed.: 13.5 ■ Fuels and mining
Russian Fed.: 8.0 68.1 72.2
60 60
products
■ Agricultural
40 40 products
EU25: 64.7 EU25: 65.5
20 20 18.4 17.5
13.3 10.1
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................25 4.9

Market access ...................................................................................................47 4.7
Efficiency of customs administration.................................................................5 5.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 159
Estonia







159





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 160
Ethiopia
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Ethiopia World average
70
60

30

160
100 100
11.8
0.7
80 80
Somalia: 5.6
India: 6.5 64.1
60 Saudi Arabia: 6.9 60
products
Japan: 7.3
Japan: 8.5
China: 11.7 ■ Agricultural
87.4 products
40 Djibouti: 19.4 40
United States: 14.3
13.4
20 20
EU25: 28.6
EU25: 30.0 22.2
0 0

2008 Index....................................................................................................106 3.1

Market access .................................................................................................116 2.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 161
Ethiopia







161





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 162
Finland
Key indicators
Main trade data

100 Finland World average
80


162
100 100
Others: 23.3
80 80
United States: 6.2
60
Russian Fed.: 14.0
60 78.7 67.2 products
Russian Fed.: 10.0
■ Agricultural
40 40 products
EU25: 54.9 EU25: 55.2
20 20 23.0
9.9
7.3 7.5
0 0

2008 Index........................................................................................................7 5.6

Market access ...................................................................................................19 5.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 163
Finland







163

7.04 Ability and ease of tracking .....................................................2 .....■ ........4.2 Singapore .......................................4.3




ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 164
France
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 France World average
Commercial services exports (US$ millions).......114,461.3 70
Commercial services imports (US$ millions).......108,783.1


164
100 100

80 80
United States: 6.9 China: 5.7 ■ Fuels and mining
60
United States: 6.0
60 79.8 73.2 products
■ Agricultural
40 40 products
EU25: 64.7 EU25: 61.5
20 20 17.5
6.9
11.3 8.7
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................19 5.2

Market access ...................................................................................................20 5.1
Transport and communications infrastructure ..............................................6 5.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 165
France







165





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 166
Germany
Key indicators
Main trade data

Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ......1,111,969.0
100 Germany World average
Commercial services exports (US$ millions).......168,765.9
80


166
100 100

80 80
United States: 8.7 United States: 6.6
60 60
72.0 products
China: 6.7
86.3
■ Agricultural
40 40 products
EU25: 62.3 EU25: 57.6
20 20 18.0
5.8
5.3 8.5
0 0

2008 Index........................................................................................................8 5.6

Market access .....................................................................................................9 5.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 167
Germany







167
6.04 Road congestion....................................................................76 .....■ .......207 Bangladesh .......................................1

7.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index...........................................3 .....■ ......88.9 China ..........................................127.8




ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 168
Greece
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Greece World average

40


168
100 100

80 80
United States: 4.4 50.6 ■ Fuels and mining
Korea, Rep.: 4.2 64.9 products
60 Turkey: 5.1 60
Russian Fed.: 7.1
Bulgaria: 6.3
■ Agricultural
40 40 products
24.1
EU25: 54.8
EU25: 53.6
22.7
20 20
22.5
12.0
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................36 4.6

Market access ...................................................................................................31 5.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 169
Greece







169





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 170
Guatemala
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Guatemala World average


170
100 100

80 Others: 38.0 80
Nicaragua: 5.9
60 EU25: 6.8 China: 4.6 60
71.1 products
El Salvador: 5.3
Honduras: 12.3
40 Mexico: 8.8 40 7.8 products
El Salvador: 18.3
20 United States: 35.9 20 37.0 17.1

United States: 26.5
11.6
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................54 4.1

Market access ...................................................................................................28 5.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 171
Guatemala







171





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 172
Guyana
Key indicators
Main trade data

300 Guyana World average
250
200

50

172
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 Jamaica: 4.8 Netherlands Antilles: 4.0 80
Trinidad & Tobago: 6.2 China: 5.1 16.2
EU25: 9.8 products
60 United States: 15.5 60 7.9
■ Agricultural
Canada: 18.0 United States: 27.2
40 40 products
56.3
31.0
20 EU25: 35.2 Trinidad & Tobago: 33.6 20
13.0
0 0

2008 Index....................................................................................................114 2.9

Market access .................................................................................................113 2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 173
Guyana







173





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 174
Honduras
Key indicators
Main trade data

120 Honduras World average


174
100 100
Others: 16.7
80 Mexico: 4.8 80
Guatemala: 7.7
71.7 62.9
El Salvador: 11.0 Costa Rica: 5.3
60 EU25: 5.5 60
products
El Salvador: 6.1 ■ Agricultural
EU25: 25.1 Guatemala: 9.7
40 40 products
3.7 20.8
20 United States: 34.7 United States: 40.5 20
24.6
16.3
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................64 3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................63 4.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 175
Honduras







175





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 176
Hong Kong SAR

Key indicators
Main trade data

500 Hong Kong SAR World average

100


176
100 100
80 Japan: 4.8 80
Singapore: 6.3
EU25: 14.4 ■ Fuels and mining
EU25: 7.3
60 60
products
Taiwan, China: 7.5
Japan: 10.3 94.4 ■ Agricultural
40 40 products

20 20
2.2 1.5 5.4 3.5

0 0

2008 Index........................................................................................................1 6.0

Market access .....................................................................................................1 6.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 177
Hong Kong SAR



2.03 Openness to multilateral trade rules ....................................n/a.................n/a Hungary........................................88.5
2.04 Share of duty-free imports ......................................................1 .....■ .......100 Hong Kong SAR ............................100




177

7.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index...........................................2 .....■ ....106.2 China ..........................................127.8




ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 178
Hungary
Key indicators
Main trade data

200 Hungary World average


178
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 Romania: 4.0 China: 5.0 80
60 60
products
81.6
88.4
■ Agricultural
EU25: 68.1
20 20
3.5 13.4
6.2 4.9
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................34 4.7

Market access ...................................................................................................41 4.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 179
Hungary







179





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 180
India
Key indicators
Population (millions), 2007 ......................................1,135.6 GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2007 ...............964.6
Main trade data

80 India World average
70
60

30

180
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 Others: 40.5
80
Others: 64.7 68.0 products
60 Singapore: 5.3 60
40 UAE: 8.3 40 products
Switzerland: 4.4
United States: 16.9
United States: 6.3
19.5 38.7
20 China: 7.3 20
EU25: 22.5 EU25: 17.2 11.7
0 0 4.2

2008 Index......................................................................................................71 3.7

Market access .................................................................................................105 2.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 181
India







181





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 182
Indonesia
Key indicators
Main trade data

100 Indonesia World average
80

(CD version)

182
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 Others: 38.2 80 42.9
Others: 47.1 ■ Fuels and mining
65.7
60 60
products
China: 8.3
Singapore: 8.9 United States: 6.7 ■ Agricultural
40 United States: 11.2 Japan: 9.0 40 38.3
products
EU25: 9.9
EU25: 11.9
20 China: 10.9 20 24.9
Japan: 21.6 Singapore: 16.4 17.7
9.3
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................47 4.3

Market access ...................................................................................................22 5.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 183
Indonesia







183





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 184
Ireland
Key indicators
Main trade data

250 Ireland World average

50


184
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 80
China: 7.3
60 60
83.2 75.4
■ Agricultural
40 40 products
EU25: 63.1 EU25: 60.1
20 20
8.8
2.2
9.9 9.7
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................20 5.2

Market access ...................................................................................................25 5.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 185
Ireland







185





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 186
Israel
Key indicators
Main trade data

100 Israel World average
80


186
100 100

80 Others: 39.3 80
Hong Kong SAR: 5.9 ■ Fuels and mining
60 China: 5.1 60 71.5 products
EU25: 27.3 Switzerland: 5.9 95.2 ■ Agricultural
40 40
20 United States: 38.4 EU25: 37.4 20

19.5
1.4 3.3 7.0
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................28 4.8

Market access ...................................................................................................36 4.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 187
Israel







187





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 188
Italy
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Italy World average


188
100 100
Others: 40.5
■ Manufactures
80 Others: 34.7 80
64.6 products
China: 5.2 85.9
■ Agricultural
40 40 products
EU25: 57.7 EU25: 54.3 23.3
20 20
5.6
7.1 10.9
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................33 4.7

Market access ...................................................................................................30 5.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 189
Italy







189





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 190
Jamaica
Key indicators
Main trade data

150 Jamaica World average


190
100 100
8.5
Others: 17.5
Netherlands Others: 26.5 ■ Manufactures
80 Antilles: 6.5
80
China: 7.1 Japan: 4.4 57.0 ■ Fuels and mining
Venezuela: 5.4 products
60 Canada: 19.4 EU25: 7.2 60
75.7
Trinidad & Tobago: 15.0 ■ Agricultural
40 40 products
EU25: 24.0
27.7
United States: 25.6
15.5 14.9
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................66 3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................90 3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 191
Jamaica







191





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 192
Japan
Key indicators
Population (millions), 2007 .........................................128.3 GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2007 ..........34,022.9
Main trade data

80 Japan World average
70
60
Commercial services imports (US$ millions).......143,990.9 50
20

192
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 Others: 33.8 80
Others: 45.3
60 Taiwan, China: 6.8 60
products
Korea, Rep.: 7.8 UAE: 5.5
China: 14.3 Saudi Arabia: 6.4
40 40 products
EU25: 10.3
EU25: 14.5 35.6
United States: 12.0
20 20
United States: 22.8 China: 20.5
3.1 1.0 11.3
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................13 5.4

Market access .....................................................................................................4 5.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 193
Japan







193





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 194
Jordan
Key indicators
Main trade data

200 Jordan World average


194
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 Others: 31.8 80
Others: 42.2
Egypt: 4.2
60 60 69.5 products
United States: 4.7
UAE: 5.6
Saudi Arabia: 7.1
40 India: 7.7 40 products
EU25: 23.2
Iraq: 12.3
26.2
20 20 11.2
United States: 25.1 Saudi Arabia: 25.6
13.6 14.6
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................51 4.2

Market access ...................................................................................................95 3.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 195
Jordan







195





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 196
Kazakhstan
Key indicators
Main trade data

120 Kazakhstan World average


196
100 100
Iran, Islamic Rep.: 5.4 Ukraine: 4.1
80 80
China: 9.4 United States: 4.7
China: 8.1
Russian Fed.: 9.8 products
60 60 73.8
Switzerland: 17.6 EU25: 26.4 ■ Agricultural
79.8
40 40 products
20 EU25: 43.2 Russian Fed.: 38.3 20

13.6
3.2 7.4
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................72 3.7

Market access ...................................................................................................37 4.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 197
Kazakhstan







197





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 198
Kenya
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Kenya World average


198
100 100
19.4
■ Manufactures
80 Others: 39.1
80
Others: 41.1
60 60 34.9 products
Pakistan: 5.4 Japan: 6.1
Tanzania: 8.0 Saudi Arabia: 9.0 ■ Agricultural
40 South Africa: 9.8 40 products
Uganda: 17.5
UAE: 11.0
45.6
20 20 29.0
EU25: 28.0 EU25: 25.0
11.0
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................86 3.5

Market access ...................................................................................................55 4.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 199
Kenya







199





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 200
Korea, Rep.
Key indicators
Main trade data

100 Korea, Rep. World average
80


200
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 Others: 36.4 Others: 40.2 80
60 Hong Kong SAR: 5.8 60
products
Japan: 8.2 ■ Agricultural
EU25: 9.7
EU25: 14.9 36.1
China: 15.7
20 20
China: 21.3
Japan: 16.8 8.9 1.6 6.0
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................24 5.0

Market access ...................................................................................................72 4.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 201
Korea, Rep.







201





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 202
Kuwait
Key indicators
Main trade data

120 Kuwait World average


202
100 100 6.4
■ Manufactures
80 Others: 36.0 80
Others: 60.9 China: 4.4 products
60 60
Japan: 9.6
40 40 products
EU25: 7.8 United States: 10.6
United States: 11.0

20 20
EU25: 33.0 2.6
Japan: 20.3
12.5
0.4
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................58 4.0

Market access ...................................................................................................64 4.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 203
Kuwait







203





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 204
Kyrgyz Republic
Key indicators
Main trade data

120 Kyrgyz Republic World average


204
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 China: 4.8 United States: 5.7 80
Afghanistan: 9.4 Kazakhstan: 11.6 53.1 ■ Fuels and mining
60 60
products
EU25: 12.0 31.9
Russian Fed.: 19.4
■ Agricultural
China: 14.4 products
40 40
Kazakhstan: 20.5
22.4 31.1
Switzerland: 26.2 18.6 15.6
0 0

2008 Index....................................................................................................109 3.0

Market access .................................................................................................102 3.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 205
Kyrgyz Republic







205





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 206
Latvia
Key indicators
Main trade data

120 Latvia World average


206
100 100
Others: 10.9
Others: 16.2
Belarus: 4.7 ■ Manufactures
80 Russian Fed.: 8.9 Russian Fed.: 7.8 80
60 60 72.6 products
■ Agricultural
EU25: 74.9 EU25: 76.7 products
40 40
9.0
20 20 14.5
28.8
13.0
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................43 4.4

Market access ...................................................................................................48 4.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 207
Latvia







207





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 208
Lesotho
Key indicators
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)........................30.4 GDP per capita (rank out of 118), 2007.........................106
Main trade data

250 Lesotho World average
Commercial services imports (US$ millions)................79.3 150

50


208
100 Others: 6.3 100
Others: 12.7
Canada: 6.9
Hong Kong SAR: 4.6 ■ Manufactures
80 Taiwan, China: 5.6 80
60
South Africa: 42.3
60
products
93.6
■ Agricultural
40 40 products
South Africa: 77.1
6.4
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................95 3.4

Market access ...................................................................................................52 4.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 209
Lesotho







209





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 210
Lithuania
Key indicators
Main trade data

150 Lithuania World average


210
100 100
Others: 13.1
Others: 19.7
■ Manufactures
Russian Fed.: 12.8 Russian Fed.: 24.2 57.7 64.9 ■ Fuels and mining
60 60
products
■ Agricultural
40 40 products
EU25: 62.7
EU25: 63.2 25.5
20 20 24.3
16.8 10.8
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................35 4.6

Market access ...................................................................................................32 4.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 211
Lithuania




3.02 Customs services index ..........................................................1 .....■ ......10.2 Lithuania.......................................10.2



211





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 212
Luxembourg
Key indicators
Population (millions), 2007 .............................................0.5 GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2007 ........102,284.2
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)..........................2.6 GDP per capita (rank out of 118), 2007.............................1
Main trade data

400 Luxembourg World average

(CD version)

212
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 80
60 60
products
89.7 75.8
■ Agricultural
40 EU25: 82.8 EU25: 86.2 40 products
20 20
16.0
4.7
4.6 8.0
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................12 5.5

Market access ...................................................................................................17 5.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 213
Luxembourg







213





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 214
Macedonia, FYR
Key indicators
Main trade data

140 Macedonia, FYR World average

60


214
100 100
Others: 10.9
Croatia: 5.2 Others: 26.8 ■ Manufactures
80 Bulgaria: 5.4 80
Bulgaria: 6.6 62.8 ■ Fuels and mining
Serbia: 23.2 69.4 products
60 Serbia: 7.5 60
Russian Fed.: 15.1 ■ Agricultural
40 40 products
EU25: 55.2
EU25: 43.9 13.6 24.1
20 20
16.8 12.9
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................81 3.6

Market access ...................................................................................................86 3.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 215
Macedonia, FYR







215





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 216
Madagascar
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Madagascar World average


216
100 100

80 Others: 36.5 80
United States: 15.0 64.4 65.8
60 South Africa: 5.7 60
products
Bahrain: 16.4 ■ Agricultural

40 40 products
EU25: 60.1 China: 17.8 9.0
22.1
20 20
EU25: 23.7 26.6
12.0
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................88 3.5

Market access ...................................................................................................53 4.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 217
Madagascar







217





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 218
Malaysia
Key indicators
Main trade data

300 Malaysia World average
250
200

50

218
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 Others: 39.1 80
Others: 37.0
60 60 73.4 77.0 products
China: 7.2
EU25: 11.4
Singapore: 11.7
China: 12.1
Singapore: 15.4
Japan: 13.2 9.7 6.5
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................29 4.8

Market access ...................................................................................................68 4.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 219
Malaysia







219





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 220
Mali
Key indicators
Main trade data

90 Mali World average

50


220
100
80 Others: 29.0 Others: 31.7

China: 4.8
Benin: 7.4
60 Senegal: 6.3
EU25: 8.7 Togo: 8.5
Côte d’Ivoire: 9.4
40 Switzerland: 20.4
Senegal: 12.2
20 South Africa: 30.9 EU25: 30.8
0
Source: World Trade Organization, Statistics Database,

Trade profiles 2007

2008 Index......................................................................................................90 3.4

Market access ...................................................................................................75 4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 221
Mali







221





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 222
Mauritania
Key indicators
Main trade data

150 Mauritania World average

(CD version)

222
100
Others: 13.6
80 Japan: 11.8 Others: 37.1
60 United States: 4.5

Japan: 5.8
40 EU25: 74.6
EU25: 52.6
20
0
Source: World Trade Organization, Statistics Database,

Trade profiles 2007

2008 Index......................................................................................................97 3.3

Market access ...................................................................................................93 3.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 223
Mauritania







223





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 224
Mauritius
Key indicators
Main trade data

180 Mauritius World average

60


224
100 100
Others: 12.7
Madagascar: 4.8 ■ Manufactures
80 United States: 8.3 Others: 35.9 80
UAE: 11.4 68.7 63.5
products
40 India: 13.6 40 products
EU25: 62.9 0.9
17.8
20 EU25: 34.6 20
30.2
18.6
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................40 4.5

Market access ...................................................................................................11 5.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 225
Mauritius







225





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 226
Mexico
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Mexico World average

40


226
100 100
Others: 10.7
Others: 18.0
EU25: 4.4 ■ Manufactures
80 Korea, Rep.: 4.1 80
Japan: 6.0 ■ Fuels and mining
China: 9.5
60 60 75.6 82.6
products
EU25: 11.3
United States: 84.9 ■ Agricultural
40 40 products
United States: 51.1
20 20
17.8 8.8
5.9 7.2
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................65 3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................74 4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 227
Mexico







227





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 228
Moldova
Key indicators
Main trade data

180 Moldova World average

60


228
100 100
Belarus: 7.0 China: 4.3
■ Manufactures
80 80 51.6
Ukraine: 12.2 Romania: 12.8 ■ Fuels and mining
62.0
60 Romania: 14.8 60
products
Russian Fed.: 15.5
Russian Fed.: 17.3 Ukraine: 19.2 products
40 40
44.8 25.0
20 EU25: 35.0 EU25: 31.1
20
13.0
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................62 3.9

Market access ...................................................................................................26 5.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 229
Moldova







229





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 230
Mongolia
Key indicators
Main trade data

180 Mongolia World average

60


230
100 Others: 6.4 100
Others: 15.7
EU25: 7.0
Korea, Rep.: 5.6 ■ Manufactures
Japan: 6.6 10.4
Canada: 11.1 57.7 ■ Fuels and mining
EU25: 8.1
60 60
products
59.3 products
40 40
China: 67.8
29.6
12.8 12.5
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................93 3.4

Market access ...................................................................................................69 4.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 231
Mongolia







231





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 232
Morocco
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Morocco World average


232
100 100
Others: 22.9
80 80
India: 4.3
Russian Fed.: 4.6 64.9 61.9
60 China: 5.4 60
products
Saudi Arabia: 6.8
■ Agricultural
EU25: 51.8 12.9 24.8

20 20
20.7
12.0
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................74 3.7

Market access .................................................................................................110 2.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 233
Morocco







233





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 234
Mozambique
Key indicators
Main trade data

100 Mozambique World average
80


234
100 100
7.2
Others: 19.6
80 80
South Africa: 14.1 UAE: 4.2 ■ Fuels and mining
India: 4.6 products
60 60
74.7
40 40 49.6 products
EU25: 66.3
20 South Africa: 37.4 20 2.0

15.8 15.4
0 0

2008 Index....................................................................................................101 3.3

Market access ...................................................................................................81 3.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 235
Mozambique







235





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 236
Namibia
Key indicators
Main trade data

140 Namibia World average

60


236
100 100
Others: 11.7
Others: 24.2 EU25: 5.9 ■ Manufactures
80 80
Angola: 5.7 46.9 ■ Fuels and mining
60 60
products
South Africa: 24.6 73.4
■ Agricultural
40 40 products
EU25: 45.5
20 20 38.9 2.9
17.4
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................77 3.7

Market access ...................................................................................................78 3.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 237
Namibia







237





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 238
Nepal
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Nepal World average


238
100 100
Others: 9.0
EU25: 9.6 Others: 25.9 ■ Manufactures
80 80
EU25: 6.3 57.5 ■ Fuels and mining
United States: 29.1 Singapore: 6.3 73.0 products
60 60
China: 8.4
■ Agricultural
40 40 products
20.0
India: 52.4 India: 53.0 4.2
20 20
21.4 22.5
0 0

2008 Index....................................................................................................116 2.7

Market access .................................................................................................106 2.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 239
Nepal







239





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 240
Netherlands
Key indicators
Main trade data

200 Netherlands World average


240
100 100
Others: 20.2
China: 8.7 64.7 65.8
60 60
products
United States: 8.8
■ Agricultural
EU25: 52.4 18.5 22.8
20 20
15.8 10.7
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................11 5.5

Market access ...................................................................................................18 5.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 241
Netherlands







241





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 242
New Zealand
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 New Zealand World average


242
100 100

80 Others: 35.4 80 30.0
Japan: 9.1 6.7 72.8 products
60 China: 5.4 60
Japan: 10.3 United States: 12.2
■ Agricultural
United States: 13.1 China: 12.2 products
40 40
EU25: 16.4 59.0
EU25: 15.3
20 20 17.5
Australia: 20.5 Australia: 20.1
8.8
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................10 5.5

Market access .....................................................................................................7 5.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 243
New Zealand







243





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 244
Nicaragua
Key indicators
Main trade data

100 Nicaragua World average
80


244
100 100
Others: 24.0 8.5
80 80
Costa Rica: 6.2 Others: 47.6 60.6 ■ Fuels and mining
Honduras: 7.9 products
60 60
EU25: 12.7
Guatemala: 6.9 ■ Agricultural
El Salvador: 14.2 Venezuela: 6.9 82.0 products
40 40
Mexico: 8.6
Costa Rica: 9.2 23.5
United States: 20.8
14.8
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................67 3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................79 3.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 245
Nicaragua







245





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 246
Nigeria
Key indicators
Main trade data

100 Nigeria World average
80


246
100 100
0.9
Others: 19.1
■ Manufactures
80 Japan: 4.0 80
Others: 44.2
Brazil: 6.8 ■ Fuels and mining
India: 9.9 80.6 products
60 60
China: 7.2 91.6 ■ Agricultural
EU25: 21.8

EU25: 33.1 5.1
14.3
1.9
0 0

2008 Index....................................................................................................111 3.0

Market access .................................................................................................107 2.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 247
Nigeria







247





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 248
Norway
Key indicators
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)......................323.8 GDP per capita (rank out of 118), 2007.............................2
Main trade data

90 Norway World average

50


248
100 100
Others: 14.9 Others: 20.3 15.9
United States: 5.7
■ Manufactures
60 60 78.3 products
■ Agricultural
EU25: 79.3 75.1
20 20
13.0
5.4 8.2
0 0

2008 Index........................................................................................................4 5.7

Market access .....................................................................................................2 5.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 249
Norway







6.01 Airport density .........................................................................1 .....■ ......10.9 Norway.........................................10.9
249





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 250
Oman
Key indicators
Main trade data

120 Oman World average


250
100 100
12.3
80 80
India: 5.3 products
60 Others: 95.8 60 76.1
83.3
40 40 products
EU25: 19.1
20 20 6.7
UAE: 25.9
Korea, Rep.: 4.2 14.1
3.6
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................50 4.2

Market access ...................................................................................................35 4.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 251
Oman







251





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 252
Pakistan
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Pakistan World average
70
60

30

252
100 100

80 80
60 Afghanistan: 5.9 60 81.4
products
UAE: 7.3
40 United States: 25.7 China: 9.8 40 products
Saudi Arabia: 10.2
28.8
UAE: 11.4
20 20
EU25: 26.7 5.5
EU25: 16.3 13.1 13.9
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................84 3.5

Market access ...................................................................................................98 3.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 253
Pakistan







253





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 254
Panama
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Panama World average


254
100 100
Others: 24.4 15.6 ■ Manufactures

80 80
Costa Rica: 5.2 Others: 46.3 4.5
68.7 products
60 60
EU25: 31.4 Japan: 4.7
■ Agricultural
Costa Rica: 5.1
40 EU25: 6.8 40 73.9 products
Netherlands Antilles: 10.1
United States: 27.0
11.6
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................46 4.3

Market access ...................................................................................................59 4.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 255
Panama







255





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 256
Paraguay
Key indicators
Main trade data

100 Paraguay World average
80


256
100 100
15.9
Others: 30.5 Others: 26.0 1.1 ■ Manufactures
80 80
Argentina: 8.8 Japan: 11.0 products
60 60 79.7
Cayman Islands: 9.5
Argentina: 13.0
83.0
■ Agricultural
Russian Fed.: 11.9
40 40 products
Brazil: 19.0
Brazil: 17.2
20 20
Uruguay: 22.0 China: 25.1 13.5
6.8
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................83 3.5

Market access ...................................................................................................60 4.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 257
Paraguay







257





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 258
Peru
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Peru World average
70
60

30

258
100 100

80 80 11.8
Others: 44.0
Canada: 6.8 67.8 products
60 60
Switzerland: 7.1
China: 9.5
Ecuador: 7.1 ■ Agricultural
China: 10.3 56.2
40 40 products
EU25: 19.3 Brazil: 10.4
20 EU25: 11.6 20 20.3

United States: 24.0 United States: 16.4 16.3 11.7
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................69 3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................73 4.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 259
Peru







259





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 260
Philippines
Key indicators
Main trade data

140 Philippines World average

60

(CD version)

260
100 100

80 80
Others: 44.9
Hong Kong SAR: 7.8 products
60 60 86.2 74.3
China: 9.8
Taiwan, China: 7.9 ■ Agricultural
Japan: 16.7 Singapore: 8.4 products
40 40
EU25: 8.6
United States: 18.3
Japan: 14.2
20 20
18.1
EU25: 18.4 United States: 16.1 6.6
6.5 7.2
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................82 3.6

Market access ...................................................................................................80 3.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 261
Philippines







261





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 262
Poland
Key indicators
Main trade data

100 Poland World average
80


262
100 100
Others: 18.4
China: 6.1
Russian Fed.: 9.7
60 60 79.9 76.1
products
■ Agricultural
40 40 products
EU25: 77.3 EU25: 63.1
20 20
9.7 14.2
10.4 7.6
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................45 4.3

Market access ...................................................................................................42 4.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 263
Poland







263





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 264
Portugal
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Portugal World average


264
100 100
Others: 20.6
80 80
United States: 6.1
60 60 78.1 67.2 products
■ Agricultural
40 EU25: 73.3 EU25: 71.9 40 products
18.7
20 20
9.1
10.5 13.2
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................26 4.9

Market access ...................................................................................................45 4.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 265
Portugal







265





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 266
Qatar
Key indicators
Main trade data

120 Qatar World average

(CD version)

266
100 100
7.0

80 80
UAE: 4.6 Saudi Arabia: 5.7
60 60
products
Singapore: 8.2 UAE: 6.4
92.8 89.2
Korea, Rep.: 15.8 United States: 11.6 ■ Agricultural
20 Japan: 40.0 EU25: 33.6 20

2.4
0.2 7.3
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................41 4.5

Market access ...................................................................................................54 4.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 267
Qatar







267
6.06 Quality of railroad infrastructure ...........................................n/a.................n/a Switzerland ....................................6.8





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 268
Romania
Key indicators
Main trade data

100 Romania World average
80


268
100 100
Others: 20.3
80 China: 4.3 80
Turkey: 7.7 Turkey: 5.0 ■ Fuels and mining
Russian Fed.: 7.9 products
60 60 79.0 76.8
■ Agricultural
EU25: 62.6
20 20
15.4 16.3
5.4 6.8
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................57 4.0

Market access ...................................................................................................61 4.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 269
Romania







269





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 270
Russian Federation
Key indicators
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers).................17,098.2 GDP per capita (rank out of 118), 2007...........................45
Main trade data

80 Russian Federation World average


270
100 100
Others: 24.1 Others: 29.3 19.8 ■ Manufactures
80 80
Belarus: 4.3
Turkey: 4.7 Belarus: 5.0 ■ Fuels and mining
60
Ukraine: 5.0 Japan: 5.7
60 81.0 products
China: 5.2 Ukraine: 6.7
68.0
40 40 products
EU25: 56.7
EU25: 43.9
20 20 3.8
14.3
5.6
0 0

2008 Index....................................................................................................103 3.3

Market access ...................................................................................................99 3.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 271
Russian Federation







271





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 272
Saudi Arabia
Key indicators
Main trade data

100 Saudi Arabia World average
80


272
100 100
8.7
■ Manufactures
80 Others: 37.4 Others: 34.9 80
60 India: 5.9 China: 5.9 60
products
80.6
Japan: 10.3
Korea, Rep.: 9.1 90.4 ■ Agricultural
40 Japan: 14.1 United States: 15.0 40 products
EU25: 14.7
20 EU25: 33.8 20
4.5
United States: 18.7
12.9
0.7
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................53 4.2

Market access ...................................................................................................51 4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 273
Saudi Arabia







273





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 274
Senegal
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Senegal World average


274
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 Others: 39.9 80 30.5 44.5
Others: 45.6
60 60
products
Thailand: 4.0
India: 5.3
Gambia, The: 5.6
China: 4.3 30.6 ■ Agricultural
40 40 28.7 products
Mali: 20.2 EU25: 51.7
20 20 34.3
EU25: 23.3 26.7
0 0

2008 Index....................................................................................................100 3.3

Market access .................................................................................................109 2.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 275
Senegal







275





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 276
Singapore
Key indicators
Main trade data

600 Singapore World average
500
400

100

276
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 80
60 60 73.3 products
Japan: 8.3 78.8
40 Hong Kong SAR: 10.0
EU25: 11.3 40 products
20 EU25: 11.3 United States: 12.7 20
21.1
Malaysia: 13.1 Malaysia: 13.1 14.5
1.9 2.9
0 0

2008 Index........................................................................................................2 5.7

Market access ...................................................................................................27 5.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 277
Singapore



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




277





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 278
Slovak Republic
Key indicators
Main trade data

200 Slovak Republic World average


278
100 100
Others: 14.6
80 80
Russian Fed.: 10.7
60 60
products
84.4 75.8
■ Agricultural
EU25: 85.4
40 40 products
EU25: 63.0
20 20
17.5
9.5
5.2 6.2
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................30 4.7

Market access ...................................................................................................23 5.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 279
Slovak Republic







279





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 280
Slovenia
Key indicators
Main trade data

150 Slovenia World average


280
100 100
Others: 15.8
80 Croatia: 4.0 80
Croatia: 8.7 ■ Fuels and mining
60 60 85.9 72.8 products
■ Agricultural
EU25: 68.5
20 20 17.7
8.3
5.7 9.1
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................31 4.7

Market access ...................................................................................................21 5.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 281
Slovenia







281





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 282
South Africa
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 South Africa World average


282
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 Others: 37.2 Others: 35.9 80
60 China: 4.0 Saudi Arabia: 5.3 60 70.9 products
United States: 11.5 Japan: 6.5
China: 10.0
34.7
20 EU25: 35.4 EU25: 34.7 20
21.5
8.6 5.3
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................59 4.0

Market access ...................................................................................................67 4.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 283
South Africa







283





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 284
Spain
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Spain World average


284
100 100
Others: 25.3
Others: 34.1
■ Manufactures
80 80
China: 5.0 75.4 69.7 products
60 60
■ Agricultural
40 40 products
EU25: 70.6
EU25: 60.9
20 20 8.3 20.0
14.9 9.7
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................22 5.0

Market access ...................................................................................................34 4.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 285
Spain







285





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 286
Sri Lanka
Key indicators
Main trade data

120 Sri Lanka World average


286
100 100

80 Others: 42.9
80
India: 9.1
60 60
69.3 62.9 products
China: 7.6
Hong Kong SAR: 7.8
40 40 products
Singapore: 8.9
EU25: 15.5 1.9
20 20 18.7
United States: 32.2
India: 17.3 24.6
13.0
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................70 3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................70 4.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 287
Sri Lanka







287





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 288
Sweden
Key indicators
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)......................450.3 GDP per capita (rank out of 118), 2007.............................7
Main trade data

100 Sweden World average
80


288
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 80
Norway: 9.1 Norway: 8.5 ■ Fuels and mining
United States: 9.3 81.9 74.0 products
60 60
■ Agricultural
40 40 products
EU25: 70.3
EU25: 59.3
20 20 16.7
9.8
7.7 9.2
0 0

2008 Index........................................................................................................3 5.7

Market access ...................................................................................................14 5.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 289
Sweden







289





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 290
Switzerland
Key indicators
Main trade data

100 Switzerland World average
80


290
100 100
Others: 15.4
Others: 27.9 United States: 6.2 ■ Manufactures
80 80
60 60 90.7 79.2
■ Agricultural
EU25: 78.5
40 40 products
EU25: 61.0
20 20
13.4
6.1 3.2
0 0 6.3

2008 Index........................................................................................................9 5.6

Market access .....................................................................................................5 5.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 291
Switzerland







291





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 292
Syria
Key indicators
Main trade data

100 Syria World average
80
WTO accession year .......................................Nonmember 60


292
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 80
Others: 44.7
Others: 54.2 10.1 ■ Fuels and mining
60 60
products
Iraq: 6.4 59.1
■ Agricultural
Saudi Arabia: 8.7 Egypt: 5.2 products
40 Ukraine: 5.3 40 51.2
China: 6.5
EU25: 40.2 Russian Fed.: 10.2 3.8
20 20
EU25: 18.6 18.1
12.4
0 0

2008 Index....................................................................................................107 3.0

Market access .................................................................................................117 2.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 293
Syria







293





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 294
Taiwan, China
Key indicators
Main trade data

150 Taiwan, China World average


294
100 100

80 Others: 35.3 80
Japan: 7.6 67.8
60 Korea, Rep.: 7.3 60
products
EU25: 11.6
EU25: 9.6 90.0
■ Agricultural
United States: 15.1
40 China: 11.0 40 products
Hong Kong SAR: 16.2 United States: 11.6
20 20 26.0
China: 21.6 Japan: 25.3
7.3 2.0 4.8
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................21 5.1

Market access ...................................................................................................38 4.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 295
Taiwan, China



2.03 Openness to multilateral trade rules ....................................n/a.................n/a Hungary........................................88.5




295



9.02 Openness of bilateral Air Service Agreements ....................n/a.................n/a El Salvador ...................................33.7


ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 296
Tajikistan
Key indicators
Main trade data

250 Tajikistan World average

50

(CD version)

296
100 Others: 2.9 100
Switzerland: 10.4 Others: 19.4
■ Manufactures
80 Uzbekistan: 14.1 Azerbaijan: 9.8 80 11.3
Kazakhstan: 12.8 products
60 60
EU25: 35.2
Ukraine: 13.1 ■ Agricultural
59.3 products
35.8
Uzbekistan: 28.8
14.4 10.4
0 0

2008 Index....................................................................................................104 3.1

Market access ...................................................................................................83 3.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 297
Tajikistan







297



9.02 Openness of bilateral Air Service Agreements ....................n/a.................n/a El Salvador ...................................33.7


ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 298
Tanzania
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Tanzania World average

40


298
100 100

80 80
Others: 42.9
Kenya: 5.8 61.5 ■ Fuels and mining
60 China: 8.9 60
products
11.9
South Africa: 14.3 China: 7.0
Bahrain: 9.2
40 40 products
Switzerland: 21.7 UAE: 11.3
20 20 41.6
EU25: 23.2
EU25: 17.3
13.0
0 0

2008 Index....................................................................................................102 3.3

Market access .................................................................................................100 3.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 299
Tanzania







299





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:39 PM Page 300
Thailand
Key indicators
Main trade data

200 Thailand World average


300
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 Others: 43.0 80
Others: 47.3
60 60 75.3 66.8 products
Singapore: 6.5 Malaysia: 6.6 ■ Agricultural
China: 9.0 United States: 6.7
40 40 products
Japan: 12.7 EU25: 8.7
China: 10.6
20 EU25: 13.9 20 6.4 24.9
Japan: 20.1
0 0 5.7

2008 Index......................................................................................................52 4.2

Market access ...................................................................................................62 4.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 301
Thailand







301





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 302
Tunisia
Key indicators
Main trade data

120 Tunisia World average


302
100 100
Others: 15.5
Libya: 4.5 Others: 31.0 ■ Manufactures
80 80
71.3 70.7
60 60
products
■ Agricultural
40 EU25: 80.0 EU25: 69.0 40 products
20 20 15.9 17.8
12.7 11.4
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................49 4.2

Market access ...................................................................................................88 3.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 303
Tunisia







303





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 304
Turkey
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Turkey World average


304
100 100

80 Others: 41.6
80
Iran, Islamic Rep.: 4.1
60 United States: 4.5 60 81.2 66.9 products
■ Agricultural
Russian Fed.: 12.7
40 40 products
EU25: 52.5
20 EU25: 39.5 20
8.0 20.1
10.1 5.4
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................38 4.5

Market access .....................................................................................................8 5.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 305
Turkey







305





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 306
Uganda
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Uganda World average

40


306
100 100

80 Others: 37.8 80
17.8
Switzerland: 4.7 62.0 ■ Fuels and mining
60 Kenya: 9.1 Japan: 6.8 60 6.2 products
Sudan: 9.5 India: 8.2 ■ Agricultural
40 UAE: 12.7 40 products
UAE: 19.4
Kenya: 15.7 59.6 22.7
20 20
EU25: 27.4
EU25: 18.8 15.3
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................79 3.6

Market access ...................................................................................................58 4.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 307
Uganda







307





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 308
Ukraine
Key indicators
Main trade data

140 Ukraine World average

60


308
100 100

80 Others: 42.9 China: 5.1 80
Turkmenistan: 7.8 ■ Fuels and mining
59.6
60 60 71.9 products
Turkey: 6.2
Russian Fed.: 30.6 ■ Agricultural
40 Russian Fed.: 22.5 40 products
31.5
20 EU25: 34.7 20 13.6
EU25: 28.3
13.4
7.9
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................68 3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................39 4.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 309
Ukraine







309





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 310

Key indicators
Main trade data

250 United Arab Emiirates World average

50

(CD version)

310
100 100
■ Manufactures
80 Others: 41.2 80
Others: 56.6
60 60
products
Iran, Islamic Rep.: 4.4 China: 8.6 products
40 40
India: 4.7 India: 11.5 53.0
Japan: 16.8
20 20
EU25: 25.3
Taiwan, China: 17.5 5.9
2.6 9.0
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................23 5.0

Market access ...................................................................................................50 4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 311







311





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 312
United Kingdom
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 United Kingdom World average


312
100 100
Others: 31.4
80 80
Norway: 4.4
United States: 13.2
60 China: 6.1 60
products
77.6
United States: 8.0 65.3 ■ Agricultural
40 40 products
EU25: 61.8
EU25: 50.2
20 20
13.0 11.7
5.3 8.8
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................16 5.3

Market access ...................................................................................................24 5.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 313
United Kingdom







313





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 314
United States
Key indicators
Population (millions), 2007 .........................................303.9 GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2007 ..........45,593.9
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)...................9,632.0 GDP per capita (rank out of 118), 2007.............................8
GDP (US$ billions), 2007 .......................................13,794.2 Real GDP growth (percent), 2007 ..................................1.9
Main trade data

Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ......1,038,278.0
80 United States World average
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) .......1,919,427.0
70
60

30

314
100 100

80 Others: 33.1 80
China: 5.3 Japan: 7.9 products
60 Japan: 5.8 60 70.3
Mexico: 10.4 79.8
Mexico: 12.9 ■ Agricultural
40 China: 15.9 40 products
EU25: 20.6
Canada: 16.0
20 20
6.8 20.7
Canada: 22.2 EU25: 17.7
8.9 5.4
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................14 5.4

Market access .....................................................................................................6 5.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 315
United States







315





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 316
Uruguay
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Uruguay World average

40


316
100 100

80 Others: 41.4 80 29.4
China: 7.3 60.0 ■ Fuels and mining
4.3
60 EU25: 10.2 60
products
Russian Fed.: 5.7
Venezuela: 12.6 ■ Agricultural
Argentina: 7.6
Brazil: 22.6 64.9
Brazil: 14.7 29.0
20 20
Argentina: 22.6
EU25: 17.0
11.1
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................56 4.1

Market access ...................................................................................................66 4.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 317
Uruguay







317





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 318
Uzbekistan
Key indicators
Main trade data

100 Uzbekistan World average
80


318
100

80
Turkey: 8.2 Germany: 7.5

60 Kazakhstan: 9.4
Ukraine: 8.5
40
Poland: 12.8 Korea, Rep.: 15.8
20
Russian Fed.: 26.1 Russian Fed.: 26.5
0
Source: International Trade Centre, Trade Competitiveness

Map, Trade performance, accessed April 2008

2008 Index....................................................................................................105 3.1

Market access .................................................................................................114 2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 319
Uzbekistan





4.02 Time for import....................................................................115 .....■ .......104 Singapore ..........................................3


319





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 320
Venezuela
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Venezuela World average


320
100 100
5.2
80 80
Mexico: 7.1
60 Brazil: 9.1 60
products
91.8 86.7
EU25: 4.6 Colombia: 11.0 ■ Agricultural
Taiwan, China: 5.0 products
40 EU25: 13.9 40
United States: 43.0

20 20
United States: 30.6
2.4
0.2 10.7
0 0

2008 Index....................................................................................................115 2.9

Market access .................................................................................................103 2.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 321
Venezuela







321





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 322
Vietnam
Key indicators
Main trade data

200 Vietnam World average


322
100 100

80 Others: 39.2 80
54.2
60
Australia: 8.4
60 70.3 products
China: 10.0 Korea, Rep.: 9.8
Taiwan, China: 11.7 24.6
EU25: 17.0
20 Singapore: 12.2 20 20.0
United States: 18.3 China: 16.0 21.2
7.8
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................91 3.4

Market access .................................................................................................112 2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 323
Vietnam







323





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 324
Zambia
Key indicators
Main trade data

80 Zambia World average

(CD version)

324
100 100
Others: 20.6 17.5
80 Norway: 4.0 80
EU25: 5.7 Zimbabwe: 5.7 ■ Fuels and mining
60 China: 6.8 UAE: 10.4
60 77.9 products
Thailand: 7.7 EU25: 12.1 63.9 ■ Agricultural
South Africa: 11.0 products
40 40
South Africa: 47.1
20 Switzerland: 39.8 20
14.3
18.6
7.5
0 0

2008 Index......................................................................................................85 3.5

Market access ...................................................................................................76 4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 325
Zambia







325





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 326
Zimbabwe
Key indicators
GDP (US$ billions), 2007 ..............................................16.2 Real GDP growth (percent), 2007 ................................–6.2
Main trade data

120 Zimbabwe World average
100
80

20
(CD version)

326
100 100

80 Others: 37.0 80 31.5
Botswana: 4.0 products
60 China: 5.7 60
EU25: 8.9
Switzerland: 6.9 36.6 ■ Agricultural
15.8
South Africa: 52.6
31.2 29.1
0 0

2008 Index....................................................................................................112 3.0

Market access ...................................................................................................91 3.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 327
Zimbabwe







327





ET.partB.r1 6/2/08 10:40 PM Page 328
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 329
2.2
Data Tables
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 330
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 331
How to Read the Data Tables

The following pages provide detailed data for each Survey data
variable of the Enabling Trade Index (ETI) for all the Data yielded from the World Economic Forum’s
118 economies included in the Report. Executive Opinion Survey are presented in blue-colored
The data tables are organized into 10 sections, bar graphs. Questions from the Survey asked for
which correspond to the 10 pillars of the ETI.The responses on a scale of 1 to 7, where an answer of 1
number preceding the title of each variable serves to corresponds to the lowest possible score and an answer
identify the pillar to which the variable belongs. of 7 corresponds to the highest possible score. For each
Two types of data are presented in the tables: Survey variable, the original question and the two
• Survey data:These data are the results drawn from extreme answers are shown.
the World Economic Forum’s Executive Opinion For each Survey question, individual responses are
Survey. aggregated at country level in order to produce country
scores. For more information on the Executive Opinion
• Hard data: These data are indicators obtained
Survey and a detailed explanation of how country scores
from a variety of sources.
are computed, please refer to Chapter 2.1 of The Global
Competitiveness Report 2007–2008.Variable 3.01, for
example, measures the extent to which customs proce-
dures are burdensome in the respondent’s economy. On 331
this particular variable, Singapore, with a score of 6.4,
ranks first, and therefore appears at the top; it is followed
by Hong Kong, second with a score of 6.1.We report
responses rounded to one decimal point, but use the
exact figures to determine rankings. For example, for the
same variable 3.01, New Zealand’s average score is
5.500, Austria’s average score is 5.495, and Chile’s aver-
age score is 5.456.These economies are therefore ranked
2.01 Breadth of international markets
Exporting companies from your country sell (1 = primarily in a small number of foreign markets, 7 = virtually in all international country markets) 8th, 9th, and 10th, respectively, although they are all list-
RANK
1
COUNTRY/ECONOMY SCORE
Germany ............................6.8
1 MEAN: 3.9 7 RANK
60
COUNTRY/ECONOMY SCORE
Kenya .................................3.6
1 MEAN: 3.9 7 ed with the same rounded score of 5.5.
2 Sweden..............................6.5 61 Latvia..................................3.6
3 Switzerland ........................6.3 62 Mauritius ............................3.6
4 Japan..................................6.2 63 Philippines..........................3.6
5 Netherlands........................6.2 64 Mexico ...............................3.5
6 Hong Kong SAR .................6.1 65 Uruguay..............................3.5
7
8
Austria................................6.0
United Kingdom .................6.0
66
67
Morocco.............................3.5
Russian Federation ............3.4
A dotted line on the graph indicates the mean
9 United States .....................5.9 68 Bahrain ...............................3.4
10
11
Denmark ............................5.9
Singapore ...........................5.8
69
70
Ukraine...............................3.3
Pakistan..............................3.3 score across the 118 economies.
12 Finland................................5.8 71 Cyprus................................3.3
13 Taiwan, China.....................5.7 72 Nigeria................................3.3
14 Ireland ................................5.7 73 Kazakhstan .........................3.2
15 Chile ...................................5.6 74 El Salvador .........................3.1
16 Korea, Rep. ........................5.6 75 Colombia ............................3.1
17 France ................................5.5 76 Panama ..............................3.1
18 Malaysia .............................5.3 77 Syria ...................................3.1
19 Israel ..................................5.3 78 Kuwait ................................3.1
20 Turkey.................................5.3 79 Honduras............................3.1
21 Luxembourg.......................5.3 80 Bangladesh ........................3.1
22 Belgium..............................5.2 81 Bulgaria ..............................3.0
23 Indonesia............................5.2 82 Cameroon ..........................3.0
24 Italy ....................................5.1 83 Jamaica ..............................3.0
25 Australia .............................5.1 84 Mauritania ..........................3.0
26 Canada ...............................5.1 85 Tanzania..............................3.0
27 Czech Republic ..................5.0 86 Croatia................................3.0
28 Thailand..............................5.0 87 Senegal ..............................2.9
29 Norway...............................5.0 88 Cambodia ...........................2.9
30 New Zealand ......................4.9 89 Ecuador ..............................2.9
31 Slovenia..............................4.9 90 Mali ....................................2.8
32 Slovak Republic..................4.8 91 Madagascar........................2.7
33 South Africa .......................4.8 92 Macedonia, FYR.................2.7
34 Costa Rica ..........................4.8 93 Guyana ...............................2.7
35 India ...................................4.7 94 Ethiopia ..............................2.7
36 United Arab Emirates.........4.6 95 Zimbabwe ..........................2.7
37 Lithuania.............................4.6 96 Dominican Republic ...........2.6
38 China ..................................4.5 97 Nicaragua ...........................2.6
39 Qatar ..................................4.4 98 Armenia..............................2.6
40 Spain ..................................4.4 99 Moldova .............................2.6
41 Brazil ..................................4.4 100 Paraguay ............................2.6
42 Oman .................................4.2 101 Namibia ..............................2.6
43 Poland ................................4.2 102 Venezuela...........................2.5
44 Hungary..............................4.2 103 Benin..................................2.5
45 Sri Lanka ............................4.1 104 Uganda...............................2.5
46 Uzbekistan .........................4.1 105 Zambia ...............................2.5
47 Vietnam..............................4.1 106 Mozambique ......................2.4
48 Tunisia ................................3.9 107 Algeria ................................2.4
49 Portugal..............................3.9 108 Burkina Faso ......................2.4
50 Peru....................................3.9 109 Bolivia.................................2.3
51 Estonia ...............................3.9 110 Lesotho ..............................2.3
52 Saudi Arabia .......................3.8 111 Bosnia and Herzegovina ....2.3
53 Guatemala..........................3.8 112 Tajikistan.............................2.3
54 Egypt..................................3.7 113 Mongolia ............................2.2
55 Argentina............................3.7 114 Nepal..................................2.2
56 Romania .............................3.7 115 Kyrgyz Republic .................2.1
57 Greece ...............................3.7 116 Chad...................................2.1
58 Jordan ................................3.7 117 Albania ...............................1.9
59 Azerbaijan...........................3.6 118 Burundi...............................1.8
[d]SOURCE:World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey 2006, 2007
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 332
Hard data
1.01 Tariff barriers (hard data) While Survey data provide qualitative information,
Trade-weighted average tariff rate | 2007
hard data provide an objective measure of a quantity

RANK COUNTRY/ECONOMY HARD DATA RANK COUNTRY/ECONOMY HARD DATA
1
2
Hong Kong SAR ....................0.0
Singapore ..............................0.0
60
61
Tajikistan................................5.8
Saudi Arabia ..........................5.9
(for example, tariff barriers, time for import, airport
3 Austria ...................................1.1 62 Malaysia ................................5.9
3
3
Belgium .................................1.1
Bulgaria .................................1.1
63
64
Azerbaijan..............................6.0
Nicaragua ..............................6.1
density, road congestion, and so on).We use the latest
3 Cyprus ...................................1.1 65 South Africa ..........................6.2
3
3
Czech Republic .....................1.1
Denmark ...............................1.1
66
67
Uruguay.................................6.2
Honduras...............................6.4 data available from international organizations (such as
3 Estonia ..................................1.1 68 Dominican Republic ..............6.6
3
3
3
Finland...................................1.1
France ...................................1.1
Germany ...............................1.1
69
70
71
Peru.......................................6.8
Kenya ....................................7.6
Thailand .................................7.6
the World Bank, various United Nations agencies, and
3 Greece ..................................1.1 72 Tanzania.................................7.7
3
3
Hungary.................................1.1
Ireland ...................................1.1
73
74
Mozambique .........................7.7
Benin .....................................7.8
the International Trade Centre). In the following pages,
3 Italy .......................................1.1 75 Mauritania .............................8.0
3
3
Latvia.....................................1.1
Lithuania................................1.1
76
77
Bolivia....................................8.0
Sri Lanka ...............................8.2
hard data variables are presented in black-shaded bar
3 Luxembourg ..........................1.1 78 Madagascar...........................8.4
3
3
Netherlands...........................1.1
Poland ...................................1.1
79
80
Argentina...............................8.5
Namibia .................................8.5
graphs. For each indicator, a short description appears at
3 Portugal .................................1.1 81 Brazil .....................................8.5
3
3
3
Romania ................................1.1
Slovak Republic.....................1.1
Slovenia.................................1.1
82
83
84
Ecuador .................................8.6
Bosnia and Herzegovina .......8.9
Jamaica .................................8.9
the top of the page.The base year (i.e., the year when
3
3
3
Spain .....................................1.1
Sweden .................................1.1
United Kingdom ....................1.1
85
86
87
Macedonia, FYR....................9.2
Australia ................................9.4
Senegal .................................9.8
the majority of the data were collected) follows the
29 New Zealand .........................1.5 88 Korea, Rep. ...........................9.9
30
31
United States ........................1.7
Croatia ...................................2.5
89
89
Burkina Faso .........................9.9
Mali .......................................9.9
description.When the year differs from the base year for
32 Canada ..................................2.6 91 Colombia .............................10.3
33
34
Costa Rica .............................3.0
Switzerland ...........................3.1
92
93
Mexico ................................11.1
Uganda ................................11.1
a particular country, this is indicated as a footnote. A
35 Japan.....................................3.3 94 Cambodia ............................11.2
36
37
38
Armenia.................................3.3
Guatemala .............................3.5
Mauritius ...............................3.6
95
96
97
Zambia ................................11.6
Burundi................................11.6
Kyrgyz Republic...................11.7
more detailed description and the full source for each
39
40
41
Kuwait ...................................3.7
Moldova ................................3.9
El Salvador ............................3.9
98
99
100
Guyana ................................12.0
Jordan .................................12.1
Ethiopia ...............................12.4
variable can be found in the Technical Notes and
42 Kazakhstan ............................3.9 101 Morocco ..............................12.7
43
44
Turkey....................................4.0
Ukraine ..................................4.0
102
103
Nepal ...................................12.8
Zimbabwe ...........................13.0
Sources section at the end of this Report. When data are
45 Qatar .....................................4.1 104 Nigeria .................................13.0
46
47
Lesotho .................................4.2
Philippines .............................4.2
105
106
Bangladesh .........................13.0
Pakistan...............................13.2
not available or are too outdated, “n/a” is used in lieu of
48 Israel .....................................4.4 107 Cameroon ...........................14.1
49
50
Norway..................................4.5
Chile ......................................4.7
108
109
China ...................................14.2
Chad ....................................14.7 the rank and the value.
51 United Arab Emirates............4.8 110 Russian Federation .............14.8
52
53
54
Oman ....................................4.9
Bahrain ..................................5.0
Mongolia ...............................5.0
111
112
113
Vietnam ...............................14.9
Venezuela ............................15.0
Algeria .................................15.6
In the case of hard data, true ties between two or
55
56
57
Panama .................................5.2
Albania ..................................5.2
Indonesia...............................5.4
114
115
116
Tunisia .................................16.8
India ....................................18.7
Egypt ...................................21.8
more countries are possible. In such cases, shared rank-
58 Taiwan, China ........................5.4 117 Syria ....................................22.9
59 Paraguay ...............................5.7 118 Uzbekistan ..........................25.0
ings are indicated accordingly. For example, the share of
SOURCE: International Trade Centre
duty-free imports, at 79 percent, is the same for all

European Union countries. As a result, these countries
share the 11th position in table 2.04.
332
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 333
Index of Data Tables

Index of Data Tables
Subindex A Market access Subindex C Transport and communications infrastructure
1st pillar: Tariff and non-tariff barriers..........................................335 6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure....359
1.01 Tariff barriers .................................................................336 6.01 Airport density...............................................................360
1.02 Non-tariff barriers ..........................................................337 6.02 Transshipment connectivity index.................................361
6.03 Paved roads ..................................................................362
6.04 Road congestion ...........................................................363
2nd pillar: Proclivity to trade ...........................................................339
6.05 Quality of air transport infrastructure............................364
2.01 Breadth of international markets...................................340
6.06 Quality of railroad infrastructure....................................365
2.02 Extent of regional sales ................................................341
6.07 Quality of roads.............................................................366
2.03 Openness to multilateral trade rules.............................342
6.08 Quality of port infrastructure.........................................367
2.04 Share of duty-free imports ............................................343
7th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services...........369

7.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index ................................370
7.02 Ease and affordability of shipment ...............................371
Subindex B Border administration 7.03 Competence of the logistics industry ...........................372
7.04 Ability and ease of tracking...........................................373
3rd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration.........................345 7.05 Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination..........374
3.01 Burden of customs procedures ....................................346 7.06 Postal service efficiency ...............................................375 333
3.02 Customs services index................................................347
8th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs...........................................377
4th pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures.....................349 8.01 Firm-level technology absorption ..................................378
4.01 Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance ....................350 8.02 Mobile telephone subscribers.......................................379
4.02 Time for import .............................................................351 8.03 Broadband Internet subscribers....................................380
4.03 Documents for import...................................................352 8.04 Internet users................................................................381
4.04 Cost to import ...............................................................353 8.05 Telephone lines .............................................................382
5th pillar: Transparency of border administration......................355

5.01 Irregular payments in exports and imports ...................356
5.02 Corruption Perceptions Index .......................................357 Subindex D Business environment
9th pillar: Regulatory environment.................................................383

9.01 Ease of hiring foreign labor ...........................................384
9.02 Openness of bilateral Air Service Agreements.............385
9.03 Prevalence of foreign ownership ..................................386
9.04 Business impact of rules on FDI...................................387
10th pillar: Physical security ...........................................................389

10.01 Reliability of police services ..........................................390
10.02 Business costs of crime and violence ..........................391
10.03 Business costs of terrorism ..........................................392
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 334
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 335
Subindex A Market access
1st pillar
Tariff and non-tariff barriers
335
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 336
1.01 Tariff barriers (hard data)

2.2: Data Tables | 1st pillar: Tariff and non-tariff barriers
1 Hong Kong SAR ....................0.0 60 Tajikistan................................5.8

2 Singapore ..............................0.0 61 Saudi Arabia ..........................5.9
3 Austria ...................................1.1 62 Malaysia ................................5.9
3 Belgium .................................1.1 63 Azerbaijan..............................6.0
3 Bulgaria .................................1.1 64 Nicaragua ..............................6.1
3 Cyprus ...................................1.1 65 South Africa ..........................6.2
3 Czech Republic .....................1.1 66 Uruguay.................................6.2
3 Denmark ...............................1.1 67 Honduras...............................6.4
3 Estonia ..................................1.1 68 Dominican Republic ..............6.6
3 Finland...................................1.1 69 Peru.......................................6.8
3 France ...................................1.1 70 Kenya ....................................7.6
3 Germany ...............................1.1 71 Thailand .................................7.6
3 Greece ..................................1.1 72 Tanzania.................................7.7
3 Hungary.................................1.1 73 Mozambique .........................7.7
3 Ireland ...................................1.1 74 Benin .....................................7.8
3 Italy .......................................1.1 75 Mauritania .............................8.0
3 Latvia.....................................1.1 76 Bolivia....................................8.0
3 Lithuania................................1.1 77 Sri Lanka ...............................8.2
3 Netherlands...........................1.1 79 Argentina...............................8.5
3 Poland ...................................1.1 80 Namibia .................................8.5
3 Portugal .................................1.1 81 Brazil .....................................8.5
3 Romania ................................1.1 82 Ecuador .................................8.6
3 Slovak Republic.....................1.1 83 Bosnia and Herzegovina .......8.9
3 Slovenia.................................1.1 84 Jamaica .................................8.9
336 3 Spain .....................................1.1 85 Macedonia, FYR....................9.2
3 Sweden .................................1.1 86 Australia ................................9.4
3 United Kingdom ....................1.1 87 Senegal .................................9.8
29 New Zealand .........................1.5 88 Korea, Rep. ...........................9.9
30 United States ........................1.7 89 Burkina Faso .........................9.9
31 Croatia ...................................2.5 89 Mali .......................................9.9
32 Canada ..................................2.6 91 Colombia .............................10.3
33 Costa Rica .............................3.0 92 Mexico ................................11.1
34 Switzerland ...........................3.1 93 Uganda ................................11.1
35 Japan.....................................3.3 94 Cambodia ............................11.2
36 Armenia.................................3.3 95 Zambia ................................11.6
37 Guatemala .............................3.5 96 Burundi................................11.6
38 Mauritius ...............................3.6 97 Kyrgyz Republic...................11.7
39 Kuwait ...................................3.7 98 Guyana ................................12.0
40 Moldova ................................3.9 99 Jordan .................................12.1
41 El Salvador ............................3.9 100 Ethiopia ...............................12.4
42 Kazakhstan ............................3.9 101 Morocco ..............................12.7
43 Turkey....................................4.0 102 Nepal ...................................12.8
44 Ukraine ..................................4.0 103 Zimbabwe ...........................13.0
45 Qatar .....................................4.1 104 Nigeria .................................13.0
46 Lesotho .................................4.2 105 Bangladesh .........................13.0
47 Philippines .............................4.2 106 Pakistan...............................13.2
48 Israel .....................................4.4 107 Cameroon ...........................14.1
49 Norway..................................4.5 108 China ...................................14.2
50 Chile ......................................4.7 109 Chad ....................................14.7
51 United Arab Emirates............4.8 110 Russian Federation .............14.8
52 Oman ....................................4.9 111 Vietnam ...............................14.9
53 Bahrain ..................................5.0 112 Venezuela ............................15.0
54 Mongolia ...............................5.0 113 Algeria .................................15.6
55 Panama .................................5.2 114 Tunisia .................................16.8
56 Albania ..................................5.2 115 India ....................................18.7
57 Indonesia...............................5.4 116 Egypt ...................................21.8
58 Taiwan, China ........................5.4 117 Syria ....................................22.9
59 Paraguay ...............................5.7 118 Uzbekistan ..........................25.0
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 337
1.02 Non-tariff barriers (hard data)
2.2: Data Tables | 1st pillar: Tariff and non-tariff barriers

Index of non-tariff barriers (NTBs) | 2007 or most recent year available
1 Uganda ..................................0.1 60 Austria .................................55.5

2 Madagascar...........................2.0 61 Lithuania..............................56.0
3 Chad ......................................2.8 62 Slovak Republic...................56.1
4 Lesotho .................................3.0 63 Brazil ...................................56.3
5 Bahrain ..................................3.6 64 Sweden ...............................56.3
6 Norway..................................3.7 65 Portugal ...............................56.4
7 Moldova ................................3.7 66 France .................................56.8
8 Cameroon .............................4.5 67 Poland .................................56.9
9 Saudi Arabia ..........................4.8 68 Germany .............................57.3
10 Burkina Faso .........................5.0 69 Denmark .............................57.6
11 Albania ..................................5.4 70 South Africa ........................58.1
12 Mali .......................................5.6 71 Ireland .................................58.1
13 Zimbabwe .............................6.3 72 Finland.................................58.3
14 Turkey....................................6.3 73 Czech Republic ...................58.6
15 Indonesia...............................6.4 74 Cyprus .................................59.0
16 Mozambique .........................6.5 75 Morocco ..............................59.4
17 Zambia ..................................7.7 76 Latvia...................................59.5
18 Mauritius ...............................8.0 77 Romania ..............................59.7
19 Oman ....................................8.3 78 Malaysia ..............................59.7
20 Canada ..................................9.1 79 Netherlands.........................60.2
21 Japan.....................................9.3 80 Estonia ................................62.2
22 Switzerland .........................11.0 81 Argentina.............................63.0
23 Costa Rica ...........................11.2 82 Hungary...............................63.6
24 Tunisia .................................14.5 83 Philippines ...........................64.4
25 Ukraine ................................15.1 84 Singapore ............................67.5
26 Kazakhstan ..........................15.9 85 Vietnam ...............................70.2 337
27 Namibia ...............................17.2 86 Algeria .................................85.3
28 Guatemala ...........................18.6 87 Tanzania...............................94.6
29 China ...................................19.3 88 Egypt ...................................97.8
30 Pakistan...............................22.4 89 Senegal ...............................99.5
31 Australia ..............................22.9 n/a Armenia .................................n/a
32 United States ......................24.5 n/a Azerbaijan ..............................n/a
33 Thailand ...............................26.7 n/a Benin .....................................n/a
34 New Zealand .......................28.2 n/a Bosnia and Herzegovina........n/a
35 Bolivia..................................29.0 n/a Burundi ..................................n/a
36 Sri Lanka .............................30.1 n/a Cambodia ..............................n/a
37 Paraguay .............................30.2 n/a Croatia ...................................n/a
38 Nepal ...................................30.3 n/a Dominican Republic ..............n/a
39 Russian Federation .............30.6 n/a El Salvador.............................n/a
40 Venezuela ............................31.8 n/a Ethiopia .................................n/a
41 Ecuador ...............................33.5 n/a Guyana ..................................n/a
42 Bangladesh .........................33.5 n/a Honduras ...............................n/a
43 Peru.....................................35.6 n/a Hong Kong SAR ....................n/a
44 Taiwan, China ......................37.2 n/a Israel......................................n/a
45 Uruguay...............................38.6 n/a Jamaica .................................n/a
46 Chile ....................................39.0 n/a Kenya ....................................n/a
47 Mexico ................................40.2 n/a Korea, Rep.............................n/a
48 Nicaragua ............................41.1 n/a Kuwait ...................................n/a
49 Greece ................................48.3 n/a Kyrgyz Republic.....................n/a
50 India ....................................49.4 n/a Macedonia, FYR ....................n/a
51 Luxembourg ........................49.9 n/a Mauritania .............................n/a
52 Jordan .................................51.5 n/a Mongolia ...............................n/a
53 Belgium ...............................52.5 n/a Nigeria ...................................n/a
54 Bulgaria ...............................53.1 n/a Panama .................................n/a
55 Italy .....................................54.0 n/a Qatar .....................................n/a
56 Colombia .............................54.2 n/a Syria ......................................n/a
57 Slovenia...............................54.8 n/a Tajikistan................................n/a
58 United Kingdom ..................55.1 n/a United Arab Emirates ............n/a
59 Spain ...................................55.5 n/a Uzbekistan.............................n/a
SOURCE: International Trade Centre; authors’ calculations
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 338
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 339
Subindex A Market access
2nd pillar
Proclivity to trade
339
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 340
2.2: Data Tables | 2nd pillar: Proclivity to trade

2.01 Breadth of international markets
Exporting companies from your country sell (1 = primarily in a small number of foreign markets, 7 = virtually in all international country markets)
RANK COUNTRY/ECONOMY SCORE 1 MEAN: 3.9 7 RANK COUNTRY/ECONOMY SCORE 1 MEAN: 3.9 7
1 Germany ............................6.8 60 Kenya .................................3.6

2 Sweden..............................6.5 61 Latvia..................................3.6
3 Switzerland ........................6.3 62 Mauritius ............................3.6
4 Japan..................................6.2 63 Philippines..........................3.6
7 Austria................................6.0 66 Morocco.............................3.5
8 United Kingdom .................6.0 67 Russian Federation ............3.4
9 United States .....................5.9 68 Bahrain ...............................3.4
10 Denmark ............................5.9 69 Ukraine...............................3.3
11 Singapore ...........................5.8 70 Pakistan..............................3.3
12 Finland................................5.8 71 Cyprus................................3.3
13 Taiwan, China.....................5.7 72 Nigeria................................3.3
14 Ireland ................................5.7 73 Kazakhstan .........................3.2
15 Chile ...................................5.6 74 El Salvador .........................3.1
16 Korea, Rep. ........................5.6 75 Colombia ............................3.1
17 France ................................5.5 76 Panama ..............................3.1
18 Malaysia .............................5.3 77 Syria ...................................3.1
19 Israel ..................................5.3 78 Kuwait ................................3.1
20 Turkey.................................5.3 79 Honduras............................3.1
21 Luxembourg.......................5.3 80 Bangladesh ........................3.1
22 Belgium..............................5.2 81 Bulgaria ..............................3.0
23 Indonesia............................5.2 82 Cameroon ..........................3.0
24 Italy ....................................5.1 83 Jamaica ..............................3.0
25 Australia .............................5.1 84 Mauritania ..........................3.0
340 26 Canada ...............................5.1 85 Tanzania..............................3.0
27 Czech Republic ..................5.0 86 Croatia................................3.0
28 Thailand..............................5.0 87 Senegal ..............................2.9
29 Norway...............................5.0 88 Cambodia ...........................2.9
30 New Zealand ......................4.9 89 Ecuador ..............................2.9
31 Slovenia..............................4.9 90 Mali ....................................2.8
33 South Africa .......................4.8 92 Macedonia, FYR.................2.7
34 Costa Rica ..........................4.8 93 Guyana ...............................2.7
35 India ...................................4.7 94 Ethiopia ..............................2.7
36 United Arab Emirates.........4.6 95 Zimbabwe ..........................2.7
37 Lithuania.............................4.6 96 Dominican Republic ...........2.6
38 China ..................................4.5 97 Nicaragua ...........................2.6
39 Qatar ..................................4.4 98 Armenia..............................2.6
40 Spain ..................................4.4 99 Moldova .............................2.6
41 Brazil ..................................4.4 100 Paraguay ............................2.6
42 Oman .................................4.2 101 Namibia ..............................2.6
43 Poland ................................4.2 102 Venezuela...........................2.5
44 Hungary..............................4.2 103 Benin..................................2.5
45 Sri Lanka ............................4.1 104 Uganda...............................2.5
47 Vietnam..............................4.1 106 Mozambique ......................2.4
48 Tunisia ................................3.9 107 Algeria ................................2.4
49 Portugal..............................3.9 108 Burkina Faso ......................2.4
50 Peru....................................3.9 109 Bolivia.................................2.3
51 Estonia ...............................3.9 110 Lesotho ..............................2.3
52 Saudi Arabia .......................3.8 111 Bosnia and Herzegovina ....2.3
53 Guatemala..........................3.8 112 Tajikistan.............................2.3
54 Egypt..................................3.7 113 Mongolia ............................2.2
55 Argentina............................3.7 114 Nepal..................................2.2
56 Romania .............................3.7 115 Kyrgyz Republic .................2.1
57 Greece ...............................3.7 116 Chad...................................2.1
58 Jordan ................................3.7 117 Albania ...............................1.9
59 Azerbaijan...........................3.6 118 Burundi...............................1.8
SOURCE: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey 2006, 2007
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 341

2.02 Extent of regional sales
Exports from your country to neighboring countries are (1 = limited, 7 = substantial and growing)
1 Germany ............................6.7 60 Saudi Arabia .......................4.6

2 Austria................................6.4 61 Poland ................................4.6
3 Sweden..............................6.3 62 Peru....................................4.6
4 Canada ...............................6.3 63 Uruguay..............................4.5
5 Switzerland ........................6.3 64 Qatar ..................................4.4
6 Finland................................6.2 65 Honduras............................4.3
7 Netherlands........................6.2 66 Mauritius ............................4.3
8 Japan..................................6.2 67 Egypt..................................4.3
9 Ireland ................................6.2 68 Uzbekistan .........................4.3
10 Denmark ............................6.2 69 Azerbaijan...........................4.2
11 Belgium..............................6.0 70 Croatia................................4.2
12 Hong Kong SAR .................5.9 71 Bahrain ...............................4.2
13 Singapore ...........................5.9 72 Senegal ..............................4.1
14 Czech Republic ..................5.9 73 Tanzania..............................4.1
15 Korea, Rep. ........................5.8 74 Uganda...............................4.1
16 Slovak Republic..................5.8 75 Kazakhstan .........................4.0
17 Luxembourg.......................5.8 76 Ecuador ..............................4.0
18 France ................................5.7 77 Cyprus................................4.0
19 Thailand..............................5.7 78 Guyana ...............................4.0
20 South Africa .......................5.7 79 Romania .............................4.0
21 United Kingdom .................5.7 80 Dominican Republic ...........3.9
22 Malaysia .............................5.7 81 Morocco.............................3.9
23 New Zealand ......................5.6 82 Panama ..............................3.9
24 Norway...............................5.6 83 Macedonia, FYR.................3.8
25 Australia .............................5.6 84 Bulgaria ..............................3.7
26 Costa Rica ..........................5.6 85 Paraguay ............................3.7 341
27 Mexico ...............................5.6 86 Jamaica ..............................3.7
28 United States .....................5.5 87 Russian Federation ............3.7
29 Indonesia............................5.5 88 Nicaragua ...........................3.7
30 Taiwan, China.....................5.5 89 Pakistan..............................3.7
31 Kenya .................................5.4 90 Mauritania ..........................3.6
32 Slovenia..............................5.4 91 Benin..................................3.6
33 Greece ...............................5.4 92 Venezuela...........................3.6
34 Guatemala..........................5.4 93 Mongolia ............................3.5
35 Chile ...................................5.3 94 Kuwait ................................3.5
36 Lithuania.............................5.3 95 Bolivia.................................3.4
37 Turkey.................................5.3 96 Ukraine...............................3.4
38 United Arab Emirates.........5.2 97 Namibia ..............................3.4
39 Estonia ...............................5.2 98 Burkina Faso ......................3.4
40 Brazil ..................................5.1 99 Nepal..................................3.4
41 Portugal..............................5.1 100 Mali ....................................3.3
42 Colombia ............................5.1 101 Zimbabwe ..........................3.3
43 India ...................................5.0 102 Moldova .............................3.3
44 Italy ....................................5.0 103 Mozambique ......................3.3
45 China ..................................5.0 104 Madagascar........................3.2
46 Hungary..............................4.9 105 Ethiopia ..............................3.1
47 Philippines..........................4.9 106 Zambia ...............................3.1
48 Argentina............................4.9 107 Bangladesh ........................3.0
49 Vietnam..............................4.8 108 Bosnia and Herzegovina ....2.9
50 Syria ...................................4.8 109 Armenia..............................2.9
51 El Salvador .........................4.8 110 Cambodia ...........................2.9
52 Spain ..................................4.8 111 Chad...................................2.8
53 Sri Lanka ............................4.7 112 Israel ..................................2.8
54 Jordan ................................4.7 113 Lesotho ..............................2.7
55 Cameroon ..........................4.7 114 Albania ...............................2.7
56 Tunisia ................................4.7 115 Tajikistan.............................2.6
57 Oman .................................4.7 116 Burundi...............................2.5
58 Latvia..................................4.7 117 Algeria ................................2.4
59 Nigeria................................4.6 118 Kyrgyz Republic .................2.4
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 342

2.03 Openness to multilateral trade rules (hard data)
Openness to multilateral trade rules index | 2008
1 Hungary...............................88.5 60 South Africa ........................61.1

2 Slovenia...............................86.3 61 Moldova ..............................60.2
3 Romania ..............................84.5 62 Madagascar.........................59.5
4 Croatia .................................84.2 63 Algeria .................................59.4
5 Bulgaria ...............................83.8 64 Philippines ...........................59.2
6 China ...................................83.2 65 Morocco ..............................58.5
7 Spain ...................................83.0 66 Bahrain ................................58.3
8 Lithuania..............................82.1 67 Lesotho ...............................58.1
9 Slovak Republic...................81.3 67 Uganda ................................58.1
10 United States ......................80.5 69 Sri Lanka .............................57.7
11 France .................................80.3 70 United Arab Emirates..........57.6
12 Germany .............................79.7 71 Senegal ...............................57.4
13 Denmark .............................79.4 72 Oman ..................................56.8
14 Norway................................78.7 73 Guatemala ...........................56.1
15 Australia ..............................78.3 74 Pakistan...............................56.0
16 Cyprus .................................78.2 75 Zambia ................................55.6
17 Estonia ................................78.1 76 Kyrgyz Republic...................55.5
17 Italy .....................................78.1 77 Tunisia .................................55.1
19 Greece ................................77.4 78 Israel ...................................54.9
20 Austria .................................77.2 79 Armenia...............................54.8
21 Poland .................................77.1 79 Uruguay...............................54.8
22 Belgium ...............................76.9 81 Uzbekistan ..........................54.2
22 Netherlands.........................76.9 82 Mali .....................................53.9
24 Czech Republic ...................75.4 83 Zimbabwe ...........................53.3
25 Switzerland .........................74.9 84 Cambodia ............................53.2
342 26 Finland.................................74.8 85 Honduras.............................53.1
27 Sweden ...............................74.7 86 Nicaragua ............................52.3
28 Macedonia, FYR..................74.6 87 Benin ...................................52.0
29 Portugal ...............................73.3 88 India ....................................51.4
30 Azerbaijan............................73.0 88 Kazakhstan ..........................51.4
31 Latvia...................................72.5 90 Cameroon ...........................51.1
32 Luxembourg ........................72.3 91 Tanzania...............................51.0
33 Ecuador ...............................71.1 92 Syria ....................................50.9
34 Korea, Rep. .........................70.6 93 Brazil ...................................50.8
35 Mexico ................................70.2 93 Venezuela ............................50.8
36 Ireland .................................70.1 95 Mauritania ...........................50.2
37 Egypt ...................................69.8 96 Dominican Republic ............49.7
38 Paraguay .............................69.5 97 Burkina Faso .......................48.5
39 Turkey..................................69.0 97 Costa Rica ...........................48.5
40 United Kingdom ..................68.0 99 Kuwait .................................48.1
41 Japan...................................67.6 100 Vietnam ...............................47.2
42 El Salvador ..........................67.5 101 Bangladesh .........................47.0
43 Ukraine ................................67.3 102 Thailand ...............................46.0
44 New Zealand .......................67.1 103 Indonesia.............................44.8
45 Nigeria .................................66.9 104 Saudi Arabia ........................44.4
46 Argentina.............................66.5 105 Jamaica ...............................44.0
47 Colombia .............................65.8 106 Namibia ...............................43.6
48 Panama ...............................65.5 107 Qatar ...................................43.4
49 Peru.....................................65.3 108 Malaysia ..............................43.1
50 Singapore ............................64.7 109 Bolivia..................................41.8
51 Jordan .................................64.2 110 Nepal ...................................39.4
52 Russian Federation .............63.4 111 Mozambique .......................38.7
53 Canada ................................62.9 112 Tajikistan..............................37.0
54 Mongolia .............................62.6 113 Burundi................................34.0
55 Chile ....................................62.5 114 Chad ....................................33.7
56 Kenya ..................................62.4 115 Guyana ................................30.5
57 Albania ................................62.2 116 Ethiopia ...............................24.3
58 Mauritius .............................62.0 n/a Hong Kong SAR ....................n/a
59 Bosnia and Herzegovina .....61.6 n/a Taiwan, China ........................n/a
SOURCE: International Trade Centre, based on data from the LegaCarta database 2008
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 343

2.04 Share of duty-free imports (hard data)
Duty-free imports as a share of total imports | 2006, 2007
1 Hong Kong SAR ................100.0 60 Madagascar.........................52.9

2 Singapore ..........................100.0 61 Ecuador ...............................52.9
3 Norway................................94.9 62 Tanzania...............................52.3
4 Canada ................................93.5 63 Jordan .................................51.9
5 Mauritius .............................86.2 64 Croatia .................................51.8
6 Kyrgyz Republic...................84.0 65 Tajikistan..............................50.8
7 Malaysia ..............................82.8 66 Indonesia.............................50.4
8 Israel ...................................80.1 67 Vietnam ...............................49.0
9 New Zealand .......................79.0 68 Turkey..................................46.6
10 Kazakhstan ..........................79.0 69 Macedonia, FYR..................42.9
11 Austria .................................79.0 70 Korea, Rep. .........................42.7
11 Belgium ...............................79.0 71 Uzbekistan ..........................41.6
11 Cyprus .................................79.0 72 Sri Lanka .............................39.4
11 Czech Republic ...................79.0 73 China ...................................39.1
11 Denmark .............................79.0 74 Switzerland .........................37.4
11 Estonia ................................79.0 75 Oman ..................................36.8
11 Finland.................................79.0 76 Venezuela ............................35.7
11 France .................................79.0 77 Bulgaria ...............................35.1
11 Germany .............................79.0 78 Colombia .............................32.8
11 Greece ................................79.0 79 Mali .....................................32.4
11 Hungary...............................79.0 80 Brazil ...................................31.3
11 Ireland .................................79.0 81 Thailand ...............................30.9
11 Italy .....................................79.0 82 Guyana ................................30.8
11 Latvia...................................79.0 83 Bosnia and Herzegovina .....30.8
11 Lithuania..............................79.0 84 Egypt ...................................30.2
11 Luxembourg ........................79.0 85 Romania ..............................29.8 343
11 Netherlands.........................79.0 86 Peru.....................................29.6
11 Poland .................................79.0 87 Panama ...............................28.4
11 Portugal ...............................79.0 88 Tunisia .................................25.6
11 Slovak Republic...................79.0 89 Bahrain ................................22.7
11 Slovenia...............................79.0 90 Albania ................................22.3
11 Spain ...................................79.0 91 Burkina Faso .......................22.1
11 Sweden ...............................79.0 92 Mongolia .............................20.9
11 United Kingdom ..................79.0 93 Lesotho ...............................20.6
35 Mexico ................................78.8 94 Ethiopia ...............................20.2
36 Armenia...............................78.7 95 Russian Federation .............19.3
37 Japan...................................77.3 96 Saudi Arabia ........................19.2
38 Moldova ..............................73.3 97 Mozambique .......................17.8
39 Costa Rica ...........................71.4 98 Nigeria .................................17.7
40 Nicaragua ............................71.3 99 Dominican Republic ............17.7
41 Chile ....................................68.7 100 Qatar ...................................17.4
42 El Salvador ..........................68.1 101 Burundi................................16.4
43 Kenya ..................................68.1 102 Bangladesh .........................15.3
44 United States ......................67.7 103 Mauritania ...........................13.7
45 Zambia ................................66.6 104 Benin ...................................12.7
46 Honduras.............................65.7 105 India ....................................12.4
47 South Africa ........................63.1 106 Chad ....................................12.3
48 Taiwan, China ......................62.9 107 United Arab Emirates..........11.1
49 Guatemala ...........................61.6 108 Nepal ...................................10.5
50 Uruguay...............................61.3 109 Kuwait ...................................9.7
51 Argentina.............................60.2 110 Senegal .................................8.6
52 Philippines ...........................60.0 111 Cambodia ..............................8.4
53 Bolivia..................................59.8 112 Azerbaijan..............................8.4
54 Australia ..............................59.1 113 Morocco ................................7.3
55 Jamaica ...............................57.2 114 Cameroon .............................6.4
56 Namibia ...............................56.9 115 Algeria ...................................5.6
57 Paraguay .............................56.2 116 Zimbabwe .............................4.3
58 Uganda ................................55.8 117 Pakistan.................................1.8
59 Ukraine ................................54.8 118 Syria ......................................0.0
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 344
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 345
Subindex B Border administration
3rd pillar
Efficiency of customs
administration
345
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 346
2.2: Data Tables | 3rd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration

3.01 Burden of customs procedures
Customs procedures (formalities regulating the entry and exit of merchandise) in your country are (1 = extremely slow and cumbersome, 7 = rapid
and efficient)
1 Singapore ...........................6.4 60 Mali ....................................3.8

2 Hong Kong SAR .................6.1 61 Romania .............................3.8
3 Sweden..............................6.1 62 El Salvador .........................3.8
4 Korea, Rep. ........................5.9 63 South Africa .......................3.8
5 Denmark ............................5.8 64 Egypt..................................3.7
6 Finland................................5.7 65 Dominican Republic ...........3.7
7 United Arab Emirates.........5.6 66 Uruguay..............................3.6
8 New Zealand ......................5.5 67 India ...................................3.6
9 Austria................................5.5 68 Mexico ...............................3.6
10 Chile ...................................5.5 69 Paraguay ............................3.5
11 Luxembourg.......................5.4 70 Macedonia, FYR.................3.5
12 Norway...............................5.3 71 Colombia ............................3.5
13 Netherlands........................5.3 72 Azerbaijan...........................3.5
14 Bahrain ...............................5.3 73 Peru....................................3.5
15 Germany ............................5.2 74 Mauritania ..........................3.5
16 Estonia ...............................5.2 75 Ethiopia ..............................3.4
17 Ireland ................................5.2 76 Pakistan..............................3.4
18 Taiwan, China.....................5.1 77 Bosnia and Herzegovina ....3.4
19 Belgium..............................5.1 78 Zambia ...............................3.4
20 Slovenia..............................5.0 79 Bulgaria ..............................3.4
21 Malaysia .............................5.0 80 Costa Rica ..........................3.3
22 Switzerland ........................5.0 81 Uganda...............................3.3
23 Canada ...............................4.9 82 Kenya .................................3.3
24 Australia .............................4.9 83 Moldova .............................3.2
25 Israel ..................................4.8 84 Vietnam..............................3.2
346 26 Slovak Republic..................4.8 85 Uzbekistan .........................3.1
27 France ................................4.8 86 Syria ...................................3.1
27 United Kingdom .................4.8 87 Benin..................................3.1
29 Tunisia ................................4.8 88 Philippines..........................3.1
30 Spain ..................................4.7 89 Cameroon ..........................3.0
31 Cyprus................................4.6 90 Kazakhstan .........................3.0
32 Oman .................................4.5 91 Bolivia.................................3.0
33 Mauritius ............................4.5 91 Indonesia............................3.0
34 Portugal..............................4.4 93 Tanzania..............................3.0
35 Morocco.............................4.4 94 Albania ...............................3.0
36 Panama ..............................4.4 95 Madagascar........................3.0
37 Czech Republic ..................4.4 96 Kyrgyz Republic .................3.0
38 Japan..................................4.4 97 Mozambique ......................2.9
39 Jordan ................................4.3 98 Senegal ..............................2.9
40 Thailand..............................4.3 99 Argentina............................2.9
41 Hungary..............................4.3 100 Russian Federation ............2.9
42 United States .....................4.3 101 Tajikistan.............................2.9
43 Lithuania.............................4.3 102 Jamaica ..............................2.8
44 Latvia..................................4.2 103 Nigeria................................2.8
45 China ..................................4.2 104 Zimbabwe ..........................2.8
46 Qatar ..................................4.2 105 Burundi...............................2.7
47 Guatemala..........................4.1 106 Lesotho ..............................2.7
48 Croatia................................4.1 107 Algeria ................................2.7
49 Honduras............................4.1 108 Ukraine...............................2.7
50 Greece ...............................4.1 109 Mongolia ............................2.6
51 Saudi Arabia .......................4.0 110 Armenia..............................2.6
52 Italy ....................................4.0 111 Cambodia ...........................2.5
53 Turkey.................................4.0 112 Brazil ..................................2.5
54 Sri Lanka ............................4.0 113 Nepal..................................2.5
55 Poland ................................3.9 114 Guyana ...............................2.4
56 Burkina Faso ......................3.9 115 Venezuela...........................2.4
56 Nicaragua ...........................3.9 116 Bangladesh ........................2.3
58 Kuwait ................................3.9 117 Ecuador ..............................2.2
59 Namibia ..............................3.8 118 Chad...................................2.0
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 347
2.2: Data Tables | 3rd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration

3.02 Customs services index (hard data)
Extent of services provided by customs authorities and related agencies | 2007
1 Lithuania..............................10.2 57 Qatar .....................................5.7

2 New Zealand .........................9.5 57 Turkey....................................5.7
2 Singapore ..............................9.5 62 Mexico ..................................5.5
4 Estonia ..................................9.3 62 Paraguay ...............................5.5
5 Canada ..................................9.0 64 Israel .....................................5.2
5 Guatemala .............................9.0 65 Bahrain ..................................5.0
5 Korea, Rep. ...........................9.0 66 Thailand .................................4.7
5 Malaysia ................................9.0 67 Zimbabwe .............................4.5
5 Netherlands...........................9.0 68 Bosnia and Herzegovina .......4.3
5 Spain .....................................9.0 68 El Salvador ............................4.3
11 Australia ................................8.8 68 Guyana ..................................4.3
11 Norway..................................8.8 68 Uruguay.................................4.3
13 Japan.....................................8.7 72 Philippines .............................4.3
13 Sweden .................................8.7 73 Ethiopia .................................4.2
15 Colombia ...............................8.3 73 Pakistan.................................4.2
15 Czech Republic .....................8.3 73 Romania ................................4.2
15 Poland ...................................8.3 73 Sri Lanka ...............................4.2
15 United States ........................8.3 77 Bolivia....................................4.0
19 Morocco ................................8.2 77 Kenya ....................................4.0
19 Taiwan, China ........................8.2 77 Senegal .................................4.0
21 United Kingdom ....................7.8 80 Armenia.................................3.8
22 Chile ......................................7.7 80 Benin .....................................3.8
22 Indonesia...............................7.7 82 Algeria ...................................3.7
22 Slovak Republic.....................7.7 82 Egypt .....................................3.7
25 Switzerland ...........................7.7 82 Oman ....................................3.7
26 Hong Kong SAR ....................7.5 85 Honduras...............................3.5 347
27 Hungary.................................7.3 85 Syria ......................................3.5
28 Cyprus ...................................7.3 87 Kuwait ...................................3.3
28 Kyrgyz Republic.....................7.3 87 Nicaragua ..............................3.3
30 Jordan ...................................7.2 87 Saudi Arabia ..........................3.3
31 China .....................................7.0 90 Tajikistan................................3.3
32 Belgium .................................6.7 90 Ukraine ..................................3.3
33 Albania ..................................6.7 90 Venezuela ..............................3.3
33 Argentina...............................6.7 93 Cambodia ..............................3.2
33 Denmark ...............................6.7 94 Greece ..................................3.0
33 India ......................................6.7 94 Namibia .................................3.0
33 Panama .................................6.7 94 Nigeria ...................................3.0
33 Russian Federation ...............6.7 94 Tanzania.................................3.0
33 Zambia ..................................6.7 94 Uzbekistan ............................3.0
40 Mauritius ...............................6.5 99 Burkina Faso .........................2.7
40 United Arab Emirates............6.5 99 Lesotho .................................2.7
42 Bulgaria .................................6.3 101 Mali .......................................2.3
42 Dominican Republic ..............6.3 102 Macedonia, FYR....................2.3
42 Ireland ...................................6.3 102 Madagascar...........................2.3
45 Germany ...............................6.3 104 Nepal .....................................2.2
46 Italy .......................................6.2 105 Ecuador .................................2.0
46 Slovenia.................................6.2 106 Mauritania .............................1.8
48 France ...................................6.2 107 Peru.......................................1.7
48 Jamaica .................................6.2 n/a Azerbaijan ..............................n/a
50 Bangladesh ...........................6.0 n/a Burundi ..................................n/a
50 Brazil .....................................6.0 n/a Chad ......................................n/a
50 Uganda ..................................6.0 n/a Finland ...................................n/a
53 Austria ...................................5.8 n/a Luxembourg ..........................n/a
54 Cameroon .............................5.8 n/a Moldova ................................n/a
55 Costa Rica .............................5.7 n/a Mongolia ...............................n/a
55 Kazakhstan ............................5.7 n/a Mozambique .........................n/a
57 Croatia ...................................5.7 n/a South Africa...........................n/a
57 Latvia.....................................5.7 n/a Tunisia ...................................n/a
57 Portugal .................................5.7 n/a Vietnam .................................n/a
SOURCE: Global Express Association
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 348
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 349
4th pillar
Efficiency of import-export
procedures
349
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 350
2.2: Data Tables | 4th pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures

4.01 Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance
Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance process by customs and border control agencies (1 = very low, 5 = very high) | 2007
RANK COUNTRY/ECONOMY SCORE RANK COUNTRY/ECONOMY SCORE
1 Netherlands...........................4.0 60 Costa Rica .............................2.5

2 Denmark ...............................4.0 61 Honduras...............................2.5
3 Singapore ..............................3.9 62 Bulgaria .................................2.5
4 Germany ...............................3.9 63 Qatar .....................................2.4
5 Sweden .................................3.9 64 Pakistan.................................2.4
5 Switzerland ...........................3.9 65 Lesotho .................................2.4
7 Hong Kong SAR ....................3.8 65 Mauritania .............................2.4
8 Austria ...................................3.8 67 Brazil .....................................2.4
9 Canada ..................................3.8 68 El Salvador ............................2.4
9 Ireland ...................................3.8 68 Senegal .................................2.4
11 Japan.....................................3.8 70 Venezuela ..............................2.4
12 Norway..................................3.8 71 Croatia ...................................2.4
13 United Kingdom ....................3.7 72 Jamaica .................................2.4
14 Finland...................................3.7 73 Dominican Republic ..............2.3
15 Luxembourg ..........................3.7 73 Kenya ....................................2.3
16 Belgium .................................3.6 75 Bosnia and Herzegovina .......2.3
17 Australia ................................3.6 76 Uruguay.................................2.3
18 New Zealand .........................3.6 77 Guatemala .............................2.3
19 United Arab Emirates............3.5 78 Ecuador .................................2.3
19 United States ........................3.5 78 Sri Lanka ...............................2.3
21 France ...................................3.5 80 Madagascar...........................2.2
22 Bahrain ..................................3.4 81 Azerbaijan..............................2.2
23 Malaysia ................................3.4 81 Mozambique .........................2.2
24 Chile ......................................3.3 81 Nigeria ...................................2.2
25 Taiwan, China ........................3.3 84 Ukraine ..................................2.2
350 26 Portugal .................................3.2 85 Uganda ..................................2.2
27 Korea, Rep. ...........................3.2 86 Burundi..................................2.2
27 South Africa ..........................3.2 86 Kyrgyz Republic.....................2.2
29 Italy .......................................3.2 86 Morocco ................................2.2
30 Spain .....................................3.2 86 Paraguay ...............................2.2
31 Greece ..................................3.1 90 Cambodia ..............................2.2
32 Thailand .................................3.0 91 Mali .......................................2.2
33 Hungary.................................3.0 91 Syria ......................................2.2
33 Turkey....................................3.0 93 Ethiopia .................................2.1
35 China .....................................3.0 93 Moldova ................................2.1
36 Czech Republic .....................3.0 93 Namibia .................................2.1
37 Vietnam .................................2.9 93 Nicaragua ..............................2.1
38 Poland ...................................2.9 97 Burkina Faso .........................2.1
39 Tunisia ...................................2.8 98 Armenia.................................2.1
40 Slovenia.................................2.8 98 Colombia ...............................2.1
41 Cyprus ...................................2.8 100 Egypt .....................................2.1
42 Estonia ..................................2.8 100 Zambia ..................................2.1
43 Indonesia...............................2.7 102 Tanzania.................................2.1
43 Israel .....................................2.7 103 Albania ..................................2.0
45 Saudi Arabia ..........................2.7 103 Bangladesh ...........................2.0
46 Oman ....................................2.7 103 Bolivia....................................2.0
47 India ......................................2.7 103 Chad ......................................2.0
48 Panama .................................2.7 103 Macedonia, FYR....................2.0
48 Peru.......................................2.7 103 Mauritius ...............................2.0
50 Argentina...............................2.7 103 Mongolia ...............................2.0
51 Lithuania................................2.6 110 Guyana ..................................2.0
51 Philippines .............................2.6 111 Russian Federation ...............1.9
53 Jordan ...................................2.6 111 Uzbekistan ............................1.9
54 Slovak Republic.....................2.6 113 Zimbabwe .............................1.9
55 Romania ................................2.6 114 Kazakhstan ............................1.9
56 Cameroon .............................2.6 114 Tajikistan................................1.9
57 Latvia.....................................2.5 116 Nepal .....................................1.8
58 Kuwait ...................................2.5 117 Benin .....................................1.8
58 Mexico ..................................2.5 118 Algeria ...................................1.6
SOURCE: The World Bank, Logistics Perception Index 2007
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 351

4.02 Time for import (hard data)
Number of days required to import | 2007
1 Singapore .................................3 58 Jamaica ..................................22

2 Denmark ..................................5 58 Jordan ....................................22
2 Estonia .....................................5 58 Tunisia ....................................22
2 Hong Kong SAR .......................5 63 Algeria ....................................23
2 United States ...........................5 63 Honduras................................23
6 Luxembourg .............................6 63 Mexico ...................................23
6 Netherlands..............................6 63 Syria .......................................23
6 Sweden ....................................6 63 Uruguay..................................23
9 Germany ..................................7 63 Vietnam ..................................23
9 Norway.....................................7 69 Armenia..................................24
11 Austria ......................................8 69 China ......................................24
11 Finland......................................8 69 Namibia ..................................24
13 Belgium ....................................9 72 Costa Rica ..............................25
13 New Zealand ............................9 72 Greece ...................................25
13 Panama ....................................9 72 Slovak Republic......................25
13 Switzerland ..............................9 75 Oman .....................................26
17 Korea, Rep. ............................10 75 Senegal ..................................26
17 Spain ......................................10 77 Indonesia................................27
19 Canada ...................................11 77 Poland ....................................27
19 Japan......................................11 79 Tanzania..................................30
21 Australia .................................12 80 Peru........................................31
21 France ....................................12 81 Bangladesh ............................32
21 Ireland ....................................12 82 Cameroon ..............................33
21 Israel ......................................12 82 Paraguay ................................33
21 Latvia......................................12 84 Guyana ...................................35
21 Taiwan, China .........................12 84 Moldova .................................35 351
27 Dominican Republic ...............13 84 Nepal ......................................35
27 Lithuania.................................13 84 South Africa ...........................35
27 Romania .................................13 88 Bolivia.....................................36
27 United Arab Emirates.............13 88 Russian Federation ................36
27 United Kingdom .....................13 90 Kenya .....................................37
32 Malaysia .................................14 90 Uganda ...................................37
32 Thailand ..................................14 92 Mozambique ..........................38
34 Turkey.....................................15 92 Nicaragua ...............................38
35 Croatia ....................................16 94 Ukraine ...................................39
35 Mauritius ................................16 95 Benin ......................................41
35 Portugal ..................................16 96 Ethiopia ..................................42
38 Hungary..................................17 96 Mauritania ..............................42
38 Macedonia, FYR.....................17 98 Ecuador ..................................44
40 Bosnia and Herzegovina ........18 99 Cambodia ...............................46
40 Czech Republic ......................18 99 Nigeria ....................................46
40 Egypt ......................................18 101 Lesotho ..................................49
40 El Salvador .............................18 101 Madagascar............................49
40 Guatemala ..............................18 103 Burkina Faso ..........................54
40 Italy ........................................18 104 Azerbaijan...............................56
40 Philippines ..............................18 105 Mongolia ................................59
47 Morocco .................................19 106 Zambia ...................................64
47 Pakistan..................................19 107 Mali ........................................65
49 Argentina................................20 107 Venezuela ...............................65
49 Colombia ................................20 109 Zimbabwe ..............................67
49 Kuwait ....................................20 110 Burundi...................................71
49 Saudi Arabia ...........................20 111 Kyrgyz Republic......................75
53 Bulgaria ..................................21 112 Kazakhstan .............................76
53 Chile .......................................21 113 Tajikistan.................................83
53 India .......................................21 114 Chad .....................................102
53 Slovenia..................................21 115 Uzbekistan ...........................104
53 Sri Lanka ................................21 n/a Bahrain ..................................n/a
58 Albania ...................................22 n/a Cyprus ...................................n/a
58 Brazil ......................................22 n/a Qatar .....................................n/a
SOURCE: The World Bank, Doing Business 2008
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 352

4.03 Documents for import (hard data)
Number of documents required to import | 2007
1 Denmark ..................................3 59 Cameroon ................................8

1 Sweden ....................................3 59 Colombia ..................................8
3 Canada .....................................4 59 Costa Rica ................................8
3 Estonia .....................................4 59 Croatia ......................................8
3 Hong Kong SAR .......................4 59 Ecuador ....................................8
3 Ireland ......................................4 59 Ethiopia ....................................8
3 Israel ........................................4 59 Guyana .....................................8
3 Luxembourg .............................4 59 Kenya .......................................8
3 Norway.....................................4 59 Lesotho ....................................8
3 Panama ....................................4 59 Pakistan....................................8
3 Singapore .................................4 59 Peru..........................................8
3 United Kingdom .......................4 59 Philippines ................................8
13 Austria ......................................5 59 Slovak Republic........................8
13 Belgium ....................................5 59 Slovenia....................................8
13 Finland......................................5 59 Spain ........................................8
13 France ......................................5 59 Turkey.......................................8
13 Germany ..................................5 59 United Arab Emirates...............8
13 Italy ..........................................5 59 Vietnam ....................................8
13 Japan........................................5 78 Albania .....................................9
13 Mexico .....................................5 78 Algeria ......................................9
13 Netherlands..............................5 78 Bangladesh ..............................9
13 New Zealand ............................5 78 Chad .........................................9
13 Nicaragua .................................5 78 India .........................................9
13 Poland ......................................5 78 Namibia ....................................9
13 Saudi Arabia .............................5 78 Nigeria ......................................9
352 13 Switzerland ..............................5 78 South Africa .............................9
13 United States ...........................5 78 Syria .........................................9
28 Australia ...................................6 78 Thailand ....................................9
28 China ........................................6 78 Venezuela .................................9
28 Greece .....................................6 89 Burundi...................................10
28 Indonesia..................................6 89 Madagascar............................10
28 Jamaica ....................................6 89 Mongolia ................................10
28 Korea, Rep. ..............................6 89 Mozambique ..........................10
28 Latvia........................................6 89 Nepal ......................................10
28 Lithuania...................................6 89 Oman .....................................10
28 Mauritius ..................................6 89 Paraguay ................................10
28 Romania ...................................6 89 Ukraine ...................................10
28 Sri Lanka ..................................6 89 Uruguay..................................10
39 Argentina..................................7 98 Burkina Faso ..........................11
39 Benin ........................................7 98 Cambodia ...............................11
39 Bolivia.......................................7 98 El Salvador .............................11
39 Bosnia and Herzegovina ..........7 98 Guatemala ..............................11
39 Brazil ........................................7 98 Honduras................................11
39 Bulgaria ....................................7 98 Kuwait ....................................11
39 Chile .........................................7 98 Mali ........................................11
39 Czech Republic ........................7 98 Mauritania ..............................11
39 Dominican Republic .................7 98 Morocco .................................11
39 Egypt ........................................7 98 Senegal ..................................11
39 Hungary....................................7 98 Tajikistan.................................11
39 Jordan ......................................7 98 Uzbekistan .............................11
39 Macedonia, FYR.......................7 98 Zambia ...................................11
39 Malaysia ...................................7 111 Kyrgyz Republic......................13
39 Moldova ...................................7 111 Russian Federation ................13
39 Portugal ....................................7 111 Zimbabwe ..............................13
39 Taiwan, China ...........................7 114 Azerbaijan...............................14
39 Tanzania....................................7 114 Kazakhstan .............................14
39 Tunisia ......................................7 n/a Bahrain ..................................n/a
39 Uganda .....................................7 n/a Cyprus ...................................n/a
59 Armenia....................................8 n/a Qatar .....................................n/a
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 353

4.04 Cost to import (hard data)
Total official cost associated with importing, excluding tariffs and trade taxes | 2007
1 Singapore .............................367 60 Australia ............................1,120

2 Malaysia ...............................385 61 Macedonia, FYR................1,130
3 Finland..................................420 62 Ireland ...............................1,139
4 China ....................................430 63 Bangladesh .......................1,148
5 United Arab Emirates...........462 63 France ...............................1,148
6 Norway.................................468 65 United States ....................1,160
7 Hong Kong SAR ...................525 66 Guatemala .........................1,177
8 Denmark ..............................540 67 Uruguay.............................1,180
8 El Salvador ...........................540 68 Mozambique .....................1,185
10 Israel ....................................560 69 South Africa ......................1,195
11 Sweden ................................619 70 Croatia ...............................1,200
12 Indonesia..............................623 71 Benin .................................1,202
13 Costa Rica ............................660 72 Lesotho .............................1,210
14 Peru......................................670 73 Bolivia................................1,230
15 Mauritius ..............................673 74 Brazil .................................1,240
16 Estonia .................................675 75 Greece ..............................1,245
17 Chile .....................................685 76 Luxembourg ......................1,250
18 Egypt ....................................729 77 United Kingdom ................1,267
19 Korea, Rep. ..........................745 78 Madagascar.......................1,282
20 Taiwan, China .......................747 79 Italy ...................................1,291
21 Albania .................................750 80 Switzerland .......................1,333
22 Saudi Arabia .........................758 81 Armenia.............................1,335
23 Germany ..............................765 82 Pakistan.............................1,336
24 Thailand ................................786 83 Jamaica .............................1,350
25 Latvia....................................800 84 Mauritania .........................1,363
25 Morocco ...............................800 85 Bulgaria .............................1,377 353
25 New Zealand ........................800 86 Algeria ...............................1,378
25 Philippines ............................800 87 Canada ..............................1,425
29 Tunisia ..................................810 87 Tanzania.............................1,425
30 Oman ...................................824 89 Colombia ...........................1,440
31 Poland ..................................834 90 Cameroon .........................1,529
32 Austria ..................................843 91 Moldova ............................1,545
33 Sri Lanka ..............................844 92 Namibia .............................1,550
34 Panama ................................850 93 Belgium .............................1,600
35 Cambodia .............................852 94 Senegal .............................1,720
36 Guyana .................................856 95 Nepal .................................1,725
37 Czech Republic ....................860 96 Argentina...........................1,825
38 Vietnam ................................881 97 Syria ..................................1,900
39 Paraguay ..............................900 98 Kenya ................................1,995
40 India .....................................910 99 Russian Federation ...........2,050
41 Kuwait ..................................935 100 Venezuela ..........................2,400
42 Honduras..............................975 101 Mexico ..............................2,411
42 Hungary................................975 102 Zimbabwe .........................2,420
44 Lithuania...............................980 103 Kyrgyz Republic.................2,450
45 Bosnia and Herzegovina ......985 104 Mali ...................................2,680
46 Portugal ................................994 105 Kazakhstan ........................2,780
47 Spain ..................................1000 106 Ethiopia .............................2,793
48 Netherlands.......................1,005 107 Zambia ..............................2,840
49 Turkey................................1,013 108 Azerbaijan..........................2,945
50 Dominican Republic ..........1,015 109 Uganda ..............................2,990
51 Slovenia.............................1,019 110 Mongolia ...........................3,197
52 Japan.................................1,047 111 Burkina Faso .....................3,522
52 Nigeria ...............................1,047 112 Burundi..............................3,705
54 Slovak Republic.................1,050 113 Uzbekistan ........................4,050
55 Nicaragua ..........................1,054 114 Tajikistan............................4,500
56 Jordan ...............................1,065 115 Chad ..................................5,520
56 Ukraine ..............................1,065 n/a Bahrain ..................................n/a
58 Romania ............................1,075 n/a Cyprus ...................................n/a
59 Ecuador .............................1,090 n/a Qatar .....................................n/a
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 354
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 355
5th pillar
Transparency of
border administration
355
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 356
2.2: Data Tables | 5th pillar: Transparency of border administration

5.01 Irregular payments in exports and imports
In your country, how frequently would you estimate that firms make undocumented extra payments or bribes connected with import and export
permits (1 = is common, 7 = never occurs)
1 Denmark ............................6.7 60 China ..................................4.4

2 New Zealand ......................6.7 61 Honduras............................4.3
3 Finland................................6.6 62 Croatia................................4.3
4 Sweden..............................6.6 63 Macedonia, FYR.................4.3
5 Singapore ...........................6.6 64 Nicaragua ...........................4.3
6 Switzerland ........................6.3 65 Poland ................................4.3
7 Australia .............................6.3 66 Panama ..............................4.3
8 Austria................................6.3 67 Burundi...............................4.2
9 Norway...............................6.3 68 Albania ...............................4.2
10 Luxembourg.......................6.3 69 Bulgaria ..............................4.2
11 Germany ............................6.2 70 Romania .............................4.2
12 Hong Kong SAR .................6.2 71 Egypt..................................4.2
13 Netherlands........................6.2 72 Ethiopia ..............................4.1
14 Chile ...................................6.2 73 Kazakhstan .........................4.1
15 Canada ...............................6.1 74 Namibia ..............................4.1
16 Japan..................................6.1 75 Pakistan..............................4.1
17 Ireland ................................6.1 76 Thailand..............................4.1
18 United Kingdom .................6.0 77 Bolivia.................................4.0
19 Slovenia..............................5.9 78 India ...................................4.0
20 France ................................5.9 79 Uzbekistan .........................4.0
21 Israel ..................................5.8 80 Ukraine...............................3.9
22 Belgium..............................5.8 81 Jamaica ..............................3.9
23 Korea, Rep. ........................5.7 82 Mali ....................................3.9
24 Qatar ..................................5.7 83 Dominican Republic ...........3.9
25 United Arab Emirates.........5.7 84 Burkina Faso ......................3.9
356 26 Taiwan, China.....................5.7 85 Russian Federation ............3.9
27 Portugal..............................5.6 86 Madagascar........................3.8
28 Estonia ...............................5.6 87 Mozambique ......................3.7
29 Spain ..................................5.5 88 Paraguay ............................3.6
30 Jordan ................................5.4 89 Tajikistan.............................3.6
31 Bahrain ...............................5.4 90 Mauritania ..........................3.6
32 Tunisia ................................5.4 91 Sri Lanka ............................3.6
33 Hungary..............................5.2 92 Benin..................................3.5
34 Cyprus................................5.2 93 Tanzania..............................3.5
35 Peru....................................5.1 94 Bosnia and Herzegovina ....3.3
36 Uruguay..............................5.1 95 Armenia..............................3.3
37 United States .....................5.1 96 Kenya .................................3.3
38 South Africa .......................5.0 97 Argentina............................3.3
39 Malaysia .............................5.0 98 Zimbabwe ..........................3.3
40 Slovak Republic..................5.0 99 Guyana ...............................3.3
41 Kuwait ................................5.0 100 Uganda...............................3.2
42 Greece ...............................5.0 101 Nigeria................................3.2
43 El Salvador .........................4.9 102 Ecuador ..............................3.2
44 Latvia..................................4.8 103 Nepal..................................3.2
45 Lithuania.............................4.8 104 Vietnam..............................3.1
46 Czech Republic ..................4.8 105 Lesotho ..............................3.1
47 Moldova .............................4.8 106 Philippines..........................3.1
48 Italy ....................................4.8 107 Senegal ..............................3.1
49 Guatemala..........................4.8 108 Mongolia ............................3.1
50 Costa Rica ..........................4.7 109 Cameroon ..........................3.0
51 Oman .................................4.7 110 Indonesia............................3.0
52 Turkey.................................4.5 111 Kyrgyz Republic .................3.0
53 Mexico ...............................4.5 112 Azerbaijan...........................2.9
54 Colombia ............................4.5 113 Venezuela...........................2.9
55 Saudi Arabia .......................4.5 114 Syria ...................................2.9
56 Mauritius ............................4.5 115 Chad...................................2.7
57 Brazil ..................................4.5 116 Zambia ...............................2.7
58 Algeria ................................4.4 117 Cambodia ...........................2.4
59 Morocco.............................4.4 118 Bangladesh ........................2.2
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 357
2.2: Data Tables | 5th pillar: Transparency of border administration

5.02 Corruption Perceptions Index (hard data)
A country or territory’s degree of public corruption (0 = highly corrupt, 10 = highly clean) | 2007
1 Denmark ...............................9.4 58 India ......................................3.5

1 Finland...................................9.4 58 Mexico ..................................3.5
1 New Zealand .........................9.4 58 Morocco ................................3.5
4 Singapore ..............................9.3 58 Peru.......................................3.5
4 Sweden .................................9.3 64 Saudi Arabia ..........................3.4
6 Netherlands...........................9.0 65 Bosnia and Herzegovina .......3.3
6 Switzerland ...........................9.0 65 Jamaica .................................3.3
8 Canada ..................................8.7 65 Lesotho .................................3.3
8 Norway..................................8.7 65 Macedonia, FYR....................3.3
10 Australia ................................8.6 65 Thailand .................................3.3
11 United Kingdom ....................8.4 70 Panama .................................3.2
13 Hong Kong SAR ....................8.3 70 Sri Lanka ...............................3.2
14 Austria ...................................8.1 70 Tanzania.................................3.2
15 Germany ...............................7.8 74 Algeria ...................................3.0
16 Ireland ...................................7.5 74 Armenia.................................3.0
16 Japan.....................................7.5 74 Dominican Republic ..............3.0
18 France ...................................7.3 74 Mongolia ...............................3.0
19 United States ........................7.2 78 Albania ..................................2.9
20 Belgium .................................7.1 78 Argentina...............................2.9
21 Chile ......................................7.0 78 Bolivia....................................2.9
22 Spain .....................................6.7 78 Burkina Faso .........................2.9
22 Uruguay.................................6.7 78 Egypt .....................................2.9
24 Slovenia.................................6.6 83 Guatemala .............................2.8
25 Estonia ..................................6.5 83 Moldova ................................2.8
25 Portugal .................................6.5 83 Mozambique .........................2.8 357
27 Israel .....................................6.1 83 Uganda ..................................2.8
28 Qatar .....................................6.0 87 Benin .....................................2.7
29 Taiwan, China ........................5.7 87 Mali .......................................2.7
29 United Arab Emirates............5.7 87 Ukraine ..................................2.7
31 Cyprus ...................................5.3 90 Guyana ..................................2.6
31 Hungary.................................5.3 90 Mauritania .............................2.6
33 Czech Republic .....................5.2 90 Nicaragua ..............................2.6
33 Italy .......................................5.2 90 Vietnam .................................2.6
35 Korea, Rep. ...........................5.1 90 Zambia ..................................2.6
35 Malaysia ................................5.1 95 Burundi..................................2.5
35 South Africa ..........................5.1 95 Honduras...............................2.5
38 Bahrain ..................................5.0 95 Nepal .....................................2.5
38 Costa Rica .............................5.0 95 Philippines .............................2.5
40 Slovak Republic.....................4.9 99 Cameroon .............................2.4
41 Latvia.....................................4.8 99 Ethiopia .................................2.4
41 Lithuania................................4.8 99 Pakistan.................................2.4
43 Jordan ...................................4.7 99 Paraguay ...............................2.4
43 Mauritius ...............................4.7 99 Syria ......................................2.4
43 Oman ....................................4.7 104 Indonesia...............................2.3
46 Greece ..................................4.6 104 Russian Federation ...............2.3
47 Namibia .................................4.5 106 Nigeria ...................................2.2
48 Kuwait ...................................4.3 107 Azerbaijan..............................2.1
49 Poland ...................................4.2 107 Ecuador .................................2.1
49 Tunisia ...................................4.2 107 Kazakhstan ............................2.1
51 Bulgaria .................................4.1 107 Kenya ....................................2.1
51 Croatia ...................................4.1 107 Kyrgyz Republic.....................2.1
51 Turkey....................................4.1 107 Tajikistan................................2.1
54 El Salvador ............................4.0 107 Zimbabwe .............................2.1
55 Colombia ...............................3.8 114 Bangladesh ...........................2.0
56 Romania ................................3.7 114 Cambodia ..............................2.0
57 Senegal .................................3.6 114 Venezuela ..............................2.0
58 Brazil .....................................3.5 117 Chad ......................................1.8
58 China .....................................3.5 118 Uzbekistan ............................1.7
SOURCE: Transparency International
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 358
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 359
Subindex C Transport and communications infrastructure
6th pillar
Availability and quality
of transport infrastructure
359
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 360
2.2: Data Tables | 6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
6.01 Airport density (hard data)
Number of airports per million population | 2006
1 Norway................................10.9 60 Mozambique .........................0.6

2 Canada ..................................7.8 61 Peru.......................................0.6
3 Australia ................................7.4 62 Mauritania .............................0.6
4 Panama .................................7.3 63 Tunisia ...................................0.6
5 New Zealand .........................6.6 64 Mexico ..................................0.6
6 Mongolia ...............................5.2 65 Uruguay.................................0.6
7 Sweden .................................4.5 66 Japan.....................................0.6
8 Finland...................................4.2 67 Lesotho .................................0.6
9 Namibia .................................3.8 68 Philippines .............................0.5
10 Cyprus ...................................3.8 69 Jordan ...................................0.5
11 Costa Rica .............................3.6 70 Brazil .....................................0.5
12 Greece ..................................3.4 71 Morocco ................................0.5
13 United States ........................2.4 72 Czech Republic .....................0.5
14 Estonia ..................................2.3 73 Paraguay ...............................0.5
15 Qatar .....................................2.2 74 Turkey....................................0.5
16 Ireland ...................................2.1 75 Germany ...............................0.5
17 Luxembourg ..........................2.0 76 Singapore ..............................0.5
18 Denmark ...............................1.9 77 Thailand .................................0.4
19 Croatia ...................................1.7 78 Uzbekistan ............................0.4
20 Madagascar...........................1.7 79 Senegal .................................0.4
21 Mauritius ...............................1.5 79 South Africa ..........................0.4
22 Portugal .................................1.5 81 Hungary.................................0.4
23 United Arab Emirates............1.5 82 Bulgaria .................................0.4
24 Honduras...............................1.5 83 Belgium .................................0.4
25 Malaysia ................................1.4 84 Sri Lanka ...............................0.4
360 26 Guyana ..................................1.4 85 Kyrgyz Republic.....................0.4
27 Bolivia....................................1.4 86 Cameroon .............................0.4
28 Bahrain ..................................1.4 87 Kuwait ...................................0.4
29 Argentina...............................1.3 88 Azerbaijan..............................0.4
30 Oman ....................................1.2 89 Ukraine ..................................0.3
31 United Kingdom ....................1.1 90 Kenya ....................................0.3
32 Colombia ...............................1.1 91 Tanzania.................................0.3
33 Chile ......................................1.1 92 Albania ..................................0.3
34 Kazakhstan ............................1.1 93 Korea, Rep. ...........................0.3
35 Venezuela ..............................1.1 94 Netherlands...........................0.3
36 Saudi Arabia ..........................1.0 95 Tajikistan................................0.3
37 France ...................................1.0 96 Ethiopia .................................0.3
38 Macedonia, FYR....................1.0 97 Poland ...................................0.3
38 Slovenia.................................1.0 98 Hong Kong SAR ....................0.3
40 Ecuador .................................1.0 99 Cambodia ..............................0.3
41 Spain .....................................0.9 100 Indonesia...............................0.3
42 Lithuania................................0.9 101 Syria ......................................0.3
43 Latvia.....................................0.9 102 Moldova ................................0.2
44 Algeria ...................................0.8 103 Zimbabwe .............................0.2
45 Switzerland ...........................0.8 104 Vietnam .................................0.2
46 Nepal .....................................0.8 105 Egypt .....................................0.2
47 Taiwan, China ........................0.8 106 Guatemala .............................0.2
48 Bosnia and Herzegovina .......0.8 107 Pakistan.................................0.1
49 Zambia ..................................0.8 108 Burkina Faso .........................0.1
50 Jamaica .................................0.7 109 El Salvador ............................0.1
50 Slovak Republic.....................0.7 110 Uganda ..................................0.1
52 Israel .....................................0.7 111 Burundi..................................0.1
53 Austria ...................................0.7 112 Benin .....................................0.1
54 Nicaragua ..............................0.7 113 China .....................................0.1
55 Italy .......................................0.7 114 Chad ......................................0.1
56 Armenia.................................0.7 115 Nigeria ...................................0.1
56 Dominican Republic ..............0.7 116 Mali .......................................0.1
58 Russian Federation ...............0.7 117 India ......................................0.1
59 Romania ................................0.6 118 Bangladesh ...........................0.1
SOURCE: International Air Transport Association, SRS Analyser
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 361
6.02 Transshipment connectivity index (hard data)
Type of transshipment connections available to shippers from each country/economy on bilateral routes | 2006
1 United Kingdom ...................580 60 Croatia ..................................480

2 Belgium ................................574 61 Algeria ..................................477
3 France ..................................573 62 Madagascar..........................475
4 Germany ..............................571 63 Poland ..................................474
5 United States .......................567 63 Tanzania................................474
6 Netherlands..........................565 65 Mozambique ........................473
7 Spain ....................................564 65 Senegal ................................473
8 Italy ......................................561 67 Mauritania ............................470
9 Hong Kong SAR ...................556 68 Morocco ...............................469
10 China ....................................552 69 Tunisia ..................................465
11 Malaysia ...............................543 70 Honduras..............................464
11 Singapore .............................543 71 Cyprus ..................................463
13 Korea, Rep. ..........................539 72 Finland..................................462
13 Taiwan, China .......................539 73 Guyana .................................461
15 Japan....................................534 73 Ireland ..................................461
16 Egypt ....................................525 73 Jordan ..................................461
17 Brazil ....................................523 76 Ukraine .................................459
17 Canada .................................523 77 Estonia .................................452
17 United Arab Emirates...........523 77 Norway.................................452
20 India .....................................522 79 Latvia....................................449
20 Saudi Arabia .........................522 79 Lithuania...............................449
22 Jamaica ................................521 81 El Salvador ...........................446
22 South Africa .........................521 81 Nicaragua .............................446
24 Sri Lanka ..............................520 83 Switzerland ..........................442
25 Greece .................................517 84 Bulgaria ................................439
26 Indonesia..............................516 85 Slovenia................................436 361
26 Mexico .................................516 86 Qatar ....................................422
28 Australia ...............................511 87 Cambodia .............................419
29 Turkey...................................510 88 Czech Republic ....................414
30 Nigeria ..................................508 89 Bangladesh ..........................410
30 Thailand ................................508 90 Kuwait ..................................406
32 New Zealand ........................507 91 Albania .................................404
32 Panama ................................507 92 Bahrain .................................379
34 Argentina..............................506 93 Paraguay ..............................370
35 Israel ....................................505 n/a Armenia .................................n/a
36 Portugal ................................503 n/a Austria ...................................n/a
36 Sweden ................................503 n/a Azerbaijan ..............................n/a
38 Colombia ..............................502 n/a Bolivia ....................................n/a
39 Guatemala ............................500 n/a Bosnia and Herzegovina........n/a
40 Denmark ..............................499 n/a Burkina Faso..........................n/a
41 Cameroon ............................498 n/a Burundi ..................................n/a
41 Oman ...................................498 n/a Chad ......................................n/a
43 Dominican Republic .............497 n/a Ethiopia .................................n/a
43 Pakistan................................497 n/a Hungary .................................n/a
45 Venezuela .............................496 n/a Kazakhstan ............................n/a
46 Peru......................................493 n/a Kyrgyz Republic.....................n/a
47 Chile .....................................492 n/a Lesotho .................................n/a
47 Costa Rica ............................492 n/a Luxembourg ..........................n/a
47 Uruguay................................492 n/a Macedonia, FYR ....................n/a
50 Syria .....................................491 n/a Mali .......................................n/a
51 Ecuador ................................490 n/a Moldova ................................n/a
51 Kenya ...................................490 n/a Mongolia ...............................n/a
51 Vietnam ................................490 n/a Nepal .....................................n/a
54 Benin ....................................488 n/a Slovak Republic .....................n/a
54 Mauritius ..............................488 n/a Tajikistan................................n/a
56 Philippines ............................483 n/a Uganda ..................................n/a
56 Russian Federation ..............483 n/a Uzbekistan.............................n/a
58 Romania ...............................482 n/a Zambia...................................n/a
59 Namibia ................................481 n/a Zimbabwe .............................n/a
SOURCE: UNCTAD, Transport Section, Trade Logistics Branch
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 362
6.03 Paved roads (hard data)
Paved roads as a percentage of total roads | 2004
1 Armenia6 ...........................100.0 60 Bosnia and Herzegovina2 ....52.3

1 Austria6 .............................100.0 61 Paraguay2 ............................50.8
1 Czech Republic6 ................100.0 62 Romania ..............................50.7
1 Denmark6 ..........................100.0 63 Mexico ................................49.5
1 France ...............................100.0 64 Dominican Republic2 ..........49.4
1 Germany6 ..........................100.0 65 Azerbaijan............................49.4
1 Hong Kong SAR ................100.0 66 India5 ...................................47.4
1 Ireland6..............................100.0 67 Hungary2 .............................43.4
1 Israel .................................100.0 68 Turkey5 ................................41.6
1 Italy6 ..................................100.0 69 Albania5 ...............................39.0
1 Jordan ...............................100.0 70 Australia1.............................38.7
1 Latvia.................................100.0 71 Panama2..............................34.6
1 Luxembourg ......................100.0 72 Guatemala2 .........................34.5
1 Mauritius ...........................100.0 73 Venezuela2 ..........................33.6
1 Singapore ..........................100.0 74 Burkina Faso .......................31.2
1 Slovenia.............................100.0 75 Nepal ...................................30.3
1 Switzerland .......................100.0 76 Argentina6 ...........................30.0
1 United Arab Emirates2 ......100.0 77 Saudi Arabia3 ......................29.9
1 United Kingdom ................100.0 78 Senegal6..............................29.3
20 Bulgaria ...............................99.0 79 Oman4.................................27.7
20 Spain4..................................99.0 80 Vietnam1 .............................25.1
22 Thailand3 .............................98.5 81 Costa Rica ...........................24.4
23 Ukraine ................................97.2 82 Estonia ................................23.5
24 Kazakhstan ..........................93.4 83 Uganda6 ..............................23.0
25 Greece2 ...............................91.8 84 Zambia4 ...............................22.0
362 26 Lithuania4 ............................91.3 85 Philippines6 .........................21.6
27 Kyrgyz Republic2 .................91.1 86 Honduras2 ...........................20.4
28 Netherlands2 .......................90.0 87 Chile4 ..................................20.2
28 Qatar2..................................90.0 88 Syria4...................................20.1
28 Uruguay2 .............................90.0 89 El Salvador2 .........................19.8
31 Slovak Republic...................87.3 90 Ethiopia ...............................19.1
32 Uzbekistan2 .........................87.3 91 Zimbabwe5..........................19.0
33 Korea, Rep. .........................86.8 92 Mozambique2......................18.7
34 Moldova ..............................86.2 93 Lesotho2 .............................18.3
35 Portugal2 .............................86.0 94 Mali .....................................18.0
36 Kuwait .................................85.0 95 South Africa4 .......................17.3
37 Croatia .................................84.7 96 Nigeria .................................15.0
38 Malaysia ..............................81.3 97 Ecuador ...............................15.0
39 China ...................................81.0 98 Colombia2 ...........................14.4
40 Egypt ...................................81.0 98 Peru.....................................14.4
40 Sri Lanka6 ............................81.0 100 Kenya ..................................14.1
42 Bahrain6 ..............................79.1 101 Namibia5 .............................12.8
43 Belgium ...............................78.0 102 Madagascar2 .......................11.6
44 Japan5 .................................77.7 103 Nicaragua5...........................11.4
45 Norway5 ..............................77.5 104 Mauritania2..........................11.3
45 Sweden1 .............................77.5 105 Burundi................................10.4
47 Jamaica ...............................73.3 106 Cameroon ...........................10.0
48 Algeria .................................70.2 107 Bangladesh6 ..........................9.5
49 Poland6................................69.7 107 Benin .....................................9.5
50 Russian Federation2 ............67.4 109 Tanzania6 ...............................8.6
51 Tunisia .................................65.8 110 Guyana2 ................................7.4
52 Finland.................................64.7 111 Bolivia....................................7.0
52 Pakistan...............................64.7 112 Cambodia ..............................6.3
54 United States ......................64.5 113 Brazil3 ....................................5.5
55 New Zealand6 .....................64.3 114 Mongolia5..............................3.5
56 Macedonia, FYR2 ................63.8 115 Chad ......................................0.8
57 Cyprus .................................63.0 n/a Canada ..................................n/a
58 Indonesia5 ...........................58.0 n/a Taiwan, China ........................n/a
59 Morocco ..............................56.9 n/a Tajikistan................................n/a
SOURCE: The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2007; International Road Federation, World Road Statistics 2006
1 1998 2 1999 3 2000 4 2001 5 2002 6 2003
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 363
6.04 Road congestion (hard data)
Motor vehicles per kilometer of road | 2004
1 Bangladesh ..............................1 60 Tunisia ....................................49

2 Mongolia ..................................2 61 Croatia ....................................58
3 India .........................................3 61 Netherlands............................58
4 Ethiopia ....................................4 61 Switzerland ............................58
4 Namibia ....................................4 64 Bulgaria ..................................63
4 Uganda .....................................4 64 Japan......................................63
7 Bolivia.......................................7 66 Italy ........................................73
7 Syria .........................................7 67 Malaysia .................................75
7 Zimbabwe ................................7 68 Jordan ....................................77
10 Pakistan....................................8 69 Mauritius ................................79
11 Azerbaijan.................................9 69 United Kingdom .....................79
11 Senegal ....................................9 71 Mexico ...................................93
13 Kenya .....................................10 72 Israel ....................................112
13 Kyrgyz Republic......................10 73 Korea, Rep. ..........................145
15 China ......................................11 74 Singapore .............................179
15 Estonia ...................................11 75 Kuwait ..................................181
15 Ireland ....................................11 76 Germany ..............................207
15 Sweden ..................................11 77 Hong Kong SAR ...................254
19 Albania ...................................12 78 Portugal ................................278
19 Latvia......................................12 n/a Algeria ...................................n/a
21 Nicaragua ...............................13 n/a Armenia .................................n/a
21 Philippines ..............................13 n/a Australia ................................n/a
23 Paraguay ................................15 n/a Bahrain ..................................n/a
24 Peru........................................16 n/a Benin .....................................n/a
25 Ecuador ..................................17 n/a Bosnia and Herzegovina........n/a
25 Kazakhstan .............................17 n/a Burkina Faso..........................n/a 363
27 Brazil ......................................18 n/a Burundi ..................................n/a
27 Lithuania.................................18 n/a Cameroon..............................n/a
27 Turkey.....................................18 n/a Chad ......................................n/a
30 Colombia ................................19 n/a Cyprus ...................................n/a
30 Hungary..................................19 n/a Dominican Republic ..............n/a
32 Romania .................................20 n/a Egypt .....................................n/a
33 Morocco .................................23 n/a El Salvador.............................n/a
34 Costa Rica ..............................24 n/a Guyana ..................................n/a
34 South Africa ...........................24 n/a Indonesia ...............................n/a
36 Chile .......................................26 n/a Jamaica .................................n/a
36 Norway...................................26 n/a Lesotho .................................n/a
36 Slovenia..................................26 n/a Luxembourg ..........................n/a
39 Panama ..................................27 n/a Macedonia, FYR ....................n/a
40 Honduras................................28 n/a Madagascar ...........................n/a
41 Moldova .................................29 n/a Mali .......................................n/a
42 Cambodia ...............................31 n/a Mauritania .............................n/a
42 Czech Republic ......................31 n/a Mozambique .........................n/a
42 New Zealand ..........................31 n/a Nepal .....................................n/a
45 Denmark ................................32 n/a Nigeria ...................................n/a
45 Slovak Republic......................32 n/a Oman ....................................n/a
47 Austria ....................................33 n/a Qatar .....................................n/a
47 Poland ....................................33 n/a Saudi Arabia ..........................n/a
49 Canada ...................................34 n/a Sri Lanka................................n/a
49 Finland....................................34 n/a Taiwan, China ........................n/a
49 Spain ......................................34 n/a Tajikistan................................n/a
52 Argentina................................37 n/a Tanzania.................................n/a
52 Belgium ..................................37 n/a Thailand .................................n/a
52 United States .........................37 n/a United Arab Emirates ............n/a
55 France ....................................38 n/a Uruguay .................................n/a
56 Ukraine ...................................39 n/a Uzbekistan.............................n/a
57 Guatemala ..............................45 n/a Venezuela ..............................n/a
58 Greece ...................................46 n/a Vietnam .................................n/a
59 Russian Federation ................48 n/a Zambia...................................n/a
SOURCE: The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2007
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 364
6.05 Quality of air transport infrastructure
Passenger air transport in your country is (1 = infrequent, limited, and inefficient, 7 = as frequent, extensive, and efficient as the world’s best)
1 Singapore ...........................6.9 60 Morocco.............................4.7

2 Hong Kong SAR .................6.7 61 Costa Rica ..........................4.6
3 Germany ............................6.7 62 Guatemala..........................4.5
4 United Arab Emirates.........6.5 63 Honduras............................4.5
5 France ................................6.5 64 Sri Lanka ............................4.5
6 Denmark ............................6.5 65 Italy ....................................4.4
7 Netherlands........................6.4 66 Hungary..............................4.4
8 Finland................................6.3 67 Lithuania.............................4.4
9 United States .....................6.3 68 Croatia................................4.3
10 United Kingdom .................6.2 69 Ecuador ..............................4.3
11 Switzerland ........................6.2 70 Syria ...................................4.2
12 Norway...............................6.1 71 Pakistan..............................4.2
13 Australia .............................6.1 72 Russian Federation ............4.2
14 Malaysia .............................6.0 73 Nicaragua ...........................4.1
15 Canada ...............................6.0 74 Zambia ...............................4.1
16 Sweden..............................6.0 75 Philippines..........................4.1
17 Belgium..............................6.0 76 Cambodia ...........................4.1
18 Austria................................5.9 77 Indonesia............................4.1
19 South Africa .......................5.9 78 China ..................................4.1
20 Israel ..................................5.9 79 Brazil ..................................4.0
21 New Zealand ......................5.9 80 Armenia..............................3.9
22 Spain ..................................5.7 81 Moldova .............................3.9
23 Korea, Rep. ........................5.7 82 Vietnam..............................3.9
24 Bahrain ...............................5.7 83 Madagascar........................3.9
25 Thailand..............................5.7 84 Kazakhstan .........................3.9
364 26 Qatar ..................................5.7 85 Venezuela...........................3.8
27 Taiwan, China.....................5.7 86 Romania .............................3.7
28 Chile ...................................5.7 87 Algeria ................................3.7
29 Japan..................................5.6 88 Slovak Republic..................3.7
30 Portugal..............................5.6 89 Peru....................................3.7
31 El Salvador .........................5.6 90 Mali ....................................3.6
32 Greece ...............................5.5 91 Poland ................................3.6
33 Jordan ................................5.5 92 Albania ...............................3.6
34 Dominican Republic ...........5.4 93 Tanzania..............................3.6
35 Panama ..............................5.4 94 Benin..................................3.5
36 Mauritius ............................5.4 95 Nigeria................................3.5
37 Jamaica ..............................5.4 96 Bulgaria ..............................3.5
38 Latvia..................................5.4 97 Mozambique ......................3.4
39 Tunisia ................................5.4 98 Nepal..................................3.4
40 Uzbekistan .........................5.3 99 Burkina Faso ......................3.4
41 Ireland ................................5.3 100 Uruguay..............................3.3
42 Saudi Arabia .......................5.3 101 Kyrgyz Republic .................3.3
43 Luxembourg.......................5.2 102 Uganda...............................3.3
44 Czech Republic ..................5.2 103 Argentina............................3.2
45 Turkey.................................5.1 104 Zimbabwe ..........................3.2
46 Azerbaijan...........................5.1 105 Guyana ...............................3.2
47 Kenya .................................5.1 106 Ukraine...............................3.2
48 Kuwait ................................5.1 107 Mauritania ..........................3.1
49 Estonia ...............................5.0 108 Bolivia.................................3.1
50 Oman .................................5.0 109 Tajikistan.............................3.0
51 Cyprus................................4.9 110 Macedonia, FYR.................3.0
52 Senegal ..............................4.9 111 Bangladesh ........................3.0
53 Ethiopia ..............................4.9 112 Burundi...............................2.9
54 Namibia ..............................4.9 113 Mongolia ............................2.8
55 Egypt..................................4.9 114 Chad...................................2.8
56 Mexico ...............................4.8 115 Bosnia and Herzegovina ....2.8
57 India ...................................4.8 116 Cameroon ..........................2.7
58 Colombia ............................4.7 117 Paraguay ............................2.6
59 Slovenia..............................4.7 118 Lesotho ..............................2.2
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 365
6.06 Quality of railroad infrastructure
Railroads in your country are (1 = underdeveloped, 7 = as extensive and efficient as the world’s best)
RANK COUNTRY/ECONOMY SCORE 1 MEAN: 3.1 7 ANKCOUNTRY/ECONOMY SCORE 1 MEAN: 3.1 7
1 Switzerland ........................6.8 60 Panama ..............................2.6

2 Japan..................................6.5 61 Moldova .............................2.5
3 France ................................6.5 62 Kyrgyz Republic .................2.5
4 Germany ............................6.4 63 Chile ...................................2.5
5 Hong Kong SAR .................6.2 64 Turkey.................................2.4
6 Belgium..............................5.8 65 Mongolia ............................2.4
7 Finland................................5.8 66 Algeria ................................2.4
8 Denmark ............................5.8 67 Tanzania..............................2.4
9 Singapore ...........................5.7 68 Bangladesh ........................2.3
10 Sweden..............................5.7 69 Vietnam..............................2.3
12 Korea, Rep. ........................5.6 71 Macedonia, FYR.................2.2
13 Taiwan, China.....................5.5 72 Kenya .................................2.1
14 United States .....................5.2 73 Argentina............................2.1
15 Canada ...............................5.2 74 United Arab Emirates.........2.1
16 Austria................................5.2 75 Cameroon ..........................1.9
17 Malaysia .............................5.1 76 Armenia..............................1.9
18 Luxembourg.......................5.0 77 Burkina Faso ......................1.9
19 Spain ..................................5.0 78 Mauritania ..........................1.9
20 United Kingdom .................4.8 79 Mozambique ......................1.8
21 Tunisia ................................4.6 80 Jordan ................................1.8
22 Australia .............................4.5 81 Philippines..........................1.7
23 India ...................................4.5 82 Brazil ..................................1.7
25 Czech Republic ..................4.4 84 Peru....................................1.7
26 Norway...............................4.3 85 Nigeria................................1.7 365
27 Slovak Republic..................4.3 86 Mali ....................................1.7
28 Portugal..............................4.3 87 Cambodia ...........................1.6
29 Russian Federation ............4.1 88 Guyana ...............................1.6
30 Lithuania.............................4.0 89 Madagascar........................1.6
31 Ukraine...............................4.0 90 Uruguay..............................1.6
32 Azerbaijan...........................3.9 91 Bosnia and Herzegovina ....1.6
33 China ..................................3.9 92 Bolivia.................................1.5
34 Namibia ..............................3.8 93 Benin..................................1.5
35 Latvia..................................3.8 94 Uganda...............................1.5
36 Israel ..................................3.7 95 Lesotho ..............................1.5
37 Estonia ...............................3.5 96 Senegal ..............................1.5
38 Thailand..............................3.5 97 Venezuela...........................1.4
39 Kazakhstan .........................3.5 98 Honduras............................1.4
40 Slovenia..............................3.5 99 Costa Rica ..........................1.4
41 South Africa .......................3.4 100 El Salvador .........................1.4
42 Hungary..............................3.4 101 Colombia ............................1.4
43 New Zealand ......................3.4 102 Ethiopia ..............................1.4
44 Pakistan..............................3.2 103 Guatemala..........................1.3
45 Bulgaria ..............................3.2 104 Albania ...............................1.3
46 Greece ...............................3.1 105 Nepal..................................1.3
47 Poland ................................3.1 106 Jamaica ..............................1.2
48 Croatia................................3.1 107 Dominican Republic ...........1.2
49 Morocco.............................3.0 108 Ecuador ..............................1.1
50 Italy ....................................3.0 109 Nicaragua ...........................1.1
51 Saudi Arabia .......................3.0 110 Paraguay ............................1.0
52 Ireland ................................3.0 n/a Bahrain ...............................n/a
53 Tajikistan.............................2.9 n/a Burundi...............................n/a
54 Egypt..................................2.9 n/a Chad ...................................n/a
55 Romania .............................2.9 n/a Cyprus ................................n/a
56 Zimbabwe ..........................2.9 n/a Kuwait ................................n/a
57 Sri Lanka ............................2.8 n/a Mauritius ............................n/a
58 Syria ...................................2.8 n/a Oman .................................n/a
59 Indonesia............................2.7 n/a Qatar ..................................n/a
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 366
6.07 Quality of roads
Roads in your country are (1 = underdeveloped, 7 = extensive and efficient by international standards)
1 France ................................6.7 60 Slovak Republic..................3.5

2 Singapore ...........................6.6 61 Azerbaijan...........................3.5
3 Switzerland ........................6.6 62 Morocco.............................3.5
4 Germany ............................6.6 63 Czech Republic ..................3.4
5 Denmark ............................6.4 64 Zimbabwe ..........................3.3
6 Hong Kong SAR .................6.3 65 Syria ...................................3.3
7 Austria................................6.2 66 Egypt..................................3.3
8 United States .....................6.2 67 Macedonia, FYR.................3.2
9 United Arab Emirates.........6.1 68 Armenia..............................3.1
10 Belgium..............................6.0 69 Sri Lanka ............................3.1
11 Canada ...............................5.9 70 Guyana ...............................3.1
12 Luxembourg.......................5.8 71 Latvia..................................3.1
13 Japan..................................5.8 72 Cambodia ...........................3.1
14 Malaysia .............................5.8 73 Algeria ................................3.1
15 Taiwan, China.....................5.7 74 India ...................................3.1
16 Netherlands........................5.7 75 Bangladesh ........................3.1
17 Sweden..............................5.7 76 Argentina............................2.9
18 Finland................................5.6 77 Ecuador ..............................2.9
19 Portugal..............................5.6 78 Tanzania..............................2.8
20 Korea, Rep. ........................5.6 79 Madagascar........................2.7
21 United Kingdom .................5.5 80 Mali ....................................2.7
22 Chile ...................................5.4 81 Philippines..........................2.7
23 Cyprus................................5.4 82 Venezuela...........................2.7
24 Spain ..................................5.3 83 Benin..................................2.7
25 Australia .............................5.3 84 Colombia ............................2.6
366 26 Thailand..............................5.2 85 Peru....................................2.6
27 Kuwait ................................5.1 86 Senegal ..............................2.6
28 Oman .................................5.0 87 Vietnam..............................2.6
29 Israel ..................................5.0 88 Poland ................................2.6
30 El Salvador .........................5.0 89 Kenya .................................2.5
31 Lithuania.............................5.0 90 Uganda...............................2.5
32 Bahrain ...............................4.9 91 Nicaragua ...........................2.5
33 Tunisia ................................4.9 92 Ethiopia ..............................2.5
34 Namibia ..............................4.9 93 Kyrgyz Republic .................2.4
35 Croatia................................4.9 94 Bulgaria ..............................2.4
36 Jordan ................................4.8 95 Russian Federation ............2.4
37 South Africa .......................4.7 96 Burkina Faso ......................2.4
38 Saudi Arabia .......................4.7 97 Kazakhstan .........................2.3
39 Slovenia..............................4.5 98 Brazil ..................................2.3
40 Mauritius ............................4.4 99 Zambia ...............................2.3
41 Norway...............................4.4 100 Tajikistan.............................2.3
42 Qatar ..................................4.3 101 Indonesia............................2.3
43 Greece ...............................4.2 102 Albania ...............................2.2
44 New Zealand ......................4.2 103 Nigeria................................2.2
45 Uruguay..............................4.1 104 Ukraine...............................2.2
46 Turkey.................................4.0 105 Nepal..................................2.1
47 Italy ....................................4.0 106 Mauritania ..........................2.1
48 Panama ..............................4.0 107 Lesotho ..............................2.1
49 China ..................................3.9 108 Cameroon ..........................2.0
50 Uzbekistan .........................3.9 109 Costa Rica ..........................2.0
51 Estonia ...............................3.8 110 Burundi...............................2.0
52 Guatemala..........................3.8 111 Romania .............................2.0
53 Dominican Republic ...........3.7 112 Mozambique ......................2.0
54 Jamaica ..............................3.6 113 Bolivia.................................1.9
55 Mexico ...............................3.6 114 Paraguay ............................1.9
56 Ireland ................................3.6 115 Bosnia and Herzegovina ....1.7
57 Pakistan..............................3.6 116 Moldova .............................1.7
58 Honduras............................3.5 117 Mongolia ............................1.6
59 Hungary..............................3.5 118 Chad...................................1.5
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 367
6.08 Quality of port infrastructure
Port facilities and inland waterways in your country are (1 = underdeveloped, 7 = as developed as the world’s best)*
RANK COUNTRY/ECONOMY SCORE: 1 MEAN: 4.0 7 RANK COUNTRY/ECONOMY SCORE: 1 MEAN: 4.0 7
1 Singapore ...........................6.8 60 Burkina Faso1.....................3.9

2 Netherlands........................6.7 61 Pakistan..............................3.7
3 Hong Kong SAR .................6.5 62 Mali1 ..................................3.7
4 Germany ............................6.5 63 Zambia1 ..............................3.7
5 Denmark ............................6.4 64 Hungary1 ............................3.7
6 Belgium..............................6.4 65 Russian Federation ............3.7
7 Finland................................6.2 66 Guatemala..........................3.7
8 United Arab Emirates.........6.0 67 Dominican Republic ...........3.6
9 Sweden..............................5.9 68 Senegal ..............................3.6
10 France ................................5.9 69 Bulgaria ..............................3.6
11 United States .....................5.8 70 Egypt..................................3.5
12 Malaysia .............................5.7 71 India ...................................3.5
13 Canada ...............................5.7 72 El Salvador .........................3.5
14 Panama ..............................5.7 73 Macedonia, FYR1 ...............3.5
15 Norway...............................5.6 74 Turkey.................................3.4
16 Japan..................................5.5 75 Cambodia ...........................3.4
17 Switzerland1 .......................5.5 76 Kenya .................................3.4
18 Taiwan, China.....................5.5 77 Ukraine...............................3.4
19 Korea, Rep. ........................5.5 78 Bolivia1 ...............................3.3
20 United Kingdom .................5.4 79 Kazakhstan1 .......................3.3
21 New Zealand ......................5.4 80 Croatia................................3.3
22 Luxembourg1 .....................5.4 81 Algeria ................................3.3
23 Spain ..................................5.3 82 Mexico ...............................3.3
24 Estonia ...............................5.3 83 Tanzania..............................3.2
25 Bahrain ...............................5.3 84 Argentina............................3.2
26 Jamaica ..............................5.2 85 Poland ................................3.2 367
27 Australia .............................5.1 86 Syria ...................................3.1
28 Namibia ..............................5.0 87 Italy ....................................3.1
29 Austria1 ..............................5.0 88 Burundi1 .............................3.0
30 Chile ...................................4.8 89 Romania .............................3.0
31 Oman .................................4.8 90 Nepal1 ................................3.0
32 Tunisia ................................4.8 91 Benin..................................2.9
33 Israel ..................................4.8 92 Philippines..........................2.8
34 Portugal..............................4.8 93 Ecuador ..............................2.8
35 Cyprus................................4.8 94 Armenia1 ............................2.8
36 Honduras............................4.7 95 Chad1 .................................2.8
37 Mauritius ............................4.7 96 Vietnam..............................2.8
38 Thailand..............................4.7 97 Lesotho1 ............................2.8
39 Saudi Arabia .......................4.5 98 Colombia ............................2.7
40 Slovak Republic1 ................4.5 99 Mozambique ......................2.7
41 Latvia..................................4.5 100 Guyana ...............................2.7
42 Slovenia..............................4.5 101 Nigeria................................2.7
43 Azerbaijan1 .........................4.4 102 Indonesia............................2.7
44 South Africa .......................4.4 103 Mauritania ..........................2.6
45 Greece ...............................4.4 104 Brazil ..................................2.6
46 Qatar ..................................4.4 105 Venezuela...........................2.6
47 Uruguay..............................4.3 106 Cameroon ..........................2.6
48 Czech Republic1.................4.3 107 Mongolia1 ..........................2.5
49 Jordan ................................4.3 108 Madagascar........................2.4
50 Kuwait ................................4.2 109 Bangladesh ........................2.4
51 Ethiopia1 ............................4.1 110 Peru....................................2.4
52 Paraguay1 ...........................4.1 111 Uzbekistan1 ........................2.3
53 Zimbabwe1 ........................4.1 112 Nicaragua ...........................2.3
54 Lithuania.............................4.1 113 Costa Rica ..........................2.2
55 Sri Lanka ............................4.1 114 Albania ...............................2.1
56 Morocco.............................4.1 115 Moldova1 ...........................2.0
57 Ireland ................................4.0 116 Bosnia and Herzegovina ....1.6
58 Uganda1 .............................4.0 117 Kyrgyz Republic1 ................1.5
59 China ..................................4.0 118 Tajikistan1 ...........................1.4
*For landlocked countries, this measures the ease of access to port facilities and inland waterways.
1 landlocked
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 368
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 369
7th pillar
Availability and quality
of transport services
369
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 370
2.2: Data Tables | 7th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
7.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index (hard data)
Quantity of services provided by liner companies | 2007
1 China .................................127.8 60 Slovenia...............................12.9

2 Hong Kong SAR ................106.2 61 Croatia .................................12.3
3 Germany .............................88.9 62 Cameroon ...........................11.7
4 Singapore ............................87.5 63 Benin ...................................11.2
5 Netherlands.........................84.8 64 Kenya ..................................10.9
6 United States ......................83.7 65 Finland.................................10.7
7 Malaysia ..............................81.6 66 Tanzania...............................10.6
8 Korea, Rep. .........................77.2 67 Morocco ................................9.0
9 United Kingdom ..................76.8 68 Ireland ...................................8.9
10 Belgium ...............................73.9 69 Honduras...............................8.8
11 Spain ...................................71.3 70 Namibia .................................8.4
12 France .................................64.8 71 Madagascar...........................8.0
13 Japan...................................62.7 72 El Salvador ............................7.9
14 Taiwan, China ......................62.4 73 Mauritania .............................7.9
15 Italy .....................................58.8 74 Nicaragua ..............................7.9
16 United Arab Emirates..........48.2 75 Poland ...................................7.9
17 Egypt ...................................45.4 76 Algeria ...................................7.9
18 Saudi Arabia ........................45.0 77 Norway..................................7.8
19 Sri Lanka .............................42.4 78 Tunisia ...................................7.2
20 India ....................................40.5 79 Mozambique .........................7.1
21 Thailand ...............................35.3 80 Lithuania................................6.8
22 Canada ................................34.4 81 Bangladesh ...........................6.4
23 Turkey..................................32.6 82 Paraguay ...............................6.3
24 Brazil ...................................31.6 83 Kuwait ...................................6.2
25 Mexico ................................31.0 84 Bahrain ..................................6.0
370 26 Greece ................................30.7 85 Latvia.....................................5.9
27 Panama ...............................30.5 86 Estonia ..................................5.8
28 Colombia .............................29.1 87 Bulgaria .................................4.8
29 Oman ..................................29.0 88 Guyana ..................................4.3
30 South Africa ........................27.5 89 Qatar .....................................3.6
31 Australia ..............................26.8 90 Switzerland ...........................3.3
32 Indonesia.............................26.3 91 Cambodia ..............................3.2
33 Sweden ...............................25.8 92 Albania ..................................2.3
34 Argentina.............................25.6 93 Czech Republic .....................0.4
35 Jamaica ...............................25.5 n/a Armenia .................................n/a
36 Portugal ...............................25.4 n/a Austria ...................................n/a
37 Pakistan...............................24.8 n/a Azerbaijan ..............................n/a
38 Romania ..............................22.5 n/a Bolivia ....................................n/a
39 Denmark .............................22.1 n/a Bosnia and Herzegovina........n/a
40 Israel ...................................21.4 n/a Burkina Faso..........................n/a
41 Uruguay...............................21.3 n/a Burundi ..................................n/a
42 New Zealand .......................20.6 n/a Chad ......................................n/a
43 Venezuela ............................20.3 n/a Ethiopia .................................n/a
44 Dominican Republic ............19.9 n/a Hungary .................................n/a
45 Philippines ...........................18.4 n/a Kazakhstan ............................n/a
46 Cyprus .................................18.0 n/a Kyrgyz Republic.....................n/a
47 Vietnam ...............................17.6 n/a Lesotho .................................n/a
48 Chile ....................................17.5 n/a Luxembourg ..........................n/a
49 Mauritius .............................17.2 n/a Macedonia, FYR ....................n/a
50 Senegal ...............................17.1 n/a Mali .......................................n/a
51 Peru.....................................16.9 n/a Moldova ................................n/a
52 Ukraine ................................16.7 n/a Mongolia ...............................n/a
53 Jordan .................................16.5 n/a Nepal .....................................n/a
54 Guatemala ...........................15.4 n/a Slovak Republic .....................n/a
55 Costa Rica ...........................15.3 n/a Tajikistan................................n/a
56 Ecuador ...............................14.3 n/a Uganda ..................................n/a
57 Syria ....................................14.2 n/a Uzbekistan.............................n/a
58 Russian Federation .............14.1 n/a Zambia...................................n/a
59 Nigeria .................................13.7 n/a Zimbabwe .............................n/a
SOURCE: UNCTAD, Transport Section, Trade Logistics Branch
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 371
7.02 Ease and affordability of shipment
Ease and affordability of arranging international shipments (1 = very low, 5 = very high) | 2007
1 Netherlands...........................4.1 59 El Salvador ............................2.8

2 Singapore ..............................4.0 61 Philippines .............................2.8
3 Austria ...................................4.0 62 Morocco ................................2.8
4 Germany ...............................3.9 63 Pakistan.................................2.7
5 Sweden .................................3.9 64 Croatia ...................................2.7
6 United Kingdom ....................3.9 64 Venezuela ..............................2.7
7 Canada ..................................3.8 66 Burkina Faso .........................2.7
7 Hong Kong SAR ....................3.8 66 Macedonia, FYR....................2.7
9 Japan.....................................3.8 68 Ecuador .................................2.6
9 New Zealand .........................3.8 69 Guatemala .............................2.6
11 Ireland ...................................3.8 70 Brazil .....................................2.6
12 Australia ................................3.7 70 Colombia ...............................2.6
13 United Arab Emirates............3.7 72 Kuwait ...................................2.6
14 Denmark ...............................3.7 72 Mauritania .............................2.6
14 Switzerland ...........................3.7 74 Oman ....................................2.6
16 Belgium .................................3.7 75 Costa Rica .............................2.5
16 Taiwan, China ........................3.7 75 Ukraine ..................................2.5
18 France ...................................3.6 77 Azerbaijan..............................2.5
19 Norway..................................3.6 77 Bosnia and Herzegovina .......2.5
20 United States ........................3.6 77 Burundi..................................2.5
21 Italy .......................................3.6 77 Lesotho .................................2.5
22 South Africa ..........................3.6 77 Mongolia ...............................2.5
23 Spain .....................................3.5 82 Nigeria ...................................2.5
24 Korea, Rep. ...........................3.4 83 Honduras...............................2.5
25 Malaysia ................................3.4 83 Russian Federation ...............2.5
26 Bahrain ..................................3.3 85 Cambodia ..............................2.5 371
27 China .....................................3.3 86 Bangladesh ...........................2.5
27 Latvia.....................................3.3 87 Ethiopia .................................2.4
29 Finland...................................3.3 88 Bolivia....................................2.4
30 Israel .....................................3.3 88 Uganda ..................................2.4
31 Thailand .................................3.2 90 Uruguay.................................2.4
32 Portugal .................................3.2 90 Zambia ..................................2.4
33 Chile ......................................3.2 92 Moldova ................................2.4
34 Romania ................................3.2 93 Kyrgyz Republic.....................2.4
35 Slovenia.................................3.1 94 Dominican Republic ..............2.3
36 Greece ..................................3.1 95 Albania ..................................2.3
37 Slovak Republic.....................3.1 95 Cameroon .............................2.3
38 India ......................................3.1 95 Egypt .....................................2.3
38 Jordan ...................................3.1 98 Sri Lanka ...............................2.3
40 Hungary.................................3.1 99 Paraguay ...............................2.3
40 Turkey....................................3.1 100 Zimbabwe .............................2.3
42 Czech Republic .....................3.1 101 Madagascar...........................2.3
43 Indonesia...............................3.1 101 Mozambique .........................2.3
44 Lithuania................................3.0 103 Mali .......................................2.2
44 Luxembourg ..........................3.0 104 Mauritius ...............................2.2
44 Qatar .....................................3.0 105 Nicaragua ..............................2.2
44 Vietnam .................................3.0 106 Namibia .................................2.1
48 Argentina...............................3.0 107 Jamaica .................................2.1
49 Saudi Arabia ..........................2.9 108 Kazakhstan ............................2.1
50 Cyprus ...................................2.9 109 Nepal .....................................2.1
50 Poland ...................................2.9 109 Senegal .................................2.1
52 Mexico ..................................2.9 111 Tanzania.................................2.1
52 Peru.......................................2.9 112 Uzbekistan ............................2.1
54 Tunisia ...................................2.9 113 Algeria ...................................2.0
55 Estonia ..................................2.9 113 Armenia.................................2.0
56 Panama .................................2.8 113 Syria ......................................2.0
57 Bulgaria .................................2.8 113 Tajikistan................................2.0
57 Kenya ....................................2.8 117 Chad ......................................1.8
59 Benin .....................................2.8 118 Guyana ..................................1.8
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 372
7.03 Competence of the logistics industry
Competence of the local logistics industry (e.g., transport operators, customs brokers) (1 = very low, 5 = very high) | 2007
1 Netherlands...........................4.3 60 Pakistan.................................2.7
2 Germany ...............................4.2 61 Lithuania................................2.7
2 Singapore ..............................4.2 61 Mauritania .............................2.7
4 Austria ...................................4.1 63 Oman ....................................2.7
5 Japan.....................................4.1 64 Philippines .............................2.7
6 Sweden .................................4.1 65 Ecuador .................................2.6
7 United Kingdom ....................4.0 66 Paraguay ...............................2.6
8 Switzerland ...........................4.0 67 Venezuela ..............................2.6
9 Hong Kong SAR ....................4.0 68 Benin .....................................2.6
10 Belgium .................................4.0 69 Uganda ..................................2.6
11 Ireland ...................................3.9 70 El Salvador ............................2.5
12 Canada ..................................3.9 71 Burundi..................................2.5
12 Finland...................................3.9 71 Guatemala .............................2.5
12 United States ........................3.9 73 Cambodia ..............................2.5
15 Denmark ...............................3.8 74 Russian Federation ...............2.5
16 New Zealand .........................3.8 75 Sri Lanka ...............................2.5
17 Norway..................................3.8 75 Uruguay.................................2.5
18 Australia ................................3.8 77 Colombia ...............................2.4
18 France ...................................3.8 77 Zambia ..................................2.4
20 United Arab Emirates............3.7 79 Costa Rica .............................2.4
21 Italy .......................................3.6 79 Tunisia ...................................2.4
21 Korea, Rep. ...........................3.6 81 Honduras...............................2.4
23 Taiwan, China ........................3.6 81 Nicaragua ..............................2.4
24 Spain .....................................3.6 81 Ukraine ..................................2.4
25 South Africa ..........................3.5 84 Egypt .....................................2.4
372 26 China .....................................3.4 84 Nigeria ...................................2.4
26 Malaysia ................................3.4 86 Bosnia and Herzegovina .......2.4
28 Greece ..................................3.3 87 Mozambique .........................2.4
29 Thailand .................................3.3 88 Kyrgyz Republic.....................2.4
30 Turkey....................................3.3 89 Bangladesh ...........................2.3
31 India ......................................3.3 89 Burkina Faso .........................2.3
32 Israel .....................................3.2 89 Macedonia, FYR....................2.3
33 Luxembourg ..........................3.2 92 Kenya ....................................2.3
34 Chile ......................................3.2 93 Cameroon .............................2.3
34 Portugal .................................3.2 93 Dominican Republic ..............2.3
36 Slovenia.................................3.1 95 Mali .......................................2.2
37 Hungary.................................3.1 95 Moldova ................................2.2
38 Poland ...................................3.0 95 Zimbabwe .............................2.2
39 Argentina...............................3.0 98 Lesotho .................................2.2
39 Czech Republic .....................3.0 99 Bolivia....................................2.2
39 Estonia ..................................3.0 100 Uzbekistan ............................2.2
39 Jordan ...................................3.0 101 Morocco ................................2.1
39 Kuwait ...................................3.0 102 Armenia.................................2.1
39 Qatar .....................................3.0 103 Nepal .....................................2.1
39 Slovak Republic.....................3.0 104 Jamaica .................................2.1
46 Brazil .....................................2.9 105 Kazakhstan ............................2.1
46 Latvia.....................................2.9 106 Albania ..................................2.0
48 Indonesia...............................2.9 106 Azerbaijan..............................2.0
49 Saudi Arabia ..........................2.9 106 Ethiopia .................................2.0
50 Bulgaria .................................2.9 106 Madagascar...........................2.0
50 Romania ................................2.9 110 Guyana ..................................2.0
52 Croatia ...................................2.8 111 Algeria ...................................1.9
53 Mexico ..................................2.8 111 Tanzania.................................1.9
53 Vietnam .................................2.8 113 Tajikistan................................1.9
55 Cyprus ...................................2.8 114 Namibia .................................1.8
56 Bahrain ..................................2.8 115 Chad ......................................1.8
57 Panama .................................2.7 116 Mongolia ...............................1.8
57 Peru.......................................2.7 116 Syria ......................................1.8
57 Senegal .................................2.7 118 Mauritius ...............................1.8
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 373
7.04 Ability and ease of tracking
Ability to track and trace international shipments (1 = very low, 5 = very high) | 2007
1 Singapore ..............................4.3 59 Oman ....................................2.8

2 Finland...................................4.2 59 Zambia ..................................2.8
3 Sweden .................................4.2 62 Brazil .....................................2.8
4 Netherlands...........................4.1 63 Peru.......................................2.7
5 Germany ...............................4.1 64 Paraguay ...............................2.7
6 United Kingdom ....................4.1 65 Philippines .............................2.7
7 Japan.....................................4.1 66 Zimbabwe .............................2.6
8 Hong Kong SAR ....................4.1 67 Colombia ...............................2.6
9 Switzerland ...........................4.0 68 Egypt .....................................2.6
10 United States ........................4.0 68 Kenya ....................................2.6
11 Canada ..................................4.0 70 Lithuania................................2.6
12 Australia ................................4.0 71 Sri Lanka ...............................2.6
12 Austria ...................................4.0 72 Costa Rica .............................2.6
14 Belgium .................................4.0 72 Pakistan.................................2.6
14 Ireland ...................................4.0 72 Uruguay.................................2.6
16 France ...................................3.9 75 Venezuela ..............................2.5
17 Denmark ...............................3.8 76 Cambodia ..............................2.5
18 South Africa ..........................3.7 76 Ukraine ..................................2.5
19 New Zealand .........................3.7 78 Cameroon .............................2.5
20 Norway..................................3.7 78 Macedonia, FYR....................2.5
21 Italy .......................................3.7 78 Moldova ................................2.5
22 Spain .....................................3.6 81 Bangladesh ...........................2.5
23 United Arab Emirates............3.6 81 Croatia ...................................2.5
24 Taiwan, China ........................3.6 83 Ecuador .................................2.5
25 Korea, Rep. ...........................3.6 84 Guatemala .............................2.4
25 Luxembourg ..........................3.6 85 Honduras...............................2.4 373
27 Greece ..................................3.5 86 Azerbaijan..............................2.4
28 Malaysia ................................3.5 86 Bolivia....................................2.4
29 Israel .....................................3.5 86 Kyrgyz Republic.....................2.4
30 Portugal .................................3.4 86 Mali .......................................2.4
31 China .....................................3.4 90 Nigeria ...................................2.4
32 Kuwait ...................................3.3 91 Guyana ..................................2.4
33 Indonesia...............................3.3 92 Nepal .....................................2.3
34 Czech Republic .....................3.3 92 Uganda ..................................2.3
34 Turkey....................................3.3 94 Senegal .................................2.3
36 Thailand .................................3.3 95 Bosnia and Herzegovina .......2.3
37 Chile ......................................3.2 96 Dominican Republic ..............2.3
37 Qatar .....................................3.2 97 Algeria ...................................2.3
39 Bulgaria .................................3.1 98 Mauritius ...............................2.3
40 Poland ...................................3.1 99 Jamaica .................................2.2
41 Latvia.....................................3.1 100 Armenia.................................2.2
42 India ......................................3.0 101 Kazakhstan ............................2.2
43 Saudi Arabia ..........................3.0 101 Madagascar...........................2.2
44 Argentina...............................3.0 101 Nicaragua ..............................2.2
44 Bahrain ..................................3.0 104 Russian Federation ...............2.2
44 Hungary.................................3.0 104 Tanzania.................................2.2
47 Mexico ..................................3.0 106 Burkina Faso .........................2.1
48 Panama .................................2.9 107 Uzbekistan ............................2.1
49 Cyprus ...................................2.9 108 Burundi..................................2.0
50 Slovenia.................................2.9 108 Mongolia ...............................2.0
51 Vietnam .................................2.9 108 Morocco ................................2.0
52 Benin .....................................2.9 108 Mozambique .........................2.0
53 Slovak Republic.....................2.9 108 Syria ......................................2.0
54 Romania ................................2.9 113 Chad ......................................1.9
55 Jordan ...................................2.9 114 Ethiopia .................................1.8
56 Estonia ..................................2.8 114 Lesotho .................................1.8
57 Tunisia ...................................2.8 114 Namibia .................................1.8
58 El Salvador ............................2.8 117 Albania ..................................1.7
59 Mauritania .............................2.8 117 Tajikistan................................1.7
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 374
7.05 Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination
Frequency of shipments reaching the consignee within the scheduled delivery time (1 = very low, 5 = very high) | 2007
1 Singapore ..............................4.5 60 Cyprus ...................................3.3

2 Switzerland ...........................4.5 61 Guatemala .............................3.2
3 Austria ...................................4.4 61 Paraguay ...............................3.2
4 Sweden .................................4.4 63 Vietnam .................................3.2
5 Netherlands...........................4.4 64 Romania ................................3.2
6 Japan.....................................4.3 65 Jordan ...................................3.2
7 Germany ...............................4.3 66 Philippines .............................3.1
7 Hong Kong SAR ....................4.3 67 Brazil .....................................3.1
9 Ireland ...................................4.3 67 Mauritania .............................3.1
10 Belgium .................................4.3 69 El Salvador ............................3.1
10 United Kingdom ....................4.3 70 Cambodia ..............................3.1
12 Norway..................................4.2 71 Venezuela ..............................3.0
13 Canada ..................................4.2 72 Bahrain ..................................3.0
14 Finland...................................4.2 72 Bosnia and Herzegovina .......3.0
14 Taiwan, China ........................4.2 72 Namibia .................................3.0
16 Greece ..................................4.1 72 Peru.......................................3.0
17 United Arab Emirates............4.1 72 Uruguay.................................3.0
18 Denmark ...............................4.1 77 Colombia ...............................2.9
18 United States ........................4.1 77 Russian Federation ...............2.9
20 Australia ................................4.1 79 Pakistan.................................2.9
21 Portugal .................................4.1 80 Kenya ....................................2.9
22 New Zealand .........................4.1 81 Costa Rica .............................2.9
23 France ...................................4.0 81 Dominican Republic ..............2.9
24 Luxembourg ..........................4.0 83 Honduras...............................2.9
24 Oman ....................................4.0 83 Mali .......................................2.9
374 26 Malaysia ................................4.0 85 Morocco ................................2.9
27 Italy .......................................3.9 86 Egypt .....................................2.9
28 Thailand .................................3.9 86 Zimbabwe .............................2.9
29 Korea, Rep. ...........................3.9 88 Lesotho .................................2.8
29 Spain .....................................3.9 88 Macedonia, FYR....................2.8
31 South Africa ..........................3.8 88 Mozambique .........................2.8
32 Kuwait ...................................3.8 91 Algeria ...................................2.8
33 Slovenia.................................3.7 92 Bolivia....................................2.8
34 Hungary.................................3.7 93 Tunisia ...................................2.8
34 Latvia.....................................3.7 94 Benin .....................................2.8
36 China .....................................3.7 95 Kyrgyz Republic.....................2.8
37 Ethiopia .................................3.7 96 Nepal .....................................2.8
37 Qatar .....................................3.7 97 Moldova ................................2.7
39 Saudi Arabia ..........................3.7 97 Uzbekistan ............................2.7
40 Poland ...................................3.6 99 Nigeria ...................................2.7
41 Israel .....................................3.6 99 Sri Lanka ...............................2.7
42 Bulgaria .................................3.6 101 Madagascar...........................2.7
42 Czech Republic .....................3.6 101 Syria ......................................2.7
44 Chile ......................................3.6 103 Jamaica .................................2.7
45 Argentina...............................3.5 103 Kazakhstan ............................2.7
46 India ......................................3.5 105 Armenia.................................2.6
47 Croatia ...................................3.5 105 Azerbaijan..............................2.6
48 Panama .................................3.4 105 Senegal .................................2.6
49 Lithuania................................3.4 108 Chad ......................................2.6
49 Mexico ..................................3.4 109 Guyana ..................................2.5
51 Turkey....................................3.4 109 Nicaragua ..............................2.5
52 Estonia ..................................3.4 109 Zambia ..................................2.5
53 Bangladesh ...........................3.3 112 Mauritius ...............................2.3
54 Ukraine ..................................3.3 113 Tanzania.................................2.3
55 Cameroon .............................3.3 114 Burkina Faso .........................2.3
55 Uganda ..................................3.3 114 Mongolia ...............................2.3
57 Indonesia...............................3.3 116 Albania ..................................2.1
58 Ecuador .................................3.3 117 Tajikistan................................2.1
59 Slovak Republic.....................3.3 118 Burundi..................................2.0
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 375
7.06 Postal service efficiency
Do you trust your country’s postal system sufficiently to have a friend mail a package worth US$100 to you? (1 = not at all, 7 = yes, trust the system
entirely)
1 Japan..................................6.8 60 Mongolia ............................4.2

2 Denmark ............................6.6 61 Ukraine...............................4.2
3 Germany ............................6.6 62 Tanzania..............................4.1
4 Switzerland ........................6.6 63 Armenia..............................4.1
5 Singapore ...........................6.6 64 Indonesia............................4.1
6 United States .....................6.5 65 Mali ....................................4.0
7 Hong Kong SAR .................6.5 66 Pakistan..............................4.0
8 Finland................................6.5 67 El Salvador .........................3.9
9 Australia .............................6.4 68 Bulgaria ..............................3.8
10 Taiwan, China.....................6.4 69 Namibia ..............................3.7
11 Norway...............................6.4 70 Benin..................................3.7
12 Luxembourg.......................6.4 71 Moldova .............................3.6
13 New Zealand ......................6.3 72 Colombia ............................3.5
14 Slovenia..............................6.3 73 Kyrgyz Republic .................3.4
15 France ................................6.2 74 Argentina............................3.4
16 Netherlands........................6.2 75 South Africa .......................3.4
17 Canada ...............................6.2 76 Jamaica ..............................3.3
18 Austria................................6.2 77 Kuwait ................................3.2
19 Sweden..............................6.1 78 Madagascar........................3.2
20 Portugal..............................6.0 79 Ethiopia ..............................3.2
21 Cyprus................................6.0 80 Kenya .................................3.2
22 Qatar ..................................6.0 81 Tajikistan.............................3.2
23 Korea, Rep. ........................5.9 82 Algeria ................................3.1
24 Ireland ................................5.9 83 Uganda...............................3.1
25 Slovak Republic..................5.8 84 Nicaragua ...........................3.1
26 Estonia ...............................5.8 85 Sri Lanka ............................3.1 375
27 United Kingdom .................5.7 86 Costa Rica ..........................3.1
28 United Arab Emirates.........5.5 87 Bolivia.................................3.1
29 Greece ...............................5.5 88 Peru....................................3.0
30 Malaysia .............................5.4 89 Panama ..............................2.9
31 Brazil ..................................5.4 90 Uruguay..............................2.9
32 Israel ..................................5.4 91 Bangladesh ........................2.7
33 Vietnam..............................5.3 92 Guatemala..........................2.7
34 Jordan ................................5.2 93 Mexico ...............................2.7
35 Czech Republic ..................5.2 94 Chad...................................2.7
36 Tunisia ................................5.2 95 Philippines..........................2.7
37 Belgium..............................5.2 96 Cambodia ...........................2.7
38 Bahrain ...............................5.2 97 Guyana ...............................2.6
39 Spain ..................................5.2 98 Zimbabwe ..........................2.6
40 Chile ...................................5.1 99 Mozambique ......................2.5
41 Mauritius ............................5.0 100 Albania ...............................2.4
42 Italy ....................................5.0 101 Ecuador ..............................2.4
43 China ..................................5.0 102 Honduras............................2.3
44 Croatia................................4.9 103 Nigeria................................2.1
45 India ...................................4.9 104 Paraguay ............................2.0
46 Thailand..............................4.9 105 Cameroon ..........................2.0
47 Morocco.............................4.8 106 Venezuela...........................1.6
48 Romania .............................4.8 107 Dominican Republic ...........1.5
49 Lithuania.............................4.7 n/a Burkina Faso ......................n/a
50 Hungary..............................4.7 n/a Burundi...............................n/a
51 Latvia..................................4.5 n/a Lesotho ..............................n/a
52 Egypt..................................4.5 n/a Mauritania ..........................n/a
53 Azerbaijan...........................4.5 n/a Nepal ..................................n/a
54 Kazakhstan .........................4.5 n/a Oman .................................n/a
55 Bosnia and Herzegovina ....4.5 n/a Saudi Arabia .......................n/a
56 Poland ................................4.4 n/a Senegal ..............................n/a
57 Turkey.................................4.4 n/a Syria ...................................n/a
58 Russian Federation ............4.3 n/a Uzbekistan..........................n/a
59 Macedonia, FYR.................4.3 n/a Zambia................................n/a
SOURCE: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey 2005
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 376
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 377
8th pillar
Availability and use of ICTs
377
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 378
2.2: Data Tables | 8th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs

8.01 Firm-level technology absorption
Companies in your country are (1 = not able to absorb new technology, 7 = aggressive in absorbing new technology)
1 Sweden..............................6.3 60 Sri Lanka ............................4.7

2 Japan..................................6.2 61 Cyprus................................4.7
3 United States .....................6.1 62 Latvia..................................4.7
4 Israel ..................................6.1 63 Indonesia............................4.7
5 Switzerland ........................6.1 64 Egypt..................................4.7
6 Finland................................6.1 65 Pakistan..............................4.6
7 Taiwan, China.....................6.0 66 Madagascar........................4.6
8 Singapore ...........................6.0 67 Venezuela...........................4.6
9 Denmark ............................6.0 68 Mauritius ............................4.6
10 Norway...............................6.0 69 Zambia ...............................4.6
11 Austria................................6.0 70 Kazakhstan .........................4.5
12 Korea, Rep. ........................6.0 71 Poland ................................4.5
13 Germany ............................6.0 72 Mali ....................................4.5
14 Malaysia .............................5.8 73 Italy ....................................4.4
15 Hong Kong SAR .................5.8 74 Nigeria................................4.4
16 United Arab Emirates.........5.7 75 Armenia..............................4.4
17 Australia .............................5.7 76 Benin..................................4.4
18 United Kingdom .................5.6 77 Burkina Faso ......................4.4
19 Canada ...............................5.6 78 Romania .............................4.4
20 India ...................................5.6 79 El Salvador .........................4.4
21 Ireland ................................5.5 80 Namibia ..............................4.4
22 Senegal ..............................5.5 81 Mexico ...............................4.4
23 New Zealand ......................5.5 82 Tanzania..............................4.4
24 Estonia ...............................5.5 83 Greece ...............................4.4
25 Netherlands........................5.5 84 Ukraine...............................4.4
378 26 France ................................5.4 85 Peru....................................4.3
27 Turkey.................................5.4 86 Croatia................................4.3
28 South Africa .......................5.4 87 Cameroon ..........................4.3
29 Belgium..............................5.3 88 Colombia ............................4.2
30 Kuwait ................................5.3 89 Oman .................................4.2
31 Qatar ..................................5.3 90 Algeria ................................4.2
32 Slovak Republic..................5.3 91 Argentina............................4.2
33 Czech Republic ..................5.3 92 Honduras............................4.2
34 Luxembourg.......................5.3 93 Uruguay..............................4.2
35 Tunisia ................................5.2 94 Cambodia ...........................4.2
36 Chile ...................................5.2 95 Russian Federation ............4.1
37 Mauritania ..........................5.2 96 Syria ...................................4.1
38 Bahrain ...............................5.2 97 Uganda...............................4.1
39 Jordan ................................5.2 98 Bangladesh ........................4.0
40 Portugal..............................5.2 99 Mongolia ............................4.0
41 Thailand..............................5.2 100 Moldova .............................3.8
42 Lithuania.............................5.1 101 Ecuador ..............................3.8
43 Vietnam..............................5.1 102 Albania ...............................3.8
44 Saudi Arabia .......................5.0 103 Nepal..................................3.7
45 Hungary..............................5.0 104 Burundi...............................3.7
46 Panama ..............................5.0 105 Tajikistan.............................3.7
47 China ..................................5.0 106 Guyana ...............................3.7
48 Morocco.............................5.0 107 Lesotho ..............................3.7
49 Philippines..........................4.9 108 Mozambique ......................3.6
50 Jamaica ..............................4.9 109 Bulgaria ..............................3.6
51 Uzbekistan .........................4.9 110 Zimbabwe ..........................3.6
52 Brazil ..................................4.9 111 Ethiopia ..............................3.5
53 Costa Rica ..........................4.9 112 Kyrgyz Republic .................3.5
54 Kenya .................................4.9 113 Chad...................................3.5
55 Azerbaijan...........................4.9 114 Nicaragua ...........................3.5
56 Guatemala..........................4.8 115 Bosnia and Herzegovina ....3.5
57 Spain ..................................4.8 116 Macedonia, FYR.................3.4
58 Slovenia..............................4.8 117 Paraguay ............................3.4
59 Dominican Republic ...........4.8 118 Bolivia.................................3.2
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 379
8.02 Mobile telephone subscribers (hard data)

Mobile telephone subscribers per 100 population | 2006 or most recent year available
1 Luxembourg ......................151.6 60 Thailand ...............................63.0

2 Lithuania............................138.1 61 Algeria .................................63.0
3 Hong Kong SAR ................131.5 62 Mauritius .............................61.5
4 Estonia ..............................125.2 63 Guatemala ...........................55.6
5 Italy1 ..................................123.1 64 El Salvador ..........................55.0
6 Israel .................................122.7 65 Kazakhstan ..........................52.9
7 Bahrain ..............................121.7 66 Mexico ................................52.6
8 Czech Republic .................119.0 67 Canada1...............................52.5
9 United Arab Emirates........118.5 68 Panama1..............................52.5
10 United Kingdom ................116.4 69 Morocco ..............................52.1
11 Portugal .............................116.0 70 Paraguay .............................51.3
12 Austria ...............................112.8 71 Dominican Republic ............51.1
13 Ireland ...............................111.4 72 Philippines ...........................50.7
14 Qatar .................................109.6 73 Albania1 ...............................48.9
15 Singapore ..........................109.3 74 Bosnia and Herzegovina .....48.3
16 Norway..............................108.6 75 Brazil1 ..................................46.2
17 Finland...............................107.8 76 Azerbaijan............................39.2
18 Bulgaria .............................107.6 77 Guyana1 ..............................37.5
19 Denmark ...........................107.3 78 China ...................................34.8
20 Ukraine ..............................106.7 79 Mauritania ...........................33.6
21 Spain .................................106.4 80 Costa Rica ...........................32.8
22 Sweden .............................105.9 81 Nicaragua ............................32.7
23 Jamaica1 ...........................105.8 82 Moldova ..............................32.4
24 Switzerland .......................102.1 83 Honduras.............................30.4
25 Taiwan, China ....................102.0 84 Peru.....................................30.0
26 Germany ...........................101.9 85 Bolivia..................................28.8 379
27 Greece ................................99.6 86 Indonesia.............................28.3
28 Hungary...............................98.9 87 Sri Lanka .............................25.9
29 Croatia .................................98.1 88 Senegal ...............................25.0
30 Netherlands1 .......................97.1 89 Namibia1 .............................24.4
31 Australia ..............................97.0 90 Egypt ...................................24.3
32 Poland .................................95.4 91 Nigeria .................................24.1
33 Latvia...................................95.1 92 Syria ....................................24.0
34 Slovenia...............................92.6 93 Pakistan...............................22.0
35 Belgium ...............................92.6 94 Mongolia1............................21.1
36 Cyprus .................................92.1 95 Kenya ..................................18.5
37 Slovak Republic...................90.6 96 Vietnam ...............................18.2
38 Kuwait1 ...............................88.6 97 India ....................................14.8
39 New Zealand1 .....................87.6 98 Tanzania...............................14.8
40 France .................................85.1 99 Zambia ................................14.0
41 Korea, Rep. .........................83.8 100 Lesotho1 .............................13.9
42 Russian Federation1 ............83.6 101 Cameroon1 ..........................13.8
43 Argentina.............................80.5 102 Bangladesh .........................13.2
44 Romania ..............................80.4 103 Benin ...................................12.1
45 Japan...................................79.3 104 Mozambique .......................11.6
46 Saudi Arabia ........................78.0 105 Mali .....................................10.9
47 United States ......................77.4 106 Armenia1 .............................10.5
48 Chile ....................................75.6 107 Kyrgyz Republic1 .................10.3
49 Malaysia ..............................75.5 108 Cambodia ..............................7.9
50 Jordan .................................74.4 109 Burkina Faso .........................7.5
51 Tunisia .................................71.9 110 Uganda ..................................6.7
52 South Africa1 .......................71.6 111 Zimbabwe .............................6.4
53 Turkey..................................71.0 112 Madagascar...........................5.5
54 Oman ..................................69.6 113 Chad ......................................4.6
55 Macedonia, FYR..................69.6 114 Tajikistan1 ..............................4.1
56 Venezuela ............................69.0 115 Nepal .....................................3.8
57 Uruguay...............................66.8 116 Uzbekistan ............................2.7
58 Colombia .............................64.3 117 Burundi1 ................................2.0
59 Ecuador ...............................63.2 118 Ethiopia .................................1.1
SOURCE: International Telecommunication Union, World Telecommunication Indicators 2007

1 2005
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 380

8.03 Broadband Internet subscribers (hard data)
Total broadband Internet subscribers per 100 population | 2006 or most recent year available
1 Denmark .............................31.7 60 Bosnia and Herzegovina .......1.0

2 Netherlands.........................31.7 61 Kuwait2 .................................0.9
3 Switzerland .........................29.5 62 Saudi Arabia ..........................0.9
4 Korea, Rep. .........................29.3 63 Jordan ...................................0.8
5 Norway................................27.5 64 Morocco2 ..............................0.8
6 Finland.................................27.1 65 Dominican Republic ..............0.7
7 Sweden ...............................25.9 66 El Salvador2 ...........................0.6
8 Hong Kong SAR ..................25.2 67 Vietnam .................................0.6
9 Canada ................................23.6 68 Algeria2 .................................0.6
10 United Kingdom ..................21.7 69 Oman ....................................0.6
11 France .................................20.9 70 Panama2................................0.5
12 Israel ...................................20.8 71 Moldova ................................0.5
13 Japan...................................20.1 72 Madagascar1 .........................0.5
14 Luxembourg ........................19.8 73 South Africa2 .........................0.3
15 Taiwan, China ......................19.8 74 Nicaragua ..............................0.3
16 United States ......................19.3 75 Egypt .....................................0.3
17 Australia ..............................19.1 76 Guyana2 ................................0.3
18 Belgium2 .............................19.1 77 Paraguay ...............................0.3
19 Singapore ............................18.2 78 Senegal .................................0.2
20 Austria .................................17.4 79 Guatemala2 ...........................0.2
21 Estonia ................................17.2 80 Kazakhstan ............................0.2
22 Germany .............................17.0 81 India ......................................0.2
23 Spain ...................................15.3 82 Ecuador2 ...............................0.2
24 Italy .....................................14.9 83 Tunisia2 .................................0.2
25 New Zealand .......................14.2 84 Thailand2 ...............................0.2
380 26 Portugal ...............................13.8 85 Philippines2 ...........................0.1
27 Slovenia...............................13.4 86 Sri Lanka ...............................0.1
28 Ireland .................................12.3 87 Bolivia2 ..................................0.1
29 Lithuania..............................10.8 88 Zimbabwe .............................0.1
30 Czech Republic ...................10.6 89 Mongolia2..............................0.1
31 Hungary.................................9.7 90 Armenia2 ...............................0.1
32 Romania ................................8.2 91 Indonesia2 .............................0.0
33 Poland ...................................6.9 92 Kyrgyz Republic2 ...................0.0
34 Chile ......................................5.9 93 Uzbekistan ............................0.0
35 Cyprus ...................................5.9 94 Pakistan2 ...............................0.0
36 Slovak Republic.....................5.9 95 Syria ......................................0.0
37 Qatar .....................................5.6 96 Azerbaijan2 ............................0.0
38 Croatia ...................................5.5 97 Mauritania .............................0.0
39 Bahrain ..................................5.2 98 Mali .......................................0.0
40 United Arab Emirates............5.2 99 Zambia ..................................0.0
41 Bulgaria .................................5.0 100 Burkina Faso .........................0.0
42 Latvia.....................................4.8 101 Albania2 .................................0.0
43 Greece ..................................4.4 102 Cambodia2 ............................0.0
44 Argentina...............................4.0 103 Uganda ..................................0.0
45 China .....................................3.8 104 Lesotho2 ...............................0.0
46 Turkey....................................3.7 105 Benin .....................................0.0
47 Malaysia ................................3.5 106 Cameroon2 ............................0.0
48 Mexico ..................................3.4 107 Tajikistan2 ..............................0.0
49 Uruguay.................................3.1 108 Nigeria2 .................................0.0
50 Brazil2 ....................................2.4 109 Ethiopia2................................0.0
51 Russian Federation ...............2.0 110 Bangladesh2 ..........................0.0
52 Venezuela ..............................2.0 110 Burundi2 ................................0.0
53 Macedonia, FYR....................1.8 110 Chad2 ....................................0.0
54 Mauritius ...............................1.7 110 Honduras2 .............................0.0
55 Peru.......................................1.7 110 Kenya2...................................0.0
56 Jamaica2 ...............................1.7 110 Mozambique2........................0.0
57 Ukraine ..................................1.4 110 Namibia2 ...............................0.0
58 Colombia ...............................1.4 110 Nepal2 ...................................0.0
59 Costa Rica .............................1.3 110 Tanzania2 ...............................0.0

1 2004 2 2005
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 381
8.04 Internet users (hard data)

Internet users per 100 population | 2006 or most recent year available
1 Netherlands.........................88.9 60 Mexico1...............................16.9
2 New Zealand .......................78.8 61 Turkey..................................16.6
3 Sweden ...............................77.0 62 Venezuela ............................15.2
4 Australia ..............................75.1 63 Albania ................................15.0
5 Luxembourg ........................72.0 64 Mauritius .............................14.5
6 Korea, Rep. .........................71.1 65 Colombia .............................14.5
7 United States ......................69.1 66 Jordan .................................13.7
8 Japan...................................68.3 67 Macedonia, FYR..................13.2
9 Canada1...............................67.9 68 Thailand ...............................13.1
10 Taiwan, China ......................63.7 69 Tunisia .................................12.7
11 Slovenia...............................63.6 70 Oman ..................................12.2
12 Switzerland .........................60.0 71 Ukraine ................................12.1
13 Norway1 ..............................58.5 72 Ecuador ...............................11.5
14 Denmark .............................58.2 73 South Africa1 .......................10.8
15 Estonia ................................57.4 74 China ...................................10.4
16 United Kingdom ..................56.0 75 Guatemala ...........................10.2
17 Finland1 ...............................53.3 76 Mongolia1............................10.1
18 Hong Kong SAR ..................53.0 77 Azerbaijan..............................9.8
19 Austria .................................51.2 78 Zimbabwe .............................9.3
20 Italy .....................................49.6 79 El Salvador1 ...........................9.3
21 France .................................49.6 80 Kazakhstan ............................8.4
22 Germany .............................46.7 81 Egypt .....................................8.1
23 Latvia...................................46.6 82 Benin .....................................8.0
24 Jamaica1 .............................46.5 83 Kenya ....................................7.9
25 Belgium1 .............................45.7 84 Syria ......................................7.7
26 Malaysia ..............................43.8 85 Pakistan.................................7.6 381
27 Spain ...................................42.8 86 Algeria ...................................7.4
28 Cyprus .................................42.2 87 Indonesia1 .............................7.2
29 Slovak Republic...................41.8 88 Panama .................................6.7
30 Singapore ............................39.2 89 Uzbekistan ............................6.3
31 United Arab Emirates..........36.7 90 Bolivia....................................6.2
32 Hungary...............................34.8 91 Armenia.................................5.7
33 Czech Republic ...................34.7 92 Kyrgyz Republic.....................5.6
34 Croatia .................................34.6 93 Philippines1 ...........................5.5
35 Qatar ...................................34.5 94 Senegal .................................5.4
36 Ireland .................................34.1 95 India1 .....................................5.4
37 Romania ..............................32.4 96 Honduras...............................4.6
38 Lithuania..............................31.7 97 Zambia ..................................4.2
39 Portugal ...............................30.5 98 Paraguay ...............................4.1
40 Kuwait .................................29.5 99 Namibia1 ...............................4.0
41 Poland .................................28.6 100 Nigeria1 .................................3.8
42 Costa Rica ...........................27.6 101 Mauritania .............................3.2
43 Chile ....................................25.2 102 Lesotho1 ...............................2.9
44 Israel1 ..................................24.4 103 Nicaragua ..............................2.8
45 Bulgaria ...............................24.4 104 Uganda ..................................2.5
46 Bosnia and Herzegovina .....24.3 105 Cameroon .............................2.2
47 Dominican Republic ............22.2 106 Sri Lanka ...............................2.0
48 Peru.....................................21.5 107 Tanzania1 ...............................1.0
49 Bahrain1 ..............................21.3 108 Nepal .....................................0.9
50 Guyana1 ..............................21.3 109 Mozambique1........................0.9
51 Argentina.............................20.9 110 Burundi..................................0.8
52 Uruguay1 .............................20.6 111 Chad ......................................0.6
53 Morocco ..............................19.8 112 Burkina Faso .........................0.6
54 Saudi Arabia ........................18.7 113 Madagascar1 .........................0.5
55 Russian Federation .............18.0 114 Mali .......................................0.5
56 Greece1 ...............................18.0 115 Cambodia1 ............................0.3
57 Moldova ..............................17.3 116 Bangladesh ...........................0.3
58 Brazil ...................................17.2 117 Tajikistan1 ..............................0.3
59 Vietnam ...............................17.2 118 Ethiopia1................................0.2

1 2005
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 382

8.05 Telephone lines (hard data)
Main telephone lines per 100 population | 2006 or most recent year available
1 Switzerland .........................69.4 60 Mexico ................................18.3

2 Germany .............................65.5 61 Colombia .............................17.0
3 Canada1...............................64.1 62 Malaysia ..............................16.8
4 Taiwan, China ......................63.6 63 Syria ....................................16.6
5 Sweden ...............................59.5 64 Saudi Arabia ........................15.7
6 United States ......................57.1 65 Venezuela ............................15.5
7 Denmark .............................56.9 66 El Salvador ..........................14.8
8 United Kingdom ..................56.1 67 Guyana ................................14.7
9 Korea, Rep. .........................56.0 68 Egypt ...................................14.3
10 France .................................55.8 69 Azerbaijan............................14.0
11 Greece ................................55.5 70 Panama ...............................13.2
12 Hong Kong SAR ..................54.1 71 Ecuador ...............................13.1
13 Luxembourg ........................52.4 72 Tunisia .................................12.4
14 Ireland .................................49.8 73 Jamaica1 .............................12.0
15 Australia ..............................48.8 74 Albania1 ...............................11.3
16 Cyprus .................................48.3 75 Thailand ...............................10.9
17 Netherlands1 .......................46.6 76 Oman ..................................10.7
18 Belgium ...............................45.2 77 Jordan .................................10.5
19 Norway................................44.3 78 Guatemala ...........................10.5
20 Israel ...................................43.9 79 South Africa1 .......................10.0
21 Austria .................................43.4 80 Dominican Republic ..............9.9
22 Italy1 ....................................43.1 81 Honduras...............................9.6
23 Japan...................................43.0 82 Sri Lanka ...............................9.0
24 New Zealand1 .....................42.9 83 Algeria ...................................8.5
25 Slovenia...............................42.6 84 Kyrgyz Republic1 ...................8.4
382 26 Spain ...................................42.4 85 Peru.......................................8.2
27 Singapore ............................42.3 86 Bolivia....................................7.1
28 Estonia ................................40.9 87 Namibia1 ...............................6.8
29 Croatia .................................40.2 88 Uzbekistan ............................6.7
30 Portugal ...............................40.1 89 Indonesia...............................6.6
31 Finland.................................36.5 90 Mongolia1..............................5.9
32 Hungary...............................33.3 91 Paraguay ...............................5.3
33 Czech Republic1 ..................31.5 92 India1 .....................................4.5
34 Bulgaria ...............................31.3 93 Nicaragua ..............................4.4
35 Costa Rica ...........................30.7 94 Tajikistan1 ..............................4.3
36 Poland .................................29.8 95 Philippines .............................4.3
37 Latvia...................................28.6 96 Morocco ................................4.1
38 Mauritius .............................28.5 97 Pakistan.................................3.3
39 Uruguay...............................28.3 98 Lesotho1 ...............................2.7
40 United Arab Emirates..........28.1 99 Zimbabwe .............................2.5
41 Russian Federation1 ............27.9 100 Senegal .................................2.4
42 China ...................................27.8 101 Nepal .....................................2.2
43 Qatar ...................................27.2 102 Nigeria ...................................1.3
44 Ukraine ................................26.8 103 Mauritania .............................1.1
45 Bahrain ................................26.2 104 Ethiopia .................................0.9
46 Turkey..................................25.4 105 Benin .....................................0.9
47 Bosnia and Herzegovina .....25.3 106 Kenya ....................................0.8
48 Moldova ..............................24.3 107 Zambia ..................................0.8
49 Argentina.............................24.2 108 Bangladesh ...........................0.8
50 Macedonia, FYR..................24.1 109 Burkina Faso .........................0.7
51 Lithuania..............................23.2 110 Madagascar...........................0.7
52 Slovak Republic...................21.6 111 Cameroon1 ............................0.6
53 Brazil ...................................21.4 112 Mali .......................................0.6
54 Chile ....................................20.2 113 Burundi1 ................................0.4
55 Kazakhstan ..........................19.8 114 Tanzania.................................0.4
56 Armenia1 .............................19.7 115 Uganda ..................................0.4
57 Romania ..............................19.4 116 Mozambique .........................0.3
58 Kuwait1 ...............................19.0 117 Cambodia ..............................0.2
59 Vietnam1 .............................18.8 118 Chad ......................................0.1

1 2005
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 383
Subindex D Business environment
9th pillar
Regulatory environment
383
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 384
2.2: Data Tables | 9th pillar: Regulatory environment

9.01 Ease of hiring foreign labor
Labor regulation in your country (1 = prevents your company from employing foreign labor, 7 = does not prevent your company from employing
foreign labor)
1 Kuwait ................................6.2 60 Mexico ...............................4.8

2 Armenia..............................5.9 61 Vietnam..............................4.8
3 Ireland ................................5.9 62 Cambodia ...........................4.7
4 Albania ...............................5.9 63 Brazil ..................................4.7
5 Nicaragua ...........................5.8 64 Netherlands........................4.7
6 Singapore ...........................5.8 65 Sweden..............................4.6
7 Dominican Republic ...........5.8 66 Macedonia, FYR.................4.6
8 United Arab Emirates.........5.8 67 Burundi...............................4.6
9 Portugal..............................5.7 68 Tunisia ................................4.6
11 Indonesia............................5.7 70 Hungary..............................4.6
12 El Salvador .........................5.6 71 Turkey.................................4.6
13 Finland................................5.6 72 Bahrain ...............................4.6
14 Qatar ..................................5.6 73 Tanzania..............................4.6
15 United Kingdom .................5.6 74 Latvia..................................4.5
16 Uganda...............................5.5 75 Australia .............................4.5
17 Guyana ...............................5.5 76 France ................................4.5
18 Luxembourg.......................5.5 77 Bulgaria ..............................4.5
19 Paraguay ............................5.4 78 Belgium..............................4.5
20 Uruguay..............................5.4 79 India ...................................4.5
21 Switzerland ........................5.4 80 Kenya .................................4.5
22 Argentina............................5.3 81 Slovenia..............................4.5
23 Nigeria................................5.3 82 Saudi Arabia .......................4.4
24 Hong Kong SAR .................5.3 83 Taiwan, China.....................4.4
25 Chile ...................................5.3 84 Thailand..............................4.4
384 26 Peru....................................5.3 85 Lithuania.............................4.4
27 Italy ....................................5.3 86 Jordan ................................4.4
28 Mauritania ..........................5.3 87 Croatia................................4.4
29 Norway...............................5.3 88 Romania .............................4.4
30 Honduras............................5.3 89 Canada ...............................4.4
31 Costa Rica ..........................5.2 90 Ecuador ..............................4.4
32 Egypt..................................5.2 91 Ethiopia ..............................4.4
33 Benin..................................5.2 92 Mongolia ............................4.3
34 United States .....................5.2 93 Cyprus................................4.3
35 Czech Republic ..................5.2 94 Bosnia and Herzegovina ....4.3
36 Spain ..................................5.2 95 Japan..................................4.3
37 Senegal ..............................5.1 96 Chad...................................4.2
38 Malaysia .............................5.1 97 Estonia ...............................4.2
39 Colombia ............................5.1 98 Ukraine...............................4.2
40 Azerbaijan...........................5.1 99 Poland ................................4.2
41 Zambia ...............................5.1 100 Kyrgyz Republic .................4.2
42 Denmark ............................5.1 101 Sri Lanka ............................4.1
43 Burkina Faso ......................5.1 102 Philippines..........................4.1
44 Pakistan..............................5.1 103 Venezuela...........................4.1
45 Guatemala..........................5.1 104 Oman .................................4.0
46 Mali ....................................5.1 105 Lesotho ..............................4.0
47 Cameroon ..........................5.0 106 Kazakhstan .........................4.0
48 Jamaica ..............................5.0 107 Syria ...................................4.0
49 Bolivia.................................4.9 108 Panama ..............................3.9
50 Morocco.............................4.9 109 Austria................................3.9
51 Germany ............................4.9 110 Algeria ................................3.7
52 Uzbekistan .........................4.9 111 Russian Federation ............3.7
53 Tajikistan.............................4.9 112 Bangladesh ........................3.7
54 China ..................................4.9 113 Mozambique ......................3.5
55 Korea, Rep. ........................4.9 114 Israel ..................................3.5
56 Mauritius ............................4.9 115 South Africa .......................3.5
57 New Zealand ......................4.8 116 Nepal..................................3.0
58 Greece ...............................4.8 117 Zimbabwe ..........................2.6
59 Moldova .............................4.8 118 Namibia ..............................2.5
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 385

9.02 Openness of bilateral Air Service Agreements (hard data)
Index of openness of bilateral Air Service Agreements | 2005
1 El Salvador ..........................33.7 59 Zambia ..................................9.6

2 Honduras.............................32.7 61 Albania ..................................9.5
3 Guatemala ...........................31.9 61 Bolivia....................................9.5
4 Dominican Republic ............28.9 61 Egypt .....................................9.5
5 Nicaragua ............................26.5 64 Chad ......................................9.4
6 Jamaica ...............................24.7 65 Norway..................................9.4
7 Peru.....................................22.7 66 France ...................................9.4
8 United States ......................22.6 67 Bosnia and Herzegovina .......9.3
9 Costa Rica ...........................22.0 68 Saudi Arabia ..........................9.2
10 Canada ................................20.2 69 Australia ................................9.0
11 Panama ...............................19.2 69 Sweden .................................9.0
12 Chile ....................................18.9 71 Argentina...............................8.8
12 Poland .................................18.9 71 Mozambique .........................8.8
14 Luxembourg ........................16.5 71 Slovak Republic.....................8.8
15 Germany .............................16.4 74 Sri Lanka ...............................8.6
16 Denmark .............................15.3 75 Romania ................................8.5
17 Portugal ...............................15.1 76 Spain .....................................8.3
18 Japan...................................14.8 77 Mauritania .............................8.2
18 Netherlands.........................14.8 78 Cambodia ..............................8.1
20 Mexico ................................14.6 78 Senegal .................................8.1
21 Hong Kong SAR ..................13.5 78 Syria ......................................8.1
22 New Zealand .......................13.4 81 Armenia.................................8.0
23 Ireland .................................13.3 81 Lithuania................................8.0
24 Philippines ...........................13.1 81 Venezuela ..............................8.0
25 Italy .....................................13.0 81 Vietnam .................................8.0
25 Singapore ............................13.0 85 India ......................................7.9 385
27 Indonesia.............................12.9 86 Madagascar...........................7.7
28 Czech Republic ...................12.8 87 Nigeria ...................................7.5
29 Belgium ...............................12.6 87 Zimbabwe .............................7.5
30 Ecuador ...............................12.5 89 Oman ....................................7.3
31 Finland.................................12.4 90 Bulgaria .................................7.0
32 Paraguay .............................12.2 91 Kazakhstan ............................6.9
33 Brazil ...................................12.1 92 Uganda ..................................6.7
33 Jordan .................................12.1 93 Mauritius ...............................6.2
35 United Kingdom ..................12.0 94 Algeria ...................................6.1
36 Israel ...................................11.9 94 Mali .......................................6.1
37 Colombia .............................11.8 94 Ukraine ..................................6.1
38 Korea, Rep. .........................11.7 97 Guyana ..................................6.0
39 Turkey..................................11.5 98 Bangladesh ...........................5.8
40 United Arab Emirates..........11.3 98 Tanzania.................................5.8
41 Croatia .................................11.2 100 Mongolia ...............................5.7
41 Hungary...............................11.2 101 China .....................................5.5
41 Uruguay...............................11.2 102 Burundi..................................5.4
44 Azerbaijan............................11.1 102 Latvia.....................................5.4
45 Namibia ...............................10.9 104 Kenya ....................................5.2
46 Greece ................................10.8 105 Macedonia, FYR....................5.1
47 Malaysia ..............................10.7 106 Cyprus ...................................4.6
47 Qatar ...................................10.7 107 Kyrgyz Republic.....................4.5
49 Austria .................................10.6 108 Moldova ................................4.4
50 Morocco ..............................10.5 109 Russian Federation ...............4.2
51 Ethiopia ...............................10.4 110 Benin .....................................3.9
52 Bahrain ................................10.2 110 Slovenia.................................3.9
53 Tunisia ...................................9.9 112 Estonia ..................................3.0
54 Thailand .................................9.9 112 Nepal .....................................3.0
55 South Africa ..........................9.9 114 Kuwait ...................................2.3
56 Cameroon .............................9.8 115 Burkina Faso .........................1.9
56 Uzbekistan ............................9.8 116 Lesotho .................................0.1
58 Switzerland ...........................9.8 n/a Taiwan, China ........................n/a
59 Pakistan.................................9.6 n/a Tajikistan................................n/a
SOURCE: World Trade Organization
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 386

9.03 Prevalence of foreign ownership
Foreign ownership of companies in your country is (1 = rare, limited to minority stakes, and often prohibited in key sectors, 7 = prevalent and
encouraged)
1 Ireland ................................6.5 60 Honduras............................5.1

2 Singapore ...........................6.4 61 Cameroon ..........................5.1
3 Hong Kong SAR .................6.4 62 Morocco.............................5.1
4 Slovak Republic..................6.4 63 Lesotho ..............................5.1
5 Sweden..............................6.2 64 Sri Lanka ............................5.1
6 United Kingdom .................6.2 65 Mozambique ......................5.1
7 Germany ............................6.1 66 Mauritius ............................5.1
8 Belgium..............................6.1 67 Bangladesh ........................5.1
9 Finland................................6.1 68 Colombia ............................5.0
10 Indonesia............................6.1 69 Armenia..............................5.0
11 New Zealand ......................6.0 70 Cyprus................................4.9
12 Chile ...................................6.0 71 Nicaragua ...........................4.9
13 Hungary..............................6.0 72 Romania .............................4.9
14 Luxembourg.......................6.0 73 Lithuania.............................4.9
15 Costa Rica ..........................6.0 74 Croatia................................4.9
16 Uganda...............................5.9 75 Uzbekistan .........................4.9
17 Austria................................5.9 76 Mali ....................................4.8
18 Zambia ...............................5.9 77 Cambodia ...........................4.8
19 Israel ..................................5.9 78 United Arab Emirates.........4.8
20 Bahrain ...............................5.9 79 Madagascar........................4.8
21 Jamaica ..............................5.8 80 Argentina............................4.8
22 Netherlands........................5.8 81 Benin..................................4.8
23 Denmark ............................5.8 82 Japan..................................4.7
24 Australia .............................5.8 83 Poland ................................4.7
25 Switzerland ........................5.7 84 Guyana ...............................4.7
386 26 Canada ...............................5.7 85 Egypt..................................4.6
27 Czech Republic ..................5.7 86 Thailand..............................4.6
28 Panama ..............................5.7 87 Brazil ..................................4.6
29 Mexico ...............................5.7 88 Bosnia and Herzegovina ....4.6
30 Estonia ...............................5.7 89 Kazakhstan .........................4.6
31 Dominican Republic ...........5.7 90 Oman .................................4.6
32 Peru....................................5.5 91 Philippines..........................4.5
33 Norway...............................5.5 92 Qatar ..................................4.5
34 Latvia..................................5.5 93 Italy ....................................4.4
35 Jordan ................................5.5 94 China ..................................4.4
36 Spain ..................................5.5 95 Slovenia..............................4.3
37 Guatemala..........................5.5 96 Albania ...............................4.3
38 Uruguay..............................5.4 97 Algeria ................................4.3
39 Taiwan, China.....................5.4 98 Bulgaria ..............................4.3
40 United States .....................5.4 99 Macedonia, FYR.................4.3
41 Senegal ..............................5.4 100 Chad...................................4.2
42 Nigeria................................5.4 101 Ecuador ..............................4.2
43 France ................................5.4 102 Kyrgyz Republic .................4.2
44 Tanzania..............................5.3 103 Vietnam..............................4.2
45 Greece ...............................5.3 104 Paraguay ............................4.1
46 Turkey.................................5.3 105 Mauritania ..........................4.0
47 Azerbaijan...........................5.3 106 Bolivia.................................4.0
48 Portugal..............................5.3 107 Tajikistan.............................4.0
49 Malaysia .............................5.3 108 Moldova .............................4.0
50 South Africa .......................5.3 109 Venezuela...........................4.0
51 El Salvador .........................5.3 110 Saudi Arabia .......................4.0
52 Tunisia ................................5.3 111 Burundi...............................3.9
53 Mongolia ............................5.2 112 Ukraine...............................3.8
54 Kenya .................................5.2 113 Ethiopia ..............................3.7
55 Korea, Rep. ........................5.2 114 Zimbabwe ..........................3.7
56 Namibia ..............................5.2 115 Nepal..................................3.6
57 India ...................................5.2 116 Syria ...................................3.3
58 Pakistan..............................5.2 117 Russian Federation ............3.3
59 Burkina Faso ......................5.2 118 Kuwait ................................3.2
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 387

9.04 Business impact of rules on FDI
In your country, rules governing foreign direct investment are (1 = damaging and discourage foreign direct investment, 7 = beneficial and
encourage foreign direct investment)
1 Ireland ................................6.5 60 Vietnam..............................5.2

2 Singapore ...........................6.5 61 Thailand..............................5.2
4 Slovak Republic..................6.3 63 Colombia ............................5.1
5 Luxembourg.......................6.2 64 Latvia..................................5.1
6 United Kingdom .................6.0 65 Nicaragua ...........................5.1
7 Estonia ...............................6.0 66 Senegal ..............................5.1
8 Bahrain ...............................6.0 67 Uzbekistan .........................5.1
9 Sweden..............................6.0 68 Morocco.............................5.1
10 Indonesia............................5.9 69 Armenia..............................5.0
11 Netherlands........................5.8 70 Cambodia ...........................5.0
12 Zambia ...............................5.8 71 South Africa .......................4.9
13 Finland................................5.8 72 Japan..................................4.9
14 Chile ...................................5.8 73 Algeria ................................4.9
15 Switzerland ........................5.8 74 Romania .............................4.9
16 Portugal..............................5.8 75 Kenya .................................4.9
17 Austria................................5.8 76 Mauritania ..........................4.9
18 Germany ............................5.8 77 Azerbaijan...........................4.8
19 Belgium..............................5.8 78 Lesotho ..............................4.8
20 Malaysia .............................5.7 79 Mozambique ......................4.8
21 Uganda...............................5.7 80 Namibia ..............................4.8
22 Pakistan..............................5.7 81 Ethiopia ..............................4.7
23 Israel ..................................5.7 82 Kazakhstan .........................4.7
24 Czech Republic ..................5.7 83 Philippines..........................4.7
25 Denmark ............................5.7 84 Mongolia ............................4.7
26 Costa Rica ..........................5.6 85 Greece ...............................4.7 387
27 Hungary..............................5.6 86 Guyana ...............................4.7
28 El Salvador .........................5.6 87 Brazil ..................................4.6
29 New Zealand ......................5.6 88 Lithuania.............................4.6
30 Bangladesh ........................5.5 89 Egypt..................................4.5
31 Panama ..............................5.5 90 Cameroon ..........................4.5
32 Tunisia ................................5.5 91 Poland ................................4.5
33 Mauritius ............................5.5 92 Madagascar........................4.5
34 Sri Lanka ............................5.5 93 Croatia................................4.5
35 Nigeria................................5.5 94 Oman .................................4.4
36 Jordan ................................5.4 95 Benin..................................4.4
37 Tanzania..............................5.4 96 Saudi Arabia .......................4.4
38 Jamaica ..............................5.4 97 Burundi...............................4.4
39 Peru....................................5.4 98 Nepal..................................4.4
40 Dominican Republic ...........5.4 99 Tajikistan.............................4.3
41 Mexico ...............................5.4 100 Italy ....................................4.3
42 United Arab Emirates.........5.4 101 Slovenia..............................4.3
43 Taiwan, China.....................5.4 102 Albania ...............................4.2
44 India ...................................5.4 103 Syria ...................................4.2
45 Canada ...............................5.4 104 Moldova .............................4.2
46 United States .....................5.3 105 Paraguay ............................4.1
47 France ................................5.3 106 Macedonia, FYR.................4.1
48 Korea, rep. .........................5.3 107 Bulgaria ..............................4.0
49 Australia .............................5.3 108 Argentina............................3.8
50 Turkey.................................5.3 109 Ecuador ..............................3.8
51 Cyprus................................5.3 110 Kyrgyz Republic .................3.8
52 Qatar ..................................5.3 111 Ukraine...............................3.7
53 Spain ..................................5.3 112 Bosnia and Herzegovina ....3.6
54 China ..................................5.3 113 Chad...................................3.6
55 Mali ....................................5.3 114 Russian Federation ............3.5
56 Norway...............................5.2 115 Bolivia.................................3.5
57 Honduras............................5.2 116 Kuwait ................................3.3
58 Guatemala..........................5.2 117 Venezuela...........................3.1
59 Burkina Faso ......................5.2 118 Zimbabwe ..........................2.5
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 388
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 389
Subindex D Business environment
10th pillar
Physical security
389
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 390
2.2: Data Tables | 10th pillar: Physical security

10.01 Reliability of police services
Police services (1 = cannot be relied upon to protect businesses from criminals, 7 = can be relied upon to protect businesses from criminals)
1 Finland................................6.7 60 Ethiopia ..............................4.2

2 Denmark ............................6.6 61 Colombia ............................4.1
3 Germany ............................6.6 62 Azerbaijan...........................4.1
4 Singapore ...........................6.5 63 Slovak Republic..................4.1
5 Switzerland ........................6.5 64 Zambia ...............................4.1
6 Hong Kong SAR .................6.3 65 Panama ..............................4.0
7 Norway...............................6.2 66 Albania ...............................4.0
8 Austria................................6.2 67 Mauritania ..........................4.0
9 United Arab Emirates.........6.1 68 Poland ................................4.0
10 Canada ...............................6.1 69 Macedonia, FYR.................4.0
11 Australia .............................6.0 70 Costa Rica ..........................4.0
12 Netherlands........................5.9 71 Lithuania.............................4.0
13 Jordan ................................5.9 72 Romania .............................3.9
14 Luxembourg.......................5.8 73 Tanzania..............................3.9
15 France ................................5.8 74 Syria ...................................3.9
16 Qatar ..................................5.8 75 Madagascar........................3.9
17 New Zealand ......................5.8 76 Uruguay..............................3.8
18 Japan..................................5.7 77 Czech Republic ..................3.8
19 United States .....................5.7 78 Cameroon ..........................3.7
20 Sweden..............................5.7 79 Sri Lanka ............................3.7
21 Spain ..................................5.6 80 Uganda...............................3.6
22 Tunisia ................................5.6 81 Kazakhstan .........................3.6
23 Ireland ................................5.6 82 Armenia..............................3.6
24 Chile ...................................5.6 83 Indonesia............................3.6
25 Korea, Rep. ........................5.5 84 Burundi...............................3.6
390 26 United Kingdom .................5.4 85 Pakistan..............................3.6
27 Belgium..............................5.4 86 Kenya .................................3.5
28 Malaysia .............................5.4 87 El Salvador .........................3.5
29 Portugal..............................5.4 88 Philippines..........................3.5
30 Kuwait ................................5.4 89 Lesotho ..............................3.4
31 Oman .................................5.1 90 Namibia ..............................3.4
32 Cyprus................................5.0 91 Honduras............................3.3
33 Morocco.............................5.0 92 South Africa .......................3.2
34 Taiwan, China.....................4.9 93 Ukraine...............................3.1
35 Algeria ................................4.8 94 Bulgaria ..............................3.1
36 Bahrain ...............................4.8 95 Bosnia and Herzegovina ....3.1
37 Hungary..............................4.8 96 Nepal..................................3.0
38 Italy ....................................4.8 97 Cambodia ...........................3.0
39 Greece ...............................4.7 98 Moldova .............................3.0
40 Estonia ...............................4.7 99 Russian Federation ............3.0
41 Saudi Arabia .......................4.6 100 Mozambique ......................2.9
42 Slovenia..............................4.6 101 Jamaica ..............................2.9
43 Senegal ..............................4.6 102 Mongolia ............................2.8
44 Mali ....................................4.6 103 Nigeria................................2.8
45 Vietnam..............................4.6 104 Peru....................................2.8
46 Thailand..............................4.6 105 Kyrgyz Republic .................2.7
47 Turkey.................................4.6 106 Dominican Republic ...........2.7
48 Israel ..................................4.5 107 Mexico ...............................2.6
49 Burkina Faso ......................4.5 108 Brazil ..................................2.6
50 Uzbekistan .........................4.5 109 Ecuador ..............................2.5
51 Nicaragua ...........................4.5 110 Guyana ...............................2.5
52 Egypt..................................4.4 111 Zimbabwe ..........................2.5
53 China ..................................4.4 112 Argentina............................2.5
54 India ...................................4.4 113 Bangladesh ........................2.4
55 Latvia..................................4.3 114 Guatemala..........................2.4
56 Croatia................................4.3 115 Paraguay ............................2.3
57 Mauritius ............................4.3 116 Bolivia.................................2.3
58 Benin..................................4.2 117 Chad...................................2.2
59 Tajikistan.............................4.2 118 Venezuela...........................2.0
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 391
10.02 Business costs of crime and violence

The incidence of common crime and violence (e.g., street muggings, firms being looted) (1 = imposes significant costs on businesses, 7 = does not
impose significant costs on businesses)
1 Syria ...................................6.7 60 Moldova .............................4.4

2 Finland................................6.7 61 Senegal ..............................4.4
3 Denmark ............................6.5 62 Uzbekistan .........................4.4
4 Norway...............................6.4 63 Ukraine...............................4.4
5 Germany ............................6.4 64 China ..................................4.4
6 Austria................................6.4 65 United States .....................4.4
7 Hong Kong SAR .................6.4 66 Mali ....................................4.4
8 Singapore ...........................6.3 67 Tajikistan.............................4.3
9 Switzerland ........................6.3 68 Algeria ................................4.3
10 Qatar ..................................6.2 69 Bosnia and Herzegovina ....4.3
11 Jordan ................................6.2 70 Nicaragua ...........................4.3
12 United Arab Emirates.........6.1 71 Panama ..............................4.3
13 Sweden..............................5.9 72 Poland ................................4.2
14 New Zealand ......................5.9 73 Mongolia ............................4.2
15 Kuwait ................................5.9 74 Sri Lanka ............................4.2
16 Luxembourg.......................5.9 75 Philippines..........................4.2
17 Greece ...............................5.9 76 Uruguay..............................4.2
18 Portugal..............................5.9 77 Russian Federation ............4.0
19 Slovenia..............................5.8 78 Tanzania..............................4.0
20 Cyprus................................5.7 79 Albania ...............................3.9
21 Indonesia............................5.7 80 Cambodia ...........................3.9
22 Tunisia ................................5.7 81 Pakistan..............................3.9
23 Australia .............................5.6 82 Macedonia, FYR.................3.8
24 Azerbaijan...........................5.5 83 Burkina Faso ......................3.8
25 Taiwan, China.....................5.5 84 Romania .............................3.8
26 Israel ..................................5.5 85 Bolivia.................................3.8 391
27 Belgium..............................5.5 86 Burundi...............................3.7
28 Hungary..............................5.5 87 Bulgaria ..............................3.7
29 Japan..................................5.4 88 Zimbabwe ..........................3.7
30 Bahrain ...............................5.4 89 Cameroon ..........................3.6
31 Slovak Republic..................5.4 90 Uganda...............................3.6
32 Armenia..............................5.4 91 Kyrgyz Republic .................3.6
33 Estonia ...............................5.4 92 Namibia ..............................3.6
34 Latvia..................................5.4 93 Benin..................................3.6
35 Canada ...............................5.3 94 Zambia ...............................3.5
36 Korea, Rep. ........................5.3 95 Bangladesh ........................3.5
37 Oman .................................5.3 96 Argentina............................3.5
38 Czech Republic ..................5.3 97 Ecuador ..............................3.4
39 Ireland ................................5.2 98 Costa Rica ..........................3.4
40 Saudi Arabia .......................5.2 99 Dominican Republic ...........3.4
41 India ...................................5.2 100 Madagascar........................3.3
42 Malaysia .............................5.2 101 Colombia ............................3.2
43 Mauritius ............................5.1 102 Nepal..................................3.1
44 Egypt..................................5.1 103 Peru....................................3.1
45 Thailand..............................5.1 104 Mozambique ......................3.0
46 France ................................5.1 105 Paraguay ............................3.0
47 Morocco.............................5.0 106 Lesotho ..............................2.9
48 Spain ..................................5.0 107 Honduras............................2.9
49 Mauritania ..........................5.0 108 Mexico ...............................2.9
50 Lithuania.............................5.0 109 Nigeria................................2.9
51 Netherlands........................5.0 110 Brazil ..................................2.8
52 Turkey.................................4.9 111 Chad...................................2.8
53 Ethiopia ..............................4.9 112 Kenya .................................2.5
54 Vietnam..............................4.9 113 South Africa .......................2.3
55 Croatia................................4.9 114 Venezuela...........................2.2
56 United Kingdom .................4.7 115 Guatemala..........................2.1
57 Chile ...................................4.6 116 Guyana ...............................2.1
58 Italy ....................................4.6 117 Jamaica ..............................2.0
59 Kazakhstan .........................4.5 118 El Salvador .........................2.0
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 392

10.03 Business costs of terrorism
The threat of terrorism in your country (1 = imposes significant costs on business, 7 = does not impose significant costs on business)
1 Finland................................6.6 60 Panama ..............................5.4

2 Syria ...................................6.4 61 Tanzania..............................5.4
3 Uruguay..............................6.4 62 Belgium..............................5.4
4 Slovak Republic..................6.3 63 Azerbaijan...........................5.4
5 Mauritius ............................6.3 64 France ................................5.4
6 Austria................................6.2 65 Jordan ................................5.3
7 Bosnia and Herzegovina ....6.2 66 Oman .................................5.3
8 Brazil ..................................6.2 67 Benin..................................5.3
9 Hungary..............................6.2 68 Korea, Rep. ........................5.3
10 Argentina............................6.2 69 Australia .............................5.3
11 Hong Kong SAR .................6.1 70 Burkina Faso ......................5.3
12 Slovenia..............................6.1 71 Mozambique ......................5.2
13 Czech Republic ..................6.1 72 Kazakhstan .........................5.2
14 New Zealand ......................6.1 73 Saudi Arabia .......................5.2
15 Sweden..............................6.1 74 Vietnam..............................5.2
16 Croatia................................6.0 75 Singapore ...........................5.2
17 Zimbabwe ..........................6.0 76 Italy ....................................5.2
18 Luxembourg.......................6.0 77 Canada ...............................5.1
19 Portugal..............................6.0 78 Bahrain ...............................5.1
20 Zambia ...............................6.0 79 Madagascar........................5.1
21 Lithuania.............................6.0 80 Netherlands........................5.0
22 Estonia ...............................6.0 81 Morocco.............................5.0
23 Chile ...................................6.0 82 India ...................................4.9
24 Norway...............................5.9 83 Cambodia ...........................4.9
25 Indonesia............................5.9 84 Lesotho ..............................4.9
392 26 Namibia ..............................5.9 85 Poland ................................4.9
27 Dominican Republic ...........5.8 86 Peru....................................4.9
28 Ireland ................................5.8 87 Guatemala..........................4.8
29 Greece ...............................5.8 88 Albania ...............................4.8
30 Costa Rica ..........................5.8 89 Turkey.................................4.8
31 Switzerland ........................5.8 90 Venezuela...........................4.8
32 Tunisia ................................5.8 91 Thailand..............................4.8
33 Armenia..............................5.8 92 Bulgaria ..............................4.7
34 Mongolia ............................5.8 93 Japan..................................4.7
35 South Africa .......................5.8 94 Tajikistan.............................4.7
36 Latvia..................................5.7 95 Egypt..................................4.7
37 Cameroon ..........................5.7 96 Spain ..................................4.7
38 Qatar ..................................5.7 97 Russian Federation ............4.7
39 Germany ............................5.7 98 China ..................................4.6
40 Senegal ..............................5.7 99 Kyrgyz Republic .................4.6
41 Mauritania ..........................5.6 100 Macedonia, FYR.................4.5
42 Cyprus................................5.6 101 Uzbekistan .........................4.5
43 Denmark ............................5.6 102 Guyana ...............................4.4
44 Mexico ...............................5.6 103 Chad...................................4.4
45 Romania .............................5.6 104 El Salvador .........................4.3
46 United Arab Emirates.........5.6 105 Algeria ................................4.3
47 Paraguay ............................5.5 106 Burundi...............................4.2
48 Jamaica ..............................5.5 107 Bangladesh ........................4.2
49 Moldova .............................5.5 108 United Kingdom .................4.1
50 Malaysia .............................5.5 109 Nigeria................................4.1
51 Mali ....................................5.5 110 Pakistan..............................3.9
52 Ecuador ..............................5.5 111 United States .....................3.9
53 Taiwan, China.....................5.5 112 Kenya .................................3.8
54 Bolivia.................................5.5 113 Uganda...............................3.7
55 Nicaragua ...........................5.5 114 Philippines..........................3.7
56 Ukraine...............................5.4 115 Israel ..................................3.5
57 Honduras............................5.4 116 Colombia ............................3.1
58 Ethiopia ..............................5.4 117 Sri Lanka ............................3.0
59 Kuwait ................................5.4 118 Nepal..................................2.1
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 393
Technical Notes and Sources

The data in this Report represent the best available esti- Pillar 2: Proclivity to trade
mates from various national authorities, international
agencies, and private sources at the time the Report was 2.03 Openness to multilateral trade rules
prepared. It is possible that some data will have been Openness to multilateral trade rules index | 2008
This index evaluates the overall participation of countries in mul-
revised or updated by national sources after publication. tilateral trade rules or instruments (MTRs). These rules are all
Throughout the statistical tables in this publication, internationally elaborated legal standards currently regulating
trade in specific areas. MTRs are primarily comprised of con-
“n/a” denotes that the value is not available, or that the ventions and treaties that countries ratify or accede to, and
available data are unreasonably outdated or do not come international model laws that are incorporated into national law.
from a reliable source. The index is based on ITC’s LegaCarta system, which analyzes
the position of each country (accession/nonaccession and incor-
The following notes provide sources for all the poration/nonincorporation) regarding some 238 MTRs as well as
indicators listed in the Data Tables that do not come 450 protocols or amendments overseen by 25 different interna-
tional organizations. For the purposes of this index, 40 core
from the Executive Opinion Survey. MTRs were selected, and each was rated with a score depend-
ing on its importance and relevance to trade. The 40 core
instruments belong to seven categories (contracts, customs,
dispute resolution, governance, intellectual property, invest-
Pillar 1: Tariffs and non-tariff barriers ment, and air transport). Each category is given an equal weight
in the calculation of the index. Selection of the core instru-
ments is based on their importance and relevance to trade and
1.01 Tariff barriers their universality. The importance and relevance to trade of an
393
instrument is determined by taking into account several criteria
This variable measures the average rate of duty per imported including: the impact of its provisions on international trade
value unit weighted by 2006 imports value. (reduction of transactional costs, trade facilitation, harmoniza-
tion, transparency, predictability, creation of a business-friendly
Source: International Trade Centre
business climate, support of private-sector activities, and
encouragement of foreign direct investment), and the opinion
1.02 Non-tariff barriers of international legal experts and the views of the international
bodies administering these instruments. Universality means
Index of non-tariff barriers (NTBs) | 2007 or most recent that the selected MTRs can potentially be applied by all coun-
year available tries, notwithstanding their geographical position or economic
This index is constructed as the average of two NTB-related level. For example, maritime transport conventions, however
variables. The variables included are the percentage of trade important, were not taken into account because of their weak
affected by non-tariff measures (NTMs) and the average num- relevance for landlocked countries; treaties dealing with securi-
ber of notifications for products affected by NTMs, for products ties and insider trading were not included because they do not
with imports larger than 0. represent a priority in countries that have not developed sophis-
Source: International Trade Centre; authors’ calculations ticated financial markets. Accession to the WTO Agreements is
not taken into account in this index as WTO accession does not
depend exclusively on the will of a nonmember state to join the
WTO.
Source: International Trade Centre, based on data from the

LegaCarta database
2.04 Share of duty-free imports

Duty-free imports as a share of total imports | 2006, 2007
Share of trade, excluding petroleum, that is imported free of
tariff duties, taking into account most-favored nation tariffs and
preferential agreements. Tariff data are from 2007 and imports
data are from 2006.
Source: International Trade Centre
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 394
Pillar 3: Efficiency of customs administration 4.04 Cost to import

Total official cost associated with importing, excluding
tariffs and trade taxes | 2007
3.02 Customs services index This variable measures the fees levied on a 20-foot container in
Extent of services provided by customs authorities and US dollars. All the fees associated with completing the proce-
related agencies | 2007 dures to export or import the goods are included. These include
This index is based on 11 “GEA customs barriers” survey costs for documents, administrative fees for customs clearance
questions capturing different aspects of services offered by and technical control, terminal handling charges, and inland
customs and related agencies. The services included are the transport. The cost measure does not include tariffs or trade
following: clearance of shipments via electronic data inter- taxes. Only official costs are recorded.
change for express deliveries; full-time (24 hours / 7 days a
week) automated processing; release of goods at the place of Source: The World Bank, Doing Business 2008
arrival; multiple inspections (inspections by agencies other than
customs), and the promptness of those inspections; separation
of physical release of goods from the fiscal control; exemptions
from full customs formalities for shipments of minimal value; Pillar 5: Transparency of border administration
customs working hours adapted to commercial needs; fee for
services in normal working hours; premium paid for services
5.02 Corruption Perceptions Index
outside normal working hours; availability of receipt and pro-
cessing of control data in advance of arrival of shipments; A country or territory’s degree of public corruption | 2007
appeal of customs decisions to a higher level or an independent The Corruption Perceptions Index score relates to perceptions
tribunal; post-release processes, pre-entry classification, and of the degree of corruption as seen by business people and
valuation rulings binding on all ports; and use of reference country analysts, and ranges between 10 (highly clean) and 0
prices or arbitrary uplifts to invoice values. The maximum score (highly corrupt).
an economy can obtain is 11.5.
Source: Transparency International
Source: Global Express Association
Pillar 6: Availability and quality of transport

Pillar 4: Efficiency of import-export procedures infrastructure
4.01 Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance 6.01 Airport density (hard data)
Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance process by customs Number of airports per million population | 2006
and border control agencies | 2007 Source: International Air Transport Association, SRS Analyser
This variable assesses the effectiveness and efficiency of the
clearance process by customs and other border control agencies
394 in the eight major trading partners of each country. Respondents 6.02 Transshipment connectivity index
to the Logistics Perception Index survey were asked to evalu- Type of transshipment connections available to shippers
ate the effectiveness and efficiency of clearance in the country from each country/economy on bilateral routes | 2006
in which they work on a 1–5 scale, based on their experience in This index aims at reflecting the geographical aspects of the
international logistics, compared with generally accepted indus- liner service supply and is based on the type of connections
try standards or practices. between countries ranging from a first- to a fourth-order con-
Source: The World Bank, Logistics Perception Index 2007 nection. In the absence of direct liner shipping between two
countries, the cargo will have to be transshipped in a port of a
third or even fourth country in order to reach the destination
4.02 Time for import country. A first-order connection is a connection without trans-
Number of days required to import | 2007 shipment, a second-order connection is a connection with one
transshipment, and so on. First-order connections have the
The time calculation for a procedure starts from the moment it
most positive impact on cargo movement. Therefore, the type
is initiated and runs until it is completed. If a procedure can be
of connections per country has been weighted as follows: first-
accelerated for an additional cost, the fastest legal procedure is
order connections are multiplied by 1.0, second-order connec-
chosen. It is assumed that neither the exporter nor the importer
tions by 0.5, third-order connections by 0.33, and fourth-order
wastes time and that each commits to completing each remain-
connections by 0.25. The score is the sum of the four connec-
ing procedure without delay. Procedures that can be completed
tion types.
in parallel are measured as simultaneous. The waiting time
between procedures—for example, during unloading of the Source: UNCTAD, Transport Section, Trade Logistics Branch
cargo—is included in the measure.
Source: The World Bank, Doing Business 2008 6.03 Paved roads
Paved roads as a percentage of total roads | 2004
4.03 Documents for import Paved roads are those surfaced with crushed stone (macadam)
Number of documents required to import | 2007 and hydrocarbon binder or bituminized agents, with concrete, or
with cobblestones. This indicator shows paved roads as a per-
This variable takes into account all documents required import
centage of all the country/economy’s roads, measured in
goods. It is assumed that the contract has already been agreed
length.
upon and signed by both parties. Documents include back doc-
uments, customs declaration and clearance documents, port fil- Source: The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2007,
ing documents, import licenses, and other official documents International Road Federation, World Road Statistics 2006
exchanged between the concerned parties. Documents filed
simultaneously are considered different but with the same time
frame for completion. 6.04 Road congestion
Motor vehicles per kilometer of road | 2004
Source: The World Bank, Doing Business 2008
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 395

Pillar 7: Availability and quality of transport services Pillar 8: Availability and use of ICTs
7.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index 8.02 Mobile telephone subscribers

Quantity of services provided by liner companies | 2007 Mobile telephone subscribers per 100 population | 2006 or
The Liner Shipping Connectivity Index (LSCI) is an indicator of most recent year available
liner shipping connectivity, based on indicators of service supply The term subscribers refers to users of mobile telephones sub-
per country/economy. The index is comprised of a list of quanti- scribing to an automatic public switched telephone network
tative indicators for service parameters available in each coun- using cellular technology. This can include analogue and digital
try. The variables included in this index are: number of ships, cellular systems but should not include noncellular systems.
liner companies, liner services, TEU (twenty-foot equivalent Subscribers to fixed wireless, public mobile data services, or
units) capacity, and maximum ship size. radio paging services are not included.
Source: UNCTAD, Transport Section, Trade Logistics Branch Source: International Telecommunication Union, World
Telecommunication Indicators 2007
7.02 Ease and affordability of shipment

Ease and affordability of arranging international 8.03 Broadband Internet subscribers
shipments | 2007 Total broadband Internet subscribers per 100 population |
This variable assesses the ease and affordability associated with 2006 or most recent year available
arranging international shipments. Respondents to the Logistics The International Telecommunication Union considers broad-
Perception Index survey were asked to evaluate the ease and band to be any dedicated connection to the Internet of 256 kilo-
affordability associated with arranging international shipments bits per second (kb/s) or faster, in both directions. Broadband
to or from eight countries (major trading partners) with which subscribers refers to the sum of DSL, cable modem, and other
they conduct business. Performance was evaluated using a broadband (for example, fiber optic, fixed wireless, apartment
five-point scale (1 for the lowest score, 5 for the highest), LANs, satellite connections) subscribers.
based on their experience in international logistics and in accor-
dance with generally accepted industry standards or practices. Source: International Telecommunication Union, World
Telecommunication Indicators 2007
Source: The World Bank, Logistics Perception Index 2007
8.04 Internet users

7.03 Competence of the logistics industry Internet users per 100 population | 2006 or most recent year
Competence of the local logistics industry (e.g., transport available
operators, customs brokers) | 2007 Internet users are people with access to the worldwide network.
This variable evaluates the competence of the local logistics
industry. Respondents to the Logistics Perception Index survey Source: International Telecommunication Union, World
were asked to evaluate the competence of the local logistics Telecommunication Indicators 2007
industry in the eight countries (major trading partners) with 395
which they conduct business. Performance was evaluated using
8.05 Telephone lines
a five-point scale (1 for the lowest score, 5 for the highest),
based on their experience in international logistics and in accor- Main telephone lines per 100 population | 2006 or most
dance with generally accepted industry standards or practices. recent year available
A main telephone line is a telephone line connecting the sub-
Source: The World Bank, Logistics Perception Index 2007 scriber’s terminal equipment to the public switched telephone
network and that has a dedicated port in the telephone
exchange equipment.
7.04 Ability and ease of tracking
Ability to track and trace international shipments | 2007 Source: International Telecommunication Union, World
This variable assesses the ability to track and trace international Telecommunication Indicators 2007
shipments (consignments). Respondents to the Logistics
Perception Index survey were asked to evaluate the ability to
track and trace international shipments (consignments) when
shipping to or from eight countries (major trading partners) with Pillar 9: Regulatory framework
which they conduct business. Performance was evaluated
using a five-point scale (1 for the lowest score, 5 for the highest),
9.02 Openness of bilateral Air Service Agreements
based on their experience in international logistics and in accor-
dance with generally accepted industry standards or practices. Index of openness of bilateral Air Service Agreements | 2005
This index measures the average openness of all bilateral Air
Source: The World Bank, Logistics Perception Index 2007 Service Agreements (ASAs) concluded by International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) signatories as registered in ICAO’s
World’s Air Services Agreements (WASA) database (2005
7.05 Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination
update), weighted by bilateral scheduled passenger traffic taking
Frequency of shipments reaching the consignee within the place under each ASA. Regulatory data come from ICAO’s WASA
scheduled delivery time | 2007 database (2005), and traffic data were obtained from IATA.
This variable assesses how often shipments reach the consignee
within the scheduled delivery time. Respondents to the Logistics Source: World Trade Organization
Perception Index survey were asked to evaluate the timeliness
of shipments in reaching destination when arranging shipments
to eight countries (major trading partners) with which they con-
duct business. Performance was evaluated using a five-point
scale (1 for the lowest score, 5 for the highest), based on their
experience in international logistics and in accordance with gen-
erally accepted industry standards or practices.
Source: The World Bank, Logistics Perception Index 2007
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 396
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 397
About the Authors

About the Authors
Jean-François Arvis Logistics. His early career included short stints as a busi-
Jean-François Arvis is a Senior Transport Economist with ness modeler for PwC’s Business Dynamics, London, and
the International Trade Department at the World Bank, as a trainee aeronautical maintenance engineer for BAE
where he is in charge of the knowledge activities in the Systems, Toulouse, and at the United Nations Office for
area of trade logistics. Prior to joining the Bank, he Outer Space Affairs, Vienna. Mr Doherty holds an MBA
worked in various positions with the French Ministry of from the Collège des Ingénieurs, a Master’s in
Economy and Industry (regulation, trade, finance, and Aeronautical Engineering from Imperial College, and a
development aid). He is a graduate from the Ecole Master’s in Structural Molecular Biology from the
Normale Supérieure in Paris and Ecole Nationale University of London. He is a Global Leadership Fellow at
Supérieure des Mines, and holds doctoral degrees in the World Economic Forum.
physics.
Richard Eglin
Liliana Annovazzi-Jakab Richard Eglin is Director of the Trade and Finance and
Liliana Annovazzi-Jakab has been working in various Trade Facilitation Division of the WTO Secretariat, respon-
capacities for the United Nations and specialized organiza- sible for the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation, the
tions, including UNCTAD, the ILO, the ITC, and UNECE Committee on Trade-Related Investment Measures, the
for over 10 years. Her activities focused mainly on trade Committee on Balance-of-Payments Restrictions, the
and transport-related activities and analyses. Prior to join- Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance, Aid-for-Trade,
ing the UN she worked as a lawyer and legal adviser for and WTO cooperation with the IMF and World Bank.
law firms, government agencies, and the media industry. Previously, he directed the Development Division and the
397
She holds a Law degree from the University of Mainz, Trade and Environment Division in the WTO Secretariat,
Germany, and Georgetown University in the United and was responsible for various elements of the Uruguay
States, and a Master’s degree in International Law from Round negotiations. He joined the GATT Secretariat in
the University of Geneva’s Graduate Institute of 1985, after spending nine years on the staff of the
International and Development Studies. International Monetary Fund. He has a doctorate in
Economics from Cambridge University.
Jennifer Blanke
Jennifer Blanke is Director and Senior Economist with the Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz
Global Competitiveness Network at the World Economic Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz is Associate Director and
Forum. Since joining the team in 2002, she has written Senior Economist with the Global Competitiveness
and lectured extensively on issues related to national Network at the World Economic Forum, where she
competitiveness and has served as lead editor on a num- researches and writes on issues of national competitive-
ber of regional and topical competitiveness reports. From ness, in particular related to the Arab world. She is lead
1998 to 2002, she was Senior Programme Manager author or editor of a number of regional and topical
responsible for developing the business, management, reports and papers. Earlier on, she oversaw the economic
and technology section of the World Economic Forum’s modeling for some of the Forum’s scenario projects and
Annual Meeting in Davos. Before joining the Forum, Dr was charged with developing the economics section of
Blanke worked for a number of years as a management the program for the World Economic Forum’s Annual
consultant for Eurogroup, Mazars Group in Paris, France, Meeting in Davos. Before joining the Global Competitive-
where she specialized in banking and financial market ness Network, Dr Drzeniek Hanouz worked for several
organization. Dr Blanke obtained a Master of International years with the International Trade Centre in Geneva,
Affairs from Columbia University and an MA and a PhD in where she was in charge of relations with Central and
International Economics from the Graduate Institute of Eastern European countries. In this capacity, she advised
International Studies (Geneva). governments and developed and implemented programs
to strengthen the international competitiveness of busi-
Sean Doherty nesses in the region. Dr Drzeniek Hanouz received a
Sean Doherty is Associate Director and Head of the Diploma in Economics from the University of Münster
Transport & Logistics industry community in the World and holds a PhD in International Economics from the
Economic Forum. He previously managed both the University of Bochum, both in Germany.
Mining & Metals Industry Programme and the Chemicals
Industry Programme in the Forum. Immediately prior to
joining the Forum he was an independent consultant on
strategic marketing for TNT Express, Amsterdam. His
main professional background is as a strategy consultant
for Booz Allen Hamilton, London, focusing on Energy and
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 398
About the Authors
Lionel Fontagné and led in projects to help implement “customer centric”

Lionel Fontagné is Professor of Economics in the Paris strategies with the aim of increasing operational efficien-
School of Economics, Université Paris I Panthéon cy, reducing costs, driving up revenue, and improving cus-
Sorbonne. He is also a member of the Conseil d’Analyse tomer service quality. Prior to CSAV, Ms He worked as a
Economique (Council of Economic Analysis to the French marketing researcher at Net2Phone, an Internet telepho-
Prime Minister), a scientific adviser to the Centre ny company, and also managed custom researches at
d’Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales Clickin Research, a marketing consulting and research
(CEPII, Paris), and an adviser to the International Trade firm. Ms He holds an MBA from the Massachusetts
Centre (UNCTAD-WTO, Geneva). He has formerly been Institute of Technology-Sloan School of Management and
the Director of the CEPII, a Supply Professor at the Free a Master’s degree in Advertising from the University of
University of Brussels, and a Professor at the University Texas at Austin. She graduated from Tsinghua University
of Nantes, as well as a consultant to the OECD in Beijing with Bachelor’s degrees in English and
Development Centre, to the OECD Directorate for Economics.
Science Technology and Industry, to the Ministry of
Finance of the Luxembourg, and to the French Ministry of Gene Huang
Finance. He is editor of the online think tank Telos, and Gene Huang is Chief Economist for FedEx and a
has written numerous studies on international trade and Managing Director of the company’s Economic and
integration issues. In 1999, Open Economies Review rec- Industry Analysis Group. He and his team track and moni-
ognized Professor Fontagné for his joint contribution to tor all industries and countries FedEx serves. Dr Huang
the debate on the endogenous symmetry of shocks in plays an active role in the business economic and policy
monetary unions. In 2007, he was awarded the Research circles and serves in an advisory capacity to US govern-
Fellowship of GTAP (Global Trade Analysis Project, ment agencies and international organizations. As a mem-
Purdue University). He is currently working on trade poli- ber of the Blue Chip Consensus Panel, he contributes to
cy issues, offshoring, outsourcing, and the economics of the economic consensus used by policymakers as well as
eindustrialization. He has previously worked on competi- the business community. He is part of The Wall Street
tiveness, on sanitary and technical barriers to trade, on Journal Economic Panel and BusinessWeek Magazine’s
the relationships between trade and FDI, on tax competi- Business Outlook Panel. Dr Huang serves as vice chair-
tion, on intra-industry trade, and on the evaluation of the man for the Conference of Business Economists and sat
single market program. on the Board of Directors (2007) of the National
Association for Business Economics (NABE), and is a
Thierry Geiger member of groups of business economists such as the
398 Thierry Geiger is an Economist with the Global European Council of Economists, the National Business
Competitiveness Network and a Global Leadership Fellow Economic Issues Council, and the Harvard Industrial
at the World Economic Forum. His responsibilities include Economists Group. Starting his corporate career in 1987
the construction and computation of a range of indexes, with a Wall Street money management firm, Dr Huang
as well as data analysis for various projects and studies. has worked for some of the world’s largest industrial cor-
His main areas of expertise are econometrics and interna- porations and prestigious research institutions, including
tional trade. Mr Geiger holds a BA in Economics from the Eaton Corporation, General Motors Corporation, ICSEAD
University of Geneva with a specialization in monetary in Japan, and Wharton School’s Economic Research Unit.
and financial economics, and an MA in Economics from He is the author of two books on business economics
the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver. Prior to and many articles. Dr Huang received his MA from Yale
joining the Forum, he worked for the World Trade University and his PhD from the University of
Organization and Caterpillar Inc. During his studies, he Pennsylvania, and holds a Law degree from Fudan
was a Member of the Board of Junior Entreprise Genève. University in Shanghai.
He is also Co-Founder of Procab Studio S.A., an IT com-
pany based in Geneva. Robert Z. Lawrence
Robert Z. Lawrence is the Albert L. Williams Professor of
Poul Hansen Trade and Investment at the John F. Kennedy School of
Poul Hansen has more than 20 years of experience in the Government at Harvard University and a Nonresident
area of transport and trade facilitation, transportation Senior Fellow with the Peterson Institute for International
management, and public affairs management, as well as Economics. He was appointed by President Clinton to
management consulting at international and national lev- serve as a member of his Council of Economic Advisers
els for organizations and companies such as UNCTAD, in 1999. He held the New Century Chair as a Nonresident
UNECE, Ernst & Young, FreightForwardInternational, the Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and founded
IRU, and the Ziegler Group, among others. Mr Hansen and edited the Brookings Trade Forum. Lawrence has
has management experience in a number of industries, been a Senior Fellow in the Economic Studies Program at
including transportation, automotive industry, association Brookings (1983–91), a professorial lecturer at the Johns
management, retail, and manufacturing. His studies Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
include a MSc in Business Administration and (1978–81), and an instructor at Yale University (1975). He
Commercial Law from Copenhagen Business School. has served as a consultant to the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York, the World Bank, the OECD, and UNCTAD.
Qin He He is the author of more than 100 papers and articles on
Qin He is Project Manager of the Mobility Industries at topics in the field of international economics, particularly
the World Economic Forum. Immediately prior to joining on global integration, trade in the Middle East, and the
the Forum, Ms He completed a two-year rotational execu- impact of trade on the labor market. He is also the author
tive management training program at the North America or coauthor of several books, including Blue Collar Blues:
headquarters of CSAV, a Chilean shipping company. In Is Trade to Blame For Rising US Income Equality? (2008),
this capacity, she worked closely with senior executives US-Middle East Trade Agreements: A Circle of
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 399
About the Authors

Opportunity (2006), Case Studies in US Trade Negotiation Tapio Naula
(2006), Anchoring Reform with a US-Egypt Free Trade Tapio Naula is Trade Facilitation Expert, USAID Regional
Agreement (2005), Has Globalization Gone Far Enough? Trade Liberalization and Customs Project (RTLC). Mr
The Costs of Fragmented Markets (2004), Crimes and Naula has a long experience in the freight forwarding
Punishment? Retaliation under the WTO (2003), and business in the United States and Latvia. He has gained
Globaphobia: Confronting Fears about Open Trade (1998). his MSc in Logistics at the Turku School of Economics
(TSE), Finland, where he is currently enrolled as a PhD
Mondher Mimouni student. In recent years, he has worked as a researcher
Mondher Mimouni has worked as Senior Market Analyst at TSE on Trade Logistics, mostly with the Baltic States.
in the Market Analysis and Research section of the He is a co-author to the World Bank’s Logistics Perform-
International Trade Centre since 1999. As part of his work ance Index. In 2007, he worked for the German develop-
on international trade, he has built the Web-based applica- ment agency GTZ with Trade Logistics issues in Central
tion Market Access Map and developed the Trade Asia. Since March 2008, he has been stationed in Bishkek,
Performance Index for assessing and monitoring the Kyrgyz Republic, with the US consultancy firm AECOM,
export performance and competitiveness of countries. Mr and is working on trade facilitation issues closely with
Mimouni has also contributed to a variety of joint market USAID in the Central Asian region.
access analysis projects of the ITC, UNCTAD, and the
WTO, including World Tariff Profile; MDG indicators; and Lauri Ojala
the Multi-Agency Support Team project on the collection, Dr Lauri Ojala is a tenured full professor of logistics at the
classification, and analysis of Non Tariff Measures. Mr Turku School of Economics, Finland. His research inter-
Mimouni holds an M.Phil. equivalent in Development ests include international logistics and transport markets.
Economics from the Economic University of Montpellier, Since the mid 1990s, he has also worked as an expert for
and an MS in Agricultural Policy and Development several international agencies (the World Bank, the Asian
Administration from the International Centre for Advanced Development Bank, the European Commission, and the
Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM-Montpellier). Nordic Investment Bank) in development projects in, for
example, the Baltic States, Albania, Moldova, South
John Moavenzadeh Caucasus, and Central Asia. In 2006–07, he was in charge
John Moavenzadeh is Senior Director and Head of of two EU part-funded logistics projects in the Baltic Sea
Sustainable Mobility and Strategy at the World Economic Region with a combined volume of over 4 million euros;
Forum. He leads the team within the Forum’s Centre for DaGoB deals with transport of Dangerous Goods
Global Industries focused on the automotive, logistics & (www.dagob.info), and LogOn Baltic deals with logistics
transportation, and aviation, travel & tourism industries. and ICT competence (www.logonbaltic.info). Dr Ojala is 399
Prior to joining the Forum, Mr Moavenzadeh was a prod- initiator and co-author of the Logistics Performance Index
uct design engineer with Ford Motor Company, an associ- (www.worldbank.org/lpi), which was launched by the
ate with Booz Allen Hamilton’s transportation practice, World Bank in November 2007.
and executive director of the MIT International Motor
Vehicle Program, a global research consortium focused John Panzer
on the automotive industry. He has spoken, lectured, and John Panzer is Sector Manager, Africa Region, World
published on sustainable mobility and the global automo- Bank. In this capacity, he manages the group responsible
tive industry for the US National Academies and several for economic policy analysis and development policy
universities. Mr Moavenzadeh holds a BS in Mechanical operations for a group of 12 countries in Southern Africa.
Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University, an MS in A Chilean national, Mr Panzer joined the Bank in 1990.
Mechanical Engineering from the University of Michigan, Prior to joining the Africa Region, he was Sector Manager
and an MPP from Harvard University. of the Bank’s International Trade Department, responsible
for supporting the development and implementation of
Monica Alina Mustra trade-related operations at both country and regional lev-
Monica Alina Mustra is a Trade Facilitation/Logistics els. He has also served in several capacities in Latin
Specialist, International Trade Department at the World America and South Asia. Before joining the Bank, he
Bank. Mrs Mustra joined the Bank in 2004 and has taught economics and industrial organization at University
worked on a number of the Bank’s trade and transport- Adolfo Ibanez and the National University of Chile. Mr
related projects and learning products including organiza- Panzer has a PhD in Economics from the University of
tion of policy dialogues, workshops, seminars, and dis- Chicago.
tance learning courses. Most recently she contributed to
the Logistics Performance Indicators (LPI) project—a Xavier Pichot
global initiative of the World Bank Trade Logistics Group. Mr Xavier Pichot has worked as a Market Analyst in the
She is currently acting as the Coordinator for the Global Market Analysis and Research section of the International
Facilitation Partnership for Transportation and Trade (GFP) Trade Centre (ITC) since 2001 and is responsible for pro-
www.gfptt.org. Prior to joining the World Bank she cessing tariff information for the Market Access Map
worked for the Harvard Center for International Web application. Mr Pichot has also contributed to a vari-
Development (CID), the European Commission, and the ety of joint market access analysis projects of the ITC,
Romanian Ministry of Finance. She holds a Master’s in the WTO, and UNCTAD, including the World Tariff Profile
Mathematics and Information Technology from University and MDG indicators. Mr Pichot holds an MPhil in
of Craiova, Romania, a one-year Certificate in International International Economics from the University of Pau.
Tax Policy and Administration from Harvard Law School,
and a two-year Master’s in Public Administration from the
John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University.
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 400
About the Authors
Eva Trujillo Herrera

Eva Trujillo Herrera is a Research Analyst with the Global
Competitiveness Network at the World Economic Forum.
Her responsibilities include the computation of a range of
benchmarking indexes, as well as data analysis for vari-
ous projects and studies related to trade and economic
development. Prior to joining the Forum she worked as a
consultant for the International Trade Centre in Geneva,
where she carried out trade analysis for African countries.
Ms Trujillo Herrera holds a Bachelor of Arts in
International Affairs and Political Science from Marquette
University, and an MA in Applied Economics from
Northern Illinois University, both in the United States.
During her studies she worked at the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) on the
Creative Industries Program. Her main areas of expertise
are international politics and international trade.
400
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 401
Acknowledgments
The World Economic Forum would like to thank the following organizations
for their invaluable support of this Report.
ABX LOGISTICS Worldwide is one of the world’s top 15 air and sea freight forwarders and in the
European top 10 for international road freight transport. Operating across 100 countries world-
wide (37 with its own subsidiaries), the group has a turnover of approximately €2 billion and a
workforce of nearly 8,000 people. The Group’s Headquarters are in Brussels (Belgium), the capi-
tal of Europe. For more information, go to www.abxlogistics.com.
Agility is a leading global logistics provider with more than 32,000 employees, and over 550
offices in 100 countries around the world. A publicly traded company, with over US$6 billion in
annual revenue, we have three key operating units—Global Integrated Logistics (GIL), Defense &
Government Services (DGS), and Investments.
Agility Global Integrated Logistics (GIL)

With a strong focus on personal service, our Global Integrated Logistics (GIL) Business Group
provides flexible supply chain solutions tailored to meet the specialized business needs of com-
mercial customers worldwide. These are supported by a comprehensive network of warehous-
ing facilities, transportation and freight management services. Our customers span a range of
industries from technology and retail to more specialized markets such as chemicals, project
logistics and exhibition logistics.
We partner with our customers and understand their business needs, competition, and their 401
industry metrics. Through this understanding, we develop customized solutions incorporating our
industry-focused capabilities from the Agility global suite of contract logistics and freight man-
agement products. Agility combines its geographic reach and logistics expertise in emerging
markets to solve the most complex challenges for customers all over the world.
For more information about Agility, visit www.agilitylogistics.com.
Deutsche Post World Net is the world’s leading logistics group. Our workforce of approximately
500,000 employees does business in more than 220 countries and territories on five continents,
a fact that makes us one of the largest private-sector employers worldwide. With the bundled
logistics expertise of our brands Deutsche Post, DHL and Postbank, we offer a broad portfolio of
integrated services and tailor-made, customer-focused solutions to manage and transport goods,
information, and payments worldwide. With our GoGreen climate protection program we are
striving to be an innovative service provider for our customers and fulfil our social responsibility.
DP World is one of the largest port operators in the world, with 43 terminals and 13 new devel-
opments across 28 countries. Its professional team of nearly 30,000 serves customers in some
of the most dynamic economies in the world. In 2007, DP World handled more than 43.3 million
TEU (twenty-foot equivalent container units). It has global capacity today of 48 million TEU, with
committed projects that will expand capacity to around 90 million TEU by 2017.
FedEx Corp. (NYSE: FDX) provides customers and businesses worldwide with a broad portfolio
of transportation, e-commerce and business services. With annual revenues of $37 billion, the
company offers integrated business applications through operating companies competing collec-
tively and managed collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. Consistently ranked
among the world’s most admired and trusted employers, FedEx inspires its more than 290,000
employees and contractors to remain absolutely, positively focused on safety, the highest ethical
and professional standards and the needs of their customers and communities. For more infor-
mation, visit news.fedex.com.
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 402
Acknowledgments
The Global Express Association represents international express delivery companies that serve
over 220 countries, carrying over 30 million packages each day, all of them guaranteed to be
delivered within specified time frames. Express delivery operators provide integrated, door-to-door
services, including not only transportation systems in which the location and progress of packages
is constantly tracked but also cross-border clearance and collection of payments from customers.
Express delivery operators make it possible for businesses of any size to compete effectively in
the modern global marketplace, serving their customers across a continent or around the world.
Although the efficient transportation links provided by express delivery companies can bene-
fit a national economy of any nature, they are critical to knowledge-based economies, those
engaged in production of high-value goods, and those comprising primarily small and medium
size enterprises.
More information about GEA and its members is available at www.global-express.org or
from info@global-express.org.
The International Air Transport Association (IATA), founded in April 1945, is the prime vehicle for
inter-airline cooperation in promoting safe, reliable, secure, and economical air services. Today
IATA represents 250 airlines comprising 94 percent of international scheduled air traffic.
The International Trade Centre (ITC) is the joint technical cooperation agency of the United
Nations and the WTO. ITC enables small business export success in developing countries by
providing, with partners, sustainable and inclusive trade development solutions to the private
sector, trade support institutions and policy makers.
402
The Stena Sphere consists of the three parent companies, Stena AB (publ), Stena Sessan AB
and Stena Metall AB and their subsidiaries. The Stena Sphere generated total revenues of SEK
46,046 million in 2007. Income before tax amounted to SEK 4,580 million. The business idea is
to use our knowledge about trade, ships, service, industry, and finance to make money in the
business areas of shipping, ferry lines, offshore drilling, real estate, recycling and finance and to
look after our clients in such a way that we contribute to their development as well as the devel-
opment of society.
TNT provides businesses and consumers worldwide with an extensive range of services for their
mail and express delivery needs. Headquartered in the Netherlands, TNT offers efficient network
infrastructures in Europe and Asia and is expanding operations worldwide to maximize its net-
work performance. TNT serves more than 200 countries and employs around 161,500 people.
Over 2007, TNT reported €11 billion in revenues and an operating income of €1,192 million. TNT
is publicly listed on the stock exchange of Amsterdam. TNT recognizes its social responsibility,
and has formed partnerships with the United Nations World Food Programme and the United
Nations Environment Programme to fight hunger and pollution in the world. More information
about TNT can be found on its website http://group.tnt.com.
United Nations Conference on Trade And Development (UNCTAD) promotes the development-
friendly integration of developing countries into the world trade and economy, particularly focus-
ing on sustainable development.
The organization carries out three key functions:

It is a forum for intergovernmental deliberations and consensus building.
It undertakes research, policy analysis and data collection.
It provides technical assistance tailored towards developing countries, in particular the least
developed countries and economies in transition.
The UNCTAD secretariat works together with member Governments and donors and interacts
with organizations of the United Nations system, other intergovernmental and governmental
institutions, non-governmental organizations, the private sector, research institutes and universi-
ties worldwide.
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 403
Acknowledgments
UPS is the world’s largest package delivery company and a global leader in supply chain and
freight services, offering an extensive range of options for synchronising the movement of
goods, information and funds. Headquartered in Atlanta, USA, UPS serves more than 200 coun-
tries and territories worldwide. UPS’s stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange (UPS) and
the company can be found on the Web at www.UPS.com.
The World Bank is a vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries
around the world. We are not a bank in the common sense. We are made up of two unique
development institutions owned by 185 member countries—the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA).
Each institution plays a different but supportive role in our mission of global poverty reduction
and the improvement of living standards. The IBRD focuses on middle income and creditworthy
poor countries, while IDA focuses on the poorest countries in the world. Together we provide
low-interest loans, interest-free credit and grants to developing countries for education, health,
infrastructure, communications and many other purposes.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the international organization dealing with the global
rules of trade between nations. Its main function is to ensure that trade flows as smoothly,
predictably and freely as possible.
403
ET.partC.r1 6/2/08 11:47 PM Page 404

Global Enabling Trade Report 2008

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Global Enabling Trade Report 2008

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ET.part.A.

r1 6/2/08 10:03 PM Page i

World Economic Forum

The Global Enabling Trade

Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2008 is World Economic Forum

Professor Klaus Schwab All rights reserved. No part of this publication

At the World Economic Forum:

LOGISTICS & TRANSPORT TEAM

Sean Doherty, Head of Logistics and Transport Industry

GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS NETWORK TEAM

Fiona Paua, Senior Director, Head of Strategic Insight Teams

A special thank you to Hope Steele for her

The terms country and nation as used in this

Partner Institutes v Part 2: Country/Economy Profiles and Data 85

1.3 Additional Taxes and the Indirect Evidence 41

1.4 Connecting to Compete: 53

1.5 Facilitating Cross-Border Movement of Goods: 67

1.6 Countdown to 2015: Improving Access 77

Pakistan Business Unity South Africa

United Arab Emirates

Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,

Table 1: The Enabling Trade Index 2008

Hong Kong SAR 1 6.04 1 6.66 7 5.99 4 5.66 2 5.84

Jamaica 66 3.80 90 3.46 68 3.85 55 3.52 70 4.37

Table 2: The Enabling Trade Index: Market access

Albania 57 4.29 13 5.72 104 2.86

Mauritania 93 3.39 84 3.81 102 2.96

Table 3: The Enabling Trade Index: Border administration

Albania 64 3.89 58 3.76 67 4.41 70 3.49

Mauritania 102 2.95 111 2.29 99 3.49 93 3.06

Table 4: The Enabling Trade Index: Transport and communications infrastructure

Albania 106 2.47 102 2.78 118 2.29 81 2.33

Mauritania 98 2.62 110 2.45 76 3.26 88 2.16

Table 5: The Enabling Trade Index: Business environment

Albania 82 4.22 73 4.26 78 4.19

Mauritania 66 4.41 82 4.16 60 4.65

1.1: The Enabling Trade Index

1.1: The Enabling Trade Index

1.1: The Enabling Trade Index

1.1: The Enabling Trade Index

1.1: The Enabling Trade Index

1.1: The Enabling Trade Index

Figure 1: Composition of the four subindexes of the ETI

Tariff and non-tariff Efficiency of customs Availability and quality of

Proclivity to trade Efficiency of import- Availability and quality of

Transparency of Availability and

1.1: The Enabling Trade Index

1.1: The Enabling Trade Index

Box 1: Testing the ETI model (cont’d.)

Note: Dependent variable is ln(IMPij ); robust standard errors

1.1: The Enabling Trade Index

Figure 1: Regional rankings of the ETI

1.1: The Enabling Trade Index

Box 2: Regional performance in the Enabling Trade Index (cont’d.)

Source: WTO, 2007.

1.1: The Enabling Trade Index

Trade in these countries is significantly hampered by inefficient

Source: WTO, 2007.

1.1: The Enabling Trade Index

Table 1: The Enabling Trade Index 2008

Hong Kong SAR 1 6.04 1 6.66 7 5.99 4 5.66 2 5.84

1.1: The Enabling Trade Index

Jamaica 66 3.80 90 3.46 68 3.85 55 3.52 70 4.37