Display:
At The Anglo Disease (3) - an introduction for non-economists which also seems like a summary of sorts, has the chart of:
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28/afew/zoroimf.jpg

But if you want to spell out which countries may be exposed to a kind of Dutch Disease then it would be better to have Net Financial Services Exports as a percentage of Exports. The way you have it does not control for economies that exports make up a disproportional aspect of the GDP.

Or in other words, it matter little whether there is a lot of exports as percentage of GDP if it is proportional to the whole economy.

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford

by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Wed Apr 9th, 2008 at 04:47:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you saying that as a percentage of GDP and proportional to the whole economy are not (very closely) the same thing?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Apr 16th, 2008 at 11:11:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I guess, I have not explained myself very well.
Let us say that we have 2 economies X and Y.
X exports around 3-4% of its GDP
Y exports around 75% of its GDP (lots of pass through or a market that is geared toward exporting services)

Thus if one segment of exports in X is 2% of GDP that is high as a percentage of exports but not GDP.
And if one segment in Y has 4% of exports of GDP that really does not signify much external exposure as percentage of total exports.

That is one reason I think the Caribbean countries had such high levels of GDP but may not be the same level of exposure. Just trying to differentiate between high exporting countries and not.

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford

by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Thu Apr 17th, 2008 at 06:56:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series