Sección o Parte de un Documento 1995 es 382.3 B584L(58739) Corden, W. Max Coediciones NAFTA AMERICA LATINA LIBERALIZACION DEL INTERCAMBIO NEGOCIACIONES COMERCIALES TRATADOS ZONAS DE LIBRE COMERCIO FREE TRADE AREAS LATIN AMERICA TRADE LIBERALIZATION TRADE NEGOTIATIONS TREATIES NAFTA Una zona de libre comercio en el Hemisferio Occidental: posibles implicancias para América Latina Incluye Bibliografía En: La liberalización del comercio en el Hemisferio Occidental - Washington, DC : BID/CEPAL, 1995 - p. 13-40 Proyecto Apoyo al Proceso de Liberalización Comercial en el Hemisferio Occidental http://hdl.handle.net/11362/1510 2014-01-02T14:51:16Z 2014-01-02T14:51:16Z Made available in DSpace on 2014-01-02T14:51:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 1995 POLÍTICA COMERCIAL Y ACUERDOS COMERCIALES TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMERCIO INTERNACIONAL E INTEGRACIÓN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND INTEGRATION Texto Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard User manual José Durán Lima Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard User manual José Durán Lima Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean This document has been prepared by José Durán Lima, Chief of the Regional Integration Unit of the Division of International Trade and Integration, of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), in the framework of the activities of the United Nations Development Account: “Facilitating the Effective Integration of Developing Countries in the Global Economy through Aid for Trade Schemes”, ROA 139-7. The views expressed in this document, which has been reproduced without formal editing, are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Organization. LC/W.619 Copyright © United Nations, October 2014. All rights reserved Printed at United Nations, Santiago, Chile ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5 I. General use: the dashboard as a tool...................................................................................... 7 A. Start .................................................................................................................................. 7 B. Data sources consulted .................................................................................................... 8 C. Cross-reference consultation requirements ..................................................................... 9 1. Recipient country ...................................................................................................... 9 D. Donor .............................................................................................................................. 11 E. Type of quantity .............................................................................................................. 11 F. Type of ODA flows ......................................................................................................... 11 G. Year ................................................................................................................................ 12 II. Indicator module: consolidated report.................................................................................... 15 1. Concentration index/diversification......................................................................... 16 2. Aid for Trade as a share of official development aid .............................................. 18 3. Relative indicators for AfT and ODA ...................................................................... 18 4. Indicators per capita ............................................................................................... 19 III. Aggregate report by sector .................................................................................................... 21 1. Aid for Trade predictability index ............................................................................ 24 IV. Query mode for ODA/AfT sector data.................................................................................... 27 V. Integrated sector query module ............................................................................................. 29 VI. Areas that must be reinforced ................................................................................................ 33 VII. Update of dashboard sources ................................................................................................ 35 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................... 37 Annex............................................................................................................................................. 39 Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Categories of ODA recipient countries, 2001-2013 ................................................ 11 Ethiopia: ODA and AfT concentration/diversification indexes, 2011 ...................... 17 Relative indicators for official development aid and aid for trade, 2012 ................. 19 3 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table A.1 Table A.2 Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual Disaggregation of main sectors in aid for trade ...................................................... 23 Disaggregation of main sectors that make up aid for trade.................................... 24 Degree of predictability of the AfT according to the PIAfT ..................................... 25 ODA Recipient countries ........................................................................................ 40 Official development aid and aid for trade sectors included in the database ......... 41 Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Example of AfT disbursements per capita: an international comparison, 2012 ..... 20 Ethiopia: distribution of economic infrastructure projects, 2012 ............................. 27 Ethiopia: distribution of ODA by sector, 2011 ........................................................ 31 Comparison of DAC-OECD countries, 2012 .......................................................... 32 Diagram Diagram A.1 Detail of the OECD database update ..................................................................... 45 Images Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image 4 Image 5 Image 6 Image 7A Image 7B Image 8 Image 9 Image 10 Access using different browsers ............................................................................... 8 Main page display to access dashboard .................................................................. 8 Input and tables based on results per query ............................................................ 9 Examples of the dashboard’s main query windows ............................................... 12 Command to save results obtained ........................................................................ 13 Sequence to create “observatory results” folder .................................................... 14 Indicators query: Ethiopia, 2012 ............................................................................. 16 Query: Ethiopia, 2012 ............................................................................................. 18 Detailed report by sector ........................................................................................ 22 Detailed report by sector, 2012 .............................................................................. 28 Integrated sector query module report, 2012 ......................................................... 30 4 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual Introduction This Manual is intended to guide individuals and institutions seeking to use the Aid for Trade Dashboard developed by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean as part of the Development Project “Facilitating the Effective Integration of Developing Countries into the Global Economy through Aid for Trade Schemes”. This Dashboard presents a set of online indicators for all the countries comprising the five United Nations’ Regional Commissions which are currently participating in this project: Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), and Economic Commission for Latin America and Caribbean (ECLAC). This guide has a dual purpose. First, we present the way in which information on Official Development Assistance (ODA) is organized —in particular Aid for Trade (AFT)— and divided into different components based on origin and frequency of such aid. The information contained in this Dashboard is based on data contained in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Aid for Trade Database. Secondly, the guide describes the main features and search options of the Dashboard in order to enable the researcher to conduct queries based on specific needs. It allows for detailed searches conducive to the analysis of the donor and recipient country’s behavior, aid flows, distribution and predictability. This guide, currently in progress, represents the work undertaken by technicians from the Division of International Trade and Integration (ITID) at the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) between 2010 and 2013. During this period, ITID technicians developed a set of trade flow indicators suited for the analysis of trade and trade policy. The inclusion of such indicators in the analysis of Aid for Trade and Development Cooperation is a natural progression that seeks to deepen and broaden the work completed to date as well as understand trade and its ties to development. Much of the work previously carried out to evaluate the effects of trade and its link to international aid development —specifically, Aid for Trade— do not necessarily have a direct connection with empirical evidence that would allow determination of the particular rank of a country or group of countries as aid receptors taking into account their export structure and relative size. The technicians and researchers involved in this project integrated multiple data sets from various international databases (inter alia, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, United Nations COMTRADE, United Nations Regional Commissions). From there on, performing calculations of 5 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual basic indicators related to structure, percentage shares, and performance, among others, proved to be a daunting and time consuming task. The Dashboard we are presenting today attempts to resolve all these issues in a simple and integrated manner by providing users of the five participating Regional Commissions the appropriate information concerning each of the member countries. We hope these new technical tools —the online consultation system and the accompanying guide— will represent a valuable contribution to the better understanding of the state of the AFT and the funds received by countries to further their development. The Division of International Trade and Integration at ECLAC was in charge of project management and supervised by Jose Duran Lima and Tania Garcia Millan. The Dashboard was created by a team of technical experts including Myriam Echeverria, Research Assistant and Information Technology Expert, as well as Andres Yanez and Pierre Lebret, ECLAC ITID Consultants. Moreover, the project development was supported by the Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID). Michele Rosenberg and Jieun Park provided assistance. 6 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual I. General use: the dashboard as a tool This manual presents a detailed approach on how to use the Aid for Trade Dashboard.1 Overall, the graphic interface of the site is user-friendly. The design is based on a keypad with hanging menus that allows selection of indicators or particular sections. In order to facilitate the use of the tool, we include a brief technical explanation that describes the methodology used in each case wherein an indicator was calculated. A. Start A web browser that supports applications in flash format is required to access the Central American Trade Observatory. Access is obtained through http://www.cepal.org/comercio/aftis/hhibysector /index.html which address must be typed directly into the selected browser. Below are examples in Windows and MAC browsers: Subsequently, hit enter and wait a few seconds for the browser to display the main search screen (see image 1). In this screenshot, the user will find four query modules, namely: 1. Search main indicators - This module is related to general indicators that include information on Official Development Assistance and Aid for Trade. 2. Aid for Trade Consolidated Report - This brief report consolidates information for major categories of AfT. 3. ODA and AFT detailed report by sector —the module presents more detailed information on AfT. 4. Integrated Query —This module provides a consolidated report that compiles all the information consulted for a single country in a vector format. This facilitates the subsequent analysis of the information to create indicators and tables according to the specific needs of each researcher. 1 The website includes a query system for information on Official Development Assistance and Aid for Trade for member countries of the five regional commissions involved in the project: ECA, ESCAP, ECLAC, ESCWA and ECE. 7 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual IMAGE 1 ACCESS USING DIFFERENT BROWSERS Google Chrome Mozilla Firefox Internet Explorer Safari for Mac Source: Dashboard ODA/ AFT, ECLAC. IMAGE 2 MAIN PAGE DISPLAY TO ACCESS DASHBOARD Source: Dashboard ODA/ AFT, ECLAC. B. Data sources consulted The dashboard was developed based on the interaction of three complementary databases: i) OECD database on Official Development Assistance (ODA); ii) United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database (COMTRADE), and iii) World Bank World Development Indicators Database (Population, Gross Domestic Product and Foreign Direct Investment). i) The OECD’s Development Cooperation Directorate (DCD-DAC) in its Credit Reporting System (CRS) from http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/idsonline.htm presents basic information on Official Development Assistance (ODA) and Aid for Trade ( AfT ) by recipient country, donor and economic sector. ii) United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database (COMTRADE) http://comtrade.un. org/ provides information on total goods exports and imports for each ODA and AfT recipient country. iii) The World Bank database presents basic information on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), trade (exports and imports), population and foreign direct investment (FDI). The user can make his/her specific query through the World Bank’s official website: http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators. 8 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual C. Cross-reference consultation requirements In order to facilitate the use of the online program and individual consultations, this section briefly describes the main inputs the system must recognize before processing a specific query. First, among the requirements, subject and time period must be specified. These are selected in three keypads: a) recipient country; b) donor; and c) query year. Additionally, two keypads are presented to indicate the type of flow consulted by type of amount —whether it is current or constant and committed or disbursed. Image 3 shows the total map of the Dashboard’s main menus and tables result. IMAGE 3 INPUT AND TABLES BASED ON RESULTS PER QUERY Country Donor(s) Type of flow 1 Constant current Type of flow 2 Committed Disbursed Year to consult Source: Aid for Trade Dashboard, ECLAC. In order to make the user more familiar with the tool, we will describe each of the input buttons needed for the program to establish a query in the aforementioned sites. Moreover, information regarding the data sources and coverage is provided as well as noteworthy definitions. 1. Recipient country With respect to the recipient country, the database displays all of the possible country queries. The user is able to choose by individual country, which list is based on those countries that are eligible to receive ODA and for which there is available information in the OECD’s Development Cooperation Directorate (DCD-DAC) basis, Creditor Reporting System (See: http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/ idsonline.htm). The methodology used to categorize ODA recipient countries is based on the list of middleincome countries as determined by the World Bank and according to the Gross National Income per capita indicator. The full list can be consulted on the World Bank’s website: http://data. worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD. Table 1 presents details of the typology used to determine the range of a middle-income country as well as other categories such as least developed, low middle-income, middle-income, or high-income. A detailed list is attached in table A.1 of this Manual. As an example, we will select an African country: Ethiopia. In the browser, the user can select by region, sub-region, and a preselected group of countries such as: Europe, Africa, Latin America, Asia and Oceania. Image 4 a shows graphically the selection suggested in this guide. 9 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual TABLE 1 CATEGORIES OF ODA RECIPIENT COUNTRIES, 2001-2013 Country categories Per capita GNI in 2010 Least developed countries Number of countries 1 005 = US$ 1 005 en 2010 Other low-income countries 49 5 Lower middle-income countries and territories =US$ 1 006 = US$ 3 975 40 Upper middle-income countries and territories =US$ 3 976 = US$ 12 275 54 Total countries 148 Source: ECLAC based on information from http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/49483614.pdf. D. Donor This window displays countries and world regions that provide ODA flows. The user can choose a specific country, group of countries, multilateral institution, or specific donor. For example, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United Nations International Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), or the European Union institutions as a whole, may be selected as donors. Similarly, it is also possible to select total funds from all donors which includes all the countries from the OECD’s Development Cooperation Directorate (DCD-DAC), multilateral agencies, and DAC non-members. If the user is interested, it is also possible to select the DCD-DAC itself as a donor group. It should be noted that the OECD database includes all types of donors included in its Credit Reporting System, the primary source of data and indicators (See: http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/ idsonline.htm). Table 4 b shows selection screen and full display of all donors selected based on the specific interest of the user. E. Type of quantity In this window, the user can determine whether the amount allocated as AfT is a current or constant flow for a given base year —it should be noted that in the most recent data from 2012, the base year is 2011. As discussed below, for purposes of international comparability, the data in this section that is most useful is that in current dollars since it allows for an analysis of different types of AfT and ODA indicators. Additionally, utilizing data expressed in constant terms in a specific year, one can analyze the evolution of the monetary flows in terms of annual change rate or long-term growth patterns. This, of course, always depends on the interest and needs of the user. F. Type of ODA flows In this window, the user can determine whether the ODA allocated for a specific country is a future commitment or has already been disbursed. The Official Development Assistance received by countries corresponds to that financed by way grants and loans. For many types of financial flows, the financial aid database reports the activity value and the date of the grant or loan agreement, depending on the commitment entered into by the donor and recipient. The flow determined using this procedure is referred to as a commitment and does not necessarily mean it has been immediately disbursed. Conversely, the gross disbursement flows correspond to the expenditure made by a particular donor. 10 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual G. Year This tab selects the specific year for which the query is made. The OECD’s DCD-DAC presents ODA information for the period between 1995 and 2012, as indicated in image 4 e. Once the aforementioned five menus are selected, hit the query button on the upper right hand corner of the screen in order to obtain the results. Your browser will then provide the results of a particular dataset and indicators for the country researched. a) Recipient IMAGE 4 EXAMPLES OF THE DASHBOARD’S MAIN QUERY WINDOWS b) Donor c) Type of quantity Donor Donor country country selection selection Recipient country selection d) Type of flow e) Year Type of quantity selection f) Search Year selection Type of flow selection Source: Aid for Trade Dashboard, ECLAC. 11 Query command ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual An additional utility of the Dashboard consists in allowing users to save the results obtained. By clicking on the “Save” feature, a dialog box will appear with a suggested file name of INDICATORS_1394 .... and, by default, seek to save it in the Desktop. The user may also change the file directory if he/she so opts. To retrieve the file, simply run Excel and open the file from the folder in which it was saved. If the file name or path has not been changed from the default settings, the system will save the generic file name INDICATORS_1394 ... on the desktop of your computer. Image 5 demonstrates the steps required to save the results obtained. IMAGE 5 COMMAND TO SAVE RESULTS OBTAINED By default, the System will display here your PC destkop File name suggested by default Source: ECLAC, Dashboard Aid for Trade. In order to prevent any loss of information, it is recommended that the user assign suitable names for each query and save them in a folder on the hard disk, as suggested in the detailed sequence on image 6 below, where a folder Results Dashboard is created in the hard drive2. 2 Folders and file names are only suggestions. The user may adapt file names and paths according to personal preferences. 12 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual IMAGE 6 SEQUENCE TO CREATE “OBSERVATORY RESULTS” FOLDER 1 Sequence 1: Step 1 2 Assign a name to the folder: Results Dashboard Sequence 2: Step 2 to 4 Assign a name to the file 3 4 Source: ECLAC, Aid for Trade Dashboard. Once the working folder has been created, it is possible to save for all additional queries for further use and analysis. 13 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual II. Indicator module: consolidated report By way of example, below we present the consolidated results of main indicators for Ethiopia in 2012. Let us consider default tables for the indicator to explain the correct data interpretation and suggested analysis. It should be noted that the first column indicates in detail each of the twenty-two indicators that have been defined, the second column displays the value for each indicator or variable, the third column displays the unit of measurement, the fourth column consists in a brief description of the data, and the last column cites the main source for the data obtained (e.g., United Nations COMTRADE, OECD Creditor Reporting System or the World Bank Database). In this way, the user can identify from the beginning, data related to International Cooperation, as well as international trade (exports and imports), GDP, population and incoming Foreign Direct Investment flows (FDI) (see image 7A). The first three rows present official information regarding Official Development Aid (ODA), Aid for Trade (AFT), and ODA that is different from Aid for Trade and which is defined as “ODA not AFT”. The first two rows, along with the other variables contained in the boxes and defined in image 7A, are the main inputs from which the indicators are created. Each is discussed in detail below: 15 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual IMAGE 7A INDICATORS QUERY: ETHIOPIA, 2012 Total Cooperation Flows Total Trade Flows Gross Domestic Product Population Foreign Direct Investment Source: ECLAC, Dashboard Aid for Trade. 1. Concentration index/diversification The database presents the Hirschman-Herfindahl synthetic indicator —also known as HerfindahlHirschmanwhich— which is typically used to measure the high or low degree of market concentration that a private enterprise may have. If there were just one company in the market, then the concentration of sales would be totally and completely focused on this one company. Conversely, if there were more companies, the degree of concentration would depend on the total sales of each one of those companies. Hirschman (1945)3 and later Herfindahl (1950), who first divulged the index, defined the basis of measurement for the indicator that we will utilize to characterize AfT and ODA. For the user’s understanding and analysis, this Manual describes how the index was calculated and suggests the correct interpretation. 3 Hirschman first used it to analyze the international trade structure more than the market share. Later, Herfindahl (1950) used it to analyze the degree of concentration in the US steel market. It was then that the index became known as Herfindahl’s original idea. However, Hirshman claimed the index as his own and clarified his pioneering work in a note published by The American Economic Review (Hirschman, 1964). 16 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual With the information for each donor country, the index is computed according to the following formula: = Where AfT represents the Aid for Trade flows received by a country, i represents the particular sector in which the aid is allocated, AfTT equals the total flows of Aid for Trade received. To identify each sector, the information disaggregated by the OECD Creditor Reporting System (CRS) is used (see table A.2). The calculation of the same indicator for total ODA will take into account all the sectors —that is, all those sectors that are AfT and non-AfT. In order to interpret the resulting index —which will range from 0 to 1— we suggest the following rule of thumb used by the United States Department of Justice to measure the degree of monopolistic concentration within the market: • HHI 0.18 = High concentration; • HHI 0.10 0.18 = Moderate concentration; and • HHI 0.10 = Diversified. The system provides two indicators by default: the index for all the ODA (HHI ODA) and a second one corresponding to AfT (HHI AFT). In the case of Ethiopia, the ODA index equals 0.05 which indicates that the aid Ethiopia receives is widely distributed throughout a wide range of sectors. Conversely, the AfT indicator has a value of 0.17 which makes AfT somewhat more concentrated than total ODA. Contrary to traditional trade or monopolistic concentration analyses - in which high values are often considered as an economic risk due to the dependency and/or vulnerability they imply - in analyzing development aid, a high index can be considered as an indication of greater focalization of international aid in sectors that are of national interest. For this reason, the understanding and interpretation of the index is of a different nature than that associated with traditional analysis. Thus, what may be drawn from this indicator should be supplemented by an analysis of the effectiveness of aid received, the scale of donor intervention, and evaluation of cooperation by using additional criteria such as the relevance of aid, its adequacy to national development programs, as well as ownership and spillovers generated from AfT in various economic sectors. These criteria are applicable to both ODA and AfT. To complement this analysis, it is recommended that users perform a similar inquiry of disbursements, in which case, the indexes reflect the state of the flows actually disbursed by all donors. This indicator can be calculated by using the structure of cooperation provided by a particular donor. Table 3 exemplifies this particular case. It should be noted that AfT flows are systematically more concentrated than those of all the multilateral institutions. The same can be said about AfT received by Ethiopia from the United States which is far less fragmented than that of all donor countries, with an HHI of 0.73 and 0.21, respectively. Similar conclusions can be drawn from an HHI analysis of ODA (see table 2). TABLE 2 ETHIOPIA: ODA AND AFT CONCENTRATION/DIVERSIFICATION INDEXES, 2011 (Based on disbursements) All donors Multilateral institutions European Union institutions United States HHI ODA 0.05 0.08 0.19 0.20 HHI AfT 0.21 0.36 0.73 0.57 Source: ECLAC, Aid for Trade Dashboard. 17 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual A variant of this indicator is that which uses as a unit of measurement the number of donors present in each country instead of the sectors to which AfT or ODA is destined. In this case, the interpretation is similar to the one described above with the exception that it is no longer possible to talk about focalization, but rather about greater or less fragmentation of the aid received. If the HHI is close to 1, then there is little to no fragmentation. On the contrary, if the HHI is low or less than 0.10, it entails a country that receives aid from multiple donors and there is a greater fragmentation of that aid. This new indicator complements the conclusions that can be drawn from the results of the above-described indicator. Djankov et. al. (2009) use this indicator to measure the fragmentation of aid in an analysis of the economic growth of the Latin American and Caribbean region. 2. Aid for Trade as a share of official development aid This simple tool indicates the proportion of the total ODA that corresponds to Aid for Trade. To determine total AfT, the Dashboard aggregates the set of codes corresponding to the OECD Creditor Reporting System (see table A.2). In the case of Ethiopia, this indicator shows that in 2012, 46.5% of all ODA commitments were Aid for Trade (see image 7B). The user can confirm that the same query for disbursed AfT represents 48.3% of total ODA. In addition to indicators outputs, the Dashboard displays a graph of AfT distribution within ODA. This graph automatically appears to the right of the table with all the indicators that the Dashboard yields (see image 7B). IMAGE 7B QUERY: ETHIOPIA, 2012 Percentage of AfT/ODA Source: ECLAC, Aid for Trade Dashboard. 3. Relative indicators for AfT and ODA In addition to the measure of incidence of AfT in ODA, the Dashboard offers some complementary indicators that demonstrate AfT and ODA density in some macroeconomic variables, e.g.: exports, imports, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Table 3 details the list of these indicators and the results obtained for a query on AfT and ODA flows (committed and disbursed) for Ethiopia in 2012. 18 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual TABLE 3 RELATIVE INDICATORS FOR OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT AID AND AID FOR TRADE, 2012 (In percentages) Indicator AfT v/s ODA AOD v/s Exports AOD v/s Imports AfT v/s Exports AfT v/s Imports ODA v/s GDP AfT v/s GDP ODA v/s FDI AfT v/s FDI FDI v/s GDP Ethiopia results Formula Commitments Disbursements 46.5 18.3 198.1 112.4 ∗ 100 40.8 27.3 ∗ 100 78.1 20.6 ∗ 100 19.0 5.0 ODA ∗ 100 GDP 11.7 7.8 5.4 1.4 1744.9 1166.9 810.8 213.8 0.7 0.7 AfT ∗ 100 ODA ODA ∗ 100 ODA AfT AfT AfT ∗ 100 GDP ODA ∗ 100 FDI AfT ∗ 100 FDI FDI ∗ 100 Source: Authors. Notes: X = Exports; M = Imports; GDP = Gross Domestic Product; FDI = Foreign Direct Investment; t = Time. In the example above, one can observe that AfT is significant as it reaches 78.1% and 20.6% of the value of exported goods depending on whether committed or disbursed funds are considered. Moreover, the total ODA reaches 198.1% and 112.4% of exports in committed and disbursed funds, respectively. In terms of GDP, the Aid for Trade commitment was 5.4% and Aid for Trade disbursed was 1.4%. The ODA and AfT indexes as percentages of foreign direct investment are markedly elevated which indicates the enormous weight international aid has in Ethiopia —well above the FDI level which only reaches 0.7% of GDP. The analyst may conclude that given that AfT is 5.4% of GDP, it is so significant that it exceeds the total flow of FDI Ethiopia received in 2012 by almost 8 times. However, it should be clarified that for the AfT actually paid —meaning, those funds actually disbursed— the share is 1.4%. This assertion may be confirmed by the amounts appearing in millions of dollars for both indicators and which appear in the Results screen (see table 3 and images 5A and 5B). 4. Indicators per capita Beginning with the population information provided by the World Bank databases, the Dashboard calculates the amount of dollars per capita of ODA or AfT in a given year. In Ethiopia, this measure is US $53 per capita for the case of total ODA and about US $25 in AfT in the case of commitments. If the same query is made for disbursed amounts, the amounts per capita are US $35.40 and US $6.50 for ODA and AfT, respectively (see image 7A). Users can query the level of AfT for various recipient countries and compare the data retrieved using the Dashboard, save the results, and either tabulate the results or present them in a graphic form such as the one shown in Figure 1 which demonstrates the heterogeneity of this measure between a group of countries in Africa and Haiti. 19 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual FIGURE 1 EXAMPLE OF AFT DISBURSEMENTS PER CAPITA: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON, 2012 (In dollars) Djibouti Ghana Haití Haiti Rwanda Tanzania Mali Benin Zambia Etiopia Madagascar Sudan Somalia Angola Guinea Ecuatorial 75 44 34 25 24 22 20 18 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,2 0,1 0 10 20 30 Source: Aid for trade dashboard, ECLAC 20 40 50 60 70 80 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual III. Aggregate report by sector The second keypad of the system allows the user to aggregate synthetically the main sectors that are beneficiaries of AfT for a given year. The Dashboard conducts an online search of the CRS database, aggregates each of the sectors considered as AfT, and presents the results in millions of dollars in a small table that the user can then save. Moreover, by default, the system displays the percentage structure and value of each of the main sectors receiving AfT so that the user can assess the share of each of the major sectors within AfT. Continuing with Ethiopia as an example, the results indicate a significant prevalence of AfT allocated in the Economic Infrastructure category which accounts for total commitments of US $1.279 million in 2012 —equivalent to 56.7% of total Aid for Trade. Further, 22.9% of the total AfT commitments were destined for productive capacity building. Lastly, sectors linked to trade-related adjustment and trade policy and regulations have shares of 11% and 9% of total AfT, respectively (see image 8A). A preliminary conclusion would indicate that, for the case at hand, most AfT is related to commitment in economic infrastructure and productive capacity building given that these two sectors account for about 80% of total flows received. However, in order for these conclusions to be whole, and as mentioned in previous sections, we suggest that the user perform an analysis of the structure of actual disbursements, which analysis can be easily done by switching from commitments to gross disbursements in the keypad flow type option. As can be seen, the analysis of funds disbursed for Ethiopia presents a somewhat different structure with respect to the one showed by the pattern of commitments. In this case, economic infrastructure category predominates with disbursements of US $373 million, equivalent to 62.64% of total Aid for Trade. Next in significance, is the productive capacity building sector with US $220 million and a finding that the least amount of funds are disbursed for trade policy, regulations and trade-related adjustment (see image 8B). By obtaining the structure of AfT —both in terms of commitments and actual disbursements— the user can make a comparison between the two types of flows. The graphics that automatically appear in the Dashboard provide the user with a quick glance at the significance and share of flows destined for economic infrastructure. Table 4 presents the details for each of the sectors considered. It should be noted that the report to which we are referring to in this Manual is labeled as “Level 1”, meaning, the aggregation of the 4 main sectors that are included in the graph that appear alongside the results. For example, included as part of economic infrastructure projects are transport and storage projects, 21 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual communications, water production and supply. Even further, within these large categories there is a breakdown in even more categories (see table A.2). We will expand upon this in the following section. IMAGE 8 DETAILED REPORT BY SECTOR (In millions of dollars and percentages) A. B. COMMITMENTS DISBURSEMNETS Source: Aid for Trade Dashboard, ECLAC 22 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual TABLE 4 DISAGGREGATION OF MAIN SECTORS IN AID FOR TRADE Main sectors (Level 1) Subsectors (Level 2) Trade policy and regulations Trade policy and regulations 331 33110, 33161, 33162,33120, 33130, 33140, 33181. Transport and Storage 210 21010, 21020, 21030, 21040, 21050, 21061, 21081. Communications 220 22010, 22020, 22030, 22040, Water production and supply 230 23010, 23020, 23030, 23040, 23050, 23064, 23065, 23067, 23070, 23081, 23082. Banking Financial services 240 24010, 24020, 24030, 24040, 24081. Business support services and other 250 25010. Agriculture 311 31110, 31120, 31130, 31140, 31150, 31161, 31162, 31163, 31164, 31165, 31166, 31181, 31182, 31191, 31192, 31193, 31194, 31195. Forestry 312 Fishing 313 Industry 321 Mineral resources and mining 322 Tourism 332 General budget support 510 Economic infrastructure Productive capacity building General budget supportrelated aid 3-digit code Code CRS-SNPA (5 digits) (Level 3) 31210, 31220, 31281, 31282, 31291. 31310, 31320, 31381, 31382, 31391 32110, 32120, 32130, 32140, 32161, 32162, 32163, 32164, 32166, 32168, 32171, 32172, 32182, 32210. 32220, 33210. 33210. 51010 Source: Author, based on OECD Creditor Reporting System, OECD (2009), reporting directives for the Creditor Reporting System, Addendum on Types of Aid. To become even more familiar with using the system, the user is encouraged to make specific inquiries regarding AfT received by Ethiopia from the following donors: a) Multilateral Organizations; b) DAC member countries; c) non-DAC countries; and d) the private sector. Performing this analysis will allow the user to immediately identify differences in AfT patterns based on, for example, different donors. Table 5 presents the details of said query and, provides for each case, the commitments and disbursements for each of the major sectors identified as AfT. A first glance shows that the main donors in Ethiopia are multilateral organizations that account for US $1.887 million in commitments and US $393 million in disbursements, the largest shares of AfT. Notwithstanding, there are differences between amounts committed and amounts disbursed for all donors. The question then arises: how should AfT be evaluated taking into account the information regarding committed and disbursed funds? To resolve this issue, we propose using a predictability measure which we describe and analyze in the following section. 23 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual TABLE 5 DISAGGREGATION OF MAIN SECTORS THAT MAKE UP AID FOR TRADE Sectors % of the total Committed Disbursed % of the total Predictability index Multilateral organizations Trade policy and regulations 207.5 11.0 0.5 0.1 0.2 1219.5 Economic infrastructure 64.6 329.6 83.9 27.0 Productive capacity building 206.0 10.9 62.5 15.9 30.4 Trade-related adjustment 254.2 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1887.2 100.0 392.6 100.0 20.8 Total DAC Countries Trade policy and regulations Total 1.0 0.6 211.8 30.0 15.9 139.6 310.7 93.4 157.8 83.5 50.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 332.7 Trade-related adjustment 0.1 6.5 0.0 Productive capacity building 0.5 21.5 Economic infrastructure 100.0 188.9 100.0 56.8 Non-DAC Countries Trade policy and regulations 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.6 Economic infrastructure 100.0 14.0 100.0 36.4 Productive capacity building 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trade-related adjustment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.6 100.0 14.0 100.0 36.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Private Sector Trade policy and regulations Economic infrastructure 0.0 Productive capacity building Trade-related adjustment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 100.0 18.3 100.0 156.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 Total 100.0 18.3 100.0 156.3 Aid for Trade (AfT) (a+b+c) Trade policy and regulations Productive capacity building Trade-related adjustment 208.0 9.2 1.5 0.3 0.7 1279.6 Economic infrastructure 56.7 373.7 62.7 29.2 516.7 22.9 220.4 37.0 42.6 254.2 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2258.6 Total Aid for Trade 100.0 595.6 100.0 26.4 Source: ECLAC, Aid for Trade Dashboard. 1. Aid for Trade predictability index This indicator measures the different degrees of predictability and/or fulfillment of the commitments made by donors. The index is calculated as the ratio of funds disbursed and funds committed as follows: = = ∗ 100 The results may take a range of values from 0 to over 100, depending on the degree of fulfillment of commitments by donors. In order to interpret and evaluate the levels of fulfillment, we suggest the use of values as defined in table 6: 24 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual TABLE 6 DEGREE OF PREDICTABILITY OF THE AFT ACCORDING TO THE PIAfT (In percentages) PIAfT values Intepretation Less than 50 Insufficient commitment 50 to 80 Medium-level fulfillment 80 to more than 100 High-level fulfillment Source: Authors. Considering our example again, the level of AfT fulfillment for all donors for Ethiopia in 2012 is 26.4% —a value that can be interpreted as insufficient or little predictable. The researcher can thus conclude that, according to the index calculation, the total amount of international aid disbursements to Ethiopia in 2013 was insufficient, as only a little over 25% of the US $2.259 million committed were disbursed (US $596 million). It should be highlighted; however, fulfillment is much higher in the Productive Capacity Building subsector with a value of 42.6%. Also noteworthy is that there were virtually no disbursements of funds committed for trade policy and regulations. Note that this analysis can be complemented by carrying out similar queries in the case of disbursements made by each of the donors or groups of donors. In this case, the results show a better situation for the case of AfT originating in the private sector as it falls within the third-level range; this leads to the conclusion that there is some degree of fulfillment, and hence predictability, of AfT delivered by donors (and in this case, disbursements surpassed commitments). A similar analysis is applied to other AfT subsectors —such as Trade Policy and Regulations and Economic Infrastructure— for disbursements made by DAC-member countries. (see table 5). For an accurate interpretation of the results given by this index, we recommend that it be complemented with a sector-specific structure as shown, inter alia, by the greater or lesser weight of the entirety of the public procurement sector. For example, although the subsector Trade policy and Regulation reaches 212%, its share of total AfT received by the DAC country countries is only 0.3%. The whole of AfT received by all sectors is 56.8%, which leads to the conclusion that DAC-member countries have a degree of medium-level fulfillment. (see table 5). 25 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual IV. Query mode for ODA/AfT sector data The third module of the Dashboard is designed to allow researchers to retrieve detailed information for a particular country and for a particular year for each of the ODA and AfT classification codes. Unlike Module II, which aggregates data, this section permits the user to identify all sectors involved with Official Development Aid. The results are presented in two windows —in the upper window, the Dashboard will provide information for all ODA sectors and subsectors, whereas the bottom window shows results filtered for only for AfT sectors. If the user seeks specific information about specific disbursements for a given year in the Education sector, for example, or for any sub-sectors within Education, he/she may obtain the specific values of ODA in detail (e.g., research or teacher training). Another example is the case of AfT for economic infrastructure where the researcher can obtain the information that distinguishes between disbursements between road rail, and air transport or alternatively, whether the funds are for telecommunications, energy or other categories (see image 9). This module is designed to make it easier for researchers to perform detailed analyses such as those presented in figure 2 which illustrate the structure of funds committed and disbursed in Ethiopia in the Economic Infrastructure sector. Based on this, it is easy to conclude that it was the Electrical Transmission sectors that received most of the funds (see figure 2) FIGURE 2 ETHIOPIA: DISTRIBUTION OF ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, 2012 Commitments Disbursements Power generati on 5% Power generatio n 4% Other projects 1% Road Transpor t 49% Electric transmissi on 68% Electric transmis sion 45% Source: ECLAC, Aid for Trade Dashboard. 27 Other projects 5% Road Transport 23% ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual IMAGE 9 DETAILED REPORT BY SECTOR, 2012 (In millions of dollars and percentages) Source: ECLAC, Aid for Trade Dashboard. Considering the specific information provided for projects, and the possibility of selecting specific donors, the user can get an idea of the status of AfT received by a country as well as the relative position of a sector or of a specific country. Similarly, it is possible to conduct a comparative analysis between donor countries or to prepare a more thorough database that is organized by way of time series or panel data in order to research key elements of AfT and ODA. 28 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual V. Integrated sector query module This last module presents the data set of all Official Development Assistance for a particular year. The usefulness of this module lies in that ODA information —and which includes AfT— for a particular country is consolidated in a single query. The results provide the character and nature of the flows including: • Sector: Identifies the specific sector for which the ODA is intended. All sectors and their 5— digit codes are described in detail in table A.2. • Category: This variable identifies 4 general levels of Aid for Trade as well as the rest of ODA considered as Not Applicable. • Category Code: Variable that indicates 4 categories of Aid for Trade with a letter code: A= Regulations and Trade Policy; B = Economic Infrastructure; C = Productive Capacity Building (including trade development); D = Trade-related adjustment; and N. A. = Not applicable to AFT. • Flow: This field identifies institutional channels through which aid is administered (Public sector, NGO or Civil Society group, Multilateral Institution, Public-Private partnership, or other mechanisms). • Type of quantity: Determine if the data corresponds to current or constant dollars in a given year. • Type of Flow: As explained in the first section, the user can set this variable to commitments or gross disbursements. • Type of aid: This field allows the user to establish the specific characteristics of the aid which can include up to 15 different features: (i) Project intervention; (ii) Provide support to the budget sector; (iii) Staff in or from the donor country; (iv) Other technical assistance; (v) Scholarships or training in the donor country; (vi) Support for non-governmental organizations (NGOs), other private entities (public-private partnerships), or research institutions; (vii) Contributions to specific programs and funds managed by multilateral and International organizations; (viii) Pooled Funds from various donors; (ix) Costs for specific studies; (x) Administrative costs not otherwise included in other categories; (xi) General budget support; (xii) Debt relief; (xiii) Refugees in donor countries; (xiv) Development awareness; and (xiv) Other aid (not applicable). 29 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual • Year: Indicates the year when the information was recorded • Observed value: Reports the amount corresponding to actual ODA recorded in the database. IMAGE 10 INTEGRATED SECTOR QUERY MODULE REPORT, 2012 Source: ECLAC, of Aid for Trade Dashboard. With the query, the user can perform an analysis - such as the one presented in figure 3 —which classifies the main sectors of ODA for Ethiopia. It should be noted that the main sector of ODA is the health sector with 22% of disbursements. It is followed by infrastructure (18%) and emergency responses (16%). The next largest sector is humanitarian aid and education, with 8% of the total aid (see figure 3). Using the entire database, the user can obtain information regarding, for example, that the most relevant health projects in Ethiopia are related basic health as well as AIDS, HIV and Malaria control. In the education sector, the most significant programs are those related to management and education policies; within emergency response, the most significant is emergency food aid. If the user opts to save the information obtained and then undertakes several additional queries for various other years, countries or donors, he or she can build a database with the information. This is done by clicking on the icon in the lower right hand of the screen. This information can later be manipulated using Excel, Stata or another statistical program. 30 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual FIGURE 3 ETHIOPIA: DISTRIBUTION OF ODA BY SECTOR, 2011 Multi-sector Aid 9% Emergency Response 16% Power generation 3% Budget support 3% Other sectors 6% Health 22% Infrastructure 18% Education 8% Food aid 8% Government and Civil Society 3% Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 4% Source: ECLAC, Aid for Trade Dashboard. The query performed and exemplified above can also be conducted online using the OECD comparison tool. This tool automatically creates a graph that compares the most recent information available in the CRS database for a particular country. The figure 4 presents the results of the query for Ethiopia. In the graph that appears automatically, one can observe information with respect to major donors in Ethiopia (USA, UK, European Institutions, Canada and Germany). The graph also displays the main sectors to which aid is allocated. In most cases, the sectors that dominate overall ODA are aligned among donors. These are social infrastructure and humanitarian aid —the latter particularly in terms of emergency response and food delivery. (see figure 4). The OECD query module can be expanded in order to conduct queries for main sectors and which offers a display of the main donors. Information regarding this new interactive system can be found online at: http://www.compareyourcountry.org/chart.php?cr= undefinedlg= enproject= aidstatisticspage=11. 31 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual FIGURE 4 COMPARISON OF DAC-OECD COUNTRIES, 2012 Source: See OECD online at http://www.compareyourcountry.org/chart.php?cr=undefinedlg=en project=aid-statisticspage=11. 32 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual VI. Areas that must be reinforced One important area of work that must be reinforced is the creation and development of panel or crosssectional databases that will be conducive to empirical studies concerning the impact of Official Development Assistance and Aid for Trade on trade flows and economic growth. As an example, AidData Beta is a joint effort of several universities (College of William and Mary, Brigham Young University and Development Gateway), and supported by USAID, which compiles ODA data for a period of more than 50 years. This information can be consulted online at: http://aiddata.org/researchdatasets. Specific information on variables and sources are included. Tierney et. al. (2011) and AidData User’s guide (2011). With these types of databases, particularly with respect to AfT, it is possible to carry out applied studies which can deepen the understanding already obtained from the relevant body of literature, especially that which focuses on the link between trade, Aid for Trade and economic growth, transportation and logistical costs, among others. The economic literature of the impact of development aid on growth is vast and can be counted in the hundreds, as some prior research has made evident (Hansen y Tarp (2000), McGillivray et. al. (2006), Doucouliagos and Paldam (2008, 2009). In recent years, studies that exclusively focus on issues related to Official Aid for Trade and its impact on recipient countries has intensified, particularly, those that explore various aid factors and their effect on trade. There is a body of work that utilizes Information on Aid for Trade as independent variables in order to research the effect of these variables upon trade relations between countries. The method commonly used in these works is an estimate of gravity models. In this line of work, the research carried out by Cali and Velde (2011) and Helbe et. al. (2012) is noted. Both of these authors found that AFT is positively related to increase in exports of beneficiary countries. However, the issue is not entirely settled in that Johansson (2013) found that the effect of ODA on exports is negligible when compared to the effect of other aid. Other bodies of work focus their analysis on the benefits that donor countries can reap from the aid given. For example, Berthelemy (2005, 2006) analyzes altruism versus geopolitical interests when making decisions that seek greater political stability or reduction of violence in countries that receive aid. Boon (1996), for his part, models political factors with the goal of determining whether aid is effective in reducing child mortality as well as its impact upon investments and growth. His results indicated that the aid did not increase investment or growth but rather, the greatest effect in an increase in aid would be an increase in the size of the government. 33 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual Easterly (2005), Alesina and Dollar (2000), Maizels and Nissanke (1984), McKinlay and Little (1977, 1978a, 1978b, 1979), Mosley (1985, 1987), Frey and Schneider (1986), and Trubull and Wall (1994) carried out studies aimed at analyzing the political and strategic factors of development aid. Some of their findings show how a determination to grant aid may originate in strategic and political considerations of the donor country rather than the needs of the recipient countries. These works introduce variables related to policy and governance to traditional factors such as GDP per capita growth, inflation, investment and consumption. For example, it includes control variables such as the Freedom House civil and political liberties indexes (http://freedomhouse.org/), internal and external conflict variables, military interests, and colonial interests, among others, using complementary databases of the Peace Research Institute Oslo (http://www.prio.no/) and of the Department of Peace and Conflict Research, University of Uppsala, where global conflicts are permanently monitored as sources: http://www.pcr.uu.se/. Wilson, Mann y Otuski (2005) carried out estimates about the relationship between trade facilitation and other categories such as customs efficiency, port efficiency, regulatory framework, infrastructure services, and manufacturing trade flows. In their conclusions, the authors found out that improved trade facilitation increases international trade (exports and imports). From there, they found that policies seeking to overcome the logistical limitations —such as single windows, improving port efficiency, or other similar initiatives— have favorable impacts on trade expansion, especially that destined and originating in neighboring countries. Tezanos and others (2009) evaluated the effectiveness of aid on economic growth for the group of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean taking into account the new theories of economic growth by incorporating variables beyond physical capital and, instead, which are related to endogenous elements of growth, Barro (1991), Sala-i-Martin (2004), such as technology, human capital, new intermediate goods, business capital, social capital and institutions. The results of Tezanos’ work and others suggests that the aid does not seem to have had a significant impact on the growth of GDP per capita in Latin America and the Caribbean. They thus conclude that the econometric estimate describes an apparent ineffectiveness of aid due to insufficiently coordinated management practices of donors. 34 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual VII. Update of dashboard sources The Dashboard developed for the AFT Project and presented here has an automatic online update feature. It is the same that is used to update the sites which serve as sources for the Database: World Bank, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the United Nations. When a user makes a query, if the original source of information is updated and available for 2013, it is automatically updated on the Dashboard thus enabling efficient management of tools of indicators. The Aid for Trade of the Committee has updates scheduled four times in a year: April, June, September and December (see table A.3). 35 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual Bibliography Alonso, Juan Antonio (2005), “The debate over aid effectiveness: Initial Considerations”, Colección Escuela Diplomática, Ministry of Foreign Relations and Cooperation in Spain, Vol. No. 10: 15-22. Barro, R. (1991), “Economic Growth in a Cross-Section of Countries”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 106, No. 2, pp 407-443. Berthelemy, Jean-Claude (2005), “Bilateral donor’s interest vs. recipients’ development motives in aid allocation: do all donors behave the same?”, National Center for Scientific Research, University of Paris, Paris. Boone P. (1995), “Politics and the Effectiveness of foreign aid”, Centre for Economic Performance, Discussion Paper No. 272, December. Cali, Massimiliano and Dirk Willem te Velde, “Does Aid for Trade Really Improve Trade Performance?,” World Development, vol. 39, No. May 2011. Doucouliagos, H. and Paldam, M. (2008), “Aid effectiveness on Growth: A Meta Study”, European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 24, Issue 1, pp. 1-24. ______(2009), “The Aid Effectiveness Literature: The Sad Results of 40 Years of Research”, Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 23, pp 433-461. Easterly, William (2005), “Can foreign aid save Africa?,” Clemens Lecture Series, December. Frey, Bruno and Friedrich Schneider (1986), “Competing Models of International Lending Activity,” Journal of Development Economics, vol. 20, No. 2, March. Gillivray, Mark et al. (2006), “Controversies over the Impact of Development Aid,” Journal of International Developmetn, vol. 18, No. 7, October. Hansen, H. and Tarp, G. (2000), “Aid effectiveness disputed”, Journal of International Development, Vol. 12, pp 375-398. Helble, Mathias, Catherine Mann and John S. Wilson (2012), “Aid-for-Trade Facilitation,” Review of World Economics, vol. 148(2), June. Hoeffler, Anke and Veritry Outram (2011), “Need, Merit or Self-Interest - What Determines the Allocation of Aid?,” Review of Development Economics, vol. 15, No. 2, May. Maizels, Alfred and Machiko Nissanke (1984), “Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries,” World Development, vol. 12, No. 9, September. McKinlay, R. D. and R Little (1977), “A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocation,” World Politics, vol. 30, No. 1, October. ______(1979a), “A Foreign Policy Model of the Distribution of Bilateral Aid, 1960-1970,” British Journal of Political Science, vol. 8, No. 3, July. ______(1979b), “The US Aid Relationship: A test of the Recipient Need and Donor Interest Models,” Political Studies, vol. 27, No. 2, June. 37 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual ______(1978), “The French Aid Relationship: A Foreign Policy Model of the Distribution of French Bilateral Aid, 1964–70,” Development and Change, vol. 9, No. 3, July. Mosley, Paul and Jane Harrigan (1991), Aid and Power: The World Bank and policy-based lending, 2nd ed., London, Routledge Chapman Hall. Mosley, Paul, John Hudson and Sara Horrell (1987), “Aid, the Public Sector and the Market in Less Developed Countries,” The Economic Journal, vol. 97, No. 387, September. Trumbull, William N and Howard Wall (1994), “Estimating Aid Allocation Criteria with Panel Data,” The Economic Journal, vol. 104, No. 425, July. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2006), Aid for Trade: Making it Effective, Paris. ______(2006b), Trading Up: Economic Perspectives on Development Issues in the Multilateral Trading System, Paris. ______(2007), Trade-Related Assistance: What Do Recent Evaluations Tell Us?, Paris. ______(2009a), Trading out of Poverty: How Aid for Trade can Help, Paris. ______(2009b), Binding Constraints to Trade Expansion: Aid for Trade Objectives and Diagnostics Tools, Paris. ______(2009c), Reporting directives for the Creditor Reporting System: Addendum on Types of Aid, Paris. ______ (2010) Increasing the Impact of Trade Expansion on Growth: Lessons from Trade Reforms for the Design of Aid for Trade, Paris. OECD and WTO (World Trade Organization) (2007), Aid for Trade at a Glance 2007, Paris. ______ (2009), Ayuda para el Comercio en Síntesis, Paris. Tierney, Michael J. and others (2011), More Dollars than Sense: Refining Our Knowledge of Development Finance Using Aid Data, World Development 39 (11): 1891-1906. Tezanos Vásquez, Sergio, Rogelio Madrueño and Marta Guijarro (2009), “The impact of aid on economic growth: The case of Latin America and the Caribbean”, Cuadernos Económicos del ICE, Vol. No. 78. 38 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual Annex 39 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual TABLE A.1 ODA RECIPIENT COUNTRIES Other low-income countries (per capita GNI = $1 005 in 2010) Lower middle-income countries (per capita GNI $1 006-$3 975 in 2010) Kenya Korea, Democratic Rep. Kyrgyz Rep. Tajikistan Zimbabwe Armenia Belize Bolivia(Plurinational State of) Cameroon Cape Verde Congo, Rep. Côte dIvoire Egypt El Salvador Fiji Georgia Ghana Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Iraq Kosovo Marshall Islands Micronesia, Federated States Moldova Mongolia Morocco Nicaragua Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Paraguay Philippines Sri Lanka Swaziland Syria a Tokelau Tonga Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan Vietnam West Bank and Gaza Strip Upper middle-income countries (per capita GNI $3 976-$12 275 in 2010) Albania Algeria a Anguilla Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Azerbaijan Belarus Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Chile China Colombia Cook Islands Costa Rica Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Gabon Grenada Iran Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Lebanon Libya Malaysia Maldives Mauritius Mexico Montenegro a Montserrat Namibia Nauru Niue Palau Panama Peru Serbia Seychelles South Africa a Saint Helena Saint Kitts-Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and Grenadines Suriname Thailand Tunisia Turkey Uruguay Venezuela a Wallis and Futuna Source: Authors on the base of the information provided by: http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/49483614.pdf. a Territory. 40 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual TABLE A.2 OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT AID AND AID FOR TRADE SECTORS INCLUDED IN THE DATABASE CRS code (5 digits) 3-digit codes Subsectors (Level 2) Main sectors 11110 Education policy admin. Management 110 Education 11120 Education facilities and training 110 Education 11130 Teacher training 110 Education 11182 Educational research 110 Education 11220 Primary education 110 Education 11230 Basic life skills for youth adults 110 Education 11240 Early childhood education 110 Education 11320 Secondary education 110 Education 11330 Vocational training 110 Education 11420 Higher education 110 Education 11430 Advanced tech. managerial training 110 Education 12110 Health policy admin. management 120 Health 12181 Medical education/training 120 Health 12182 Medical research 120 Health 12191 Medical services 120 Health 12220 Basic health care 120 Health 12230 Basic health infrastructure 120 Health 12240 Basic nutrition 120 Health 12250 Infectious disease control 120 Health 12261 Health education 120 Health 12262 Malaria control 120 Health 12263 Tuberculosis control 120 Health 12281 Health personnel development 120 Health 13010 Population policy and admin. Management 130 Population Pol. Prog. Reproductive Health 13020 Reproductive health care 130 Population Pol. Prog. Reproductive Health 13030 Family planning 130 Population Pol. Prog. Reproductive Health 13040 STD control including HIV/AIDS 130 Population Pol. Prog. Reproductive Health 14010 Water resources policy/admin. Mgmt. 140 Water Supply Sanitation 14015 Water resources protection 140 Water Supply Sanitation 14020 Water supply sanit. - large systems 140 Water Supply Sanitation 14021 Water supply - large systems 140 Water Supply Sanitation 14022 Sanitation - large systems 140 Water Supply Sanitation 14030 Basic drinking water supply and basic sanitation 140 Water Supply Sanitation 14031 Basic drinking water supply 140 Water Supply Sanitation 14032 Basic sanitation 140 Water Supply Sanitation 14040 River basins’ development 140 Water Supply Sanitation 14050 Waste management/disposal 140 Water Supply Sanitation 14081 Education/training water supply sanitation 140 Water Supply Sanitation 15110 Public sector policy and adm. management 150 Government Civil Society 41 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual Table A.2 (continued) CRS code (5 digits) 3-digit codes Subsectors (Level 2) Main sectors 15111 Public finance management 150 Government Civil Society 15112 Decentralization and support to subnational govt. 150 Government Civil Society 15113 Anti-corruption organizations and institutions 150 Government Civil Society 15130 Legal and judicial development 150 Government Civil Society 15150 Democratic participation and civil society 150 Government Civil Society 15151 Elections 150 Government Civil Society 15152 Legislatures and political parties 150 Government Civil Society 15153 Media and free flow of information 150 Government Civil Society 15160 Human rights 150 Government Civil Society 15170 Womens equality organizations and institutions 150 Government Civil Society 15210 150 Government Civil Society 150 Government Civil Society 150 Government Civil Society 15250 Security system management and reform Civilian peace-building, conflict prevention and resolution Participation in international peacekeeping operations Removal of land mines and explosive remnants of war 150 Government Civil Society 16010 Social/welfare services 160 Other Social Infrastructure Services 16020 Employment policy and admin. management 160 Other Social Infrastructure Services 16030 Housing policy and admin. management 160 Other Social Infrastructure Services 16040 Low-cost housing 160 Other Social Infrastructure Services 16050 Multi-sector aid for basic social services 160 Other Social Infrastructure Services 16061 Culture and recreation 160 Other Social Infrastructure Services 16062 Statistical capacity building 160 Other Social Infrastructure Services 16064 Social mitigation of HIV/AIDS 160 Other Social Infrastructure Services 21010 Transport policy admin. management 210 Transport and Storage 21020 Road transport 210 Transport and Storage 21030 Rail transport 210 Transport and Storage 21050 Air transport 210 Transport and Storage 22010 Communications policy admin. Management 220 Communications 22020 Telecommunications 220 Communications 22040 Information and communication technology (ICT) 220 Communications 23010 Energy policy and admin. management 230 Energy Generation and Supply 23020 Power generat./non-renewable sources 230 Energy Generation and Supply 15220 15230 23030 Power generation/renewable sources 230 Energy Generation and Supply 23040 Electrical transmission/distribution 230 Energy Generation and Supply 23064 Nuclear power plants 230 Energy Generation and Supply 23065 Hydro-electric power plants 230 Energy Generation and Supply 23067 Solar energy 230 Energy Generation and Supply 24010 Financial policy admin. management 240 Banking and Financial Services 24030 Formal sector financ. intermediaries 240 Banking and Financial Services 24040 Informal/semi-formal fin. intermed. 240 Banking and Financial Services 24081 Education/training in banking fin. services 240 Banking and Financial Services 42 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual Table A.2 (continued) CRS code (5 digits) 3-digit codes Subsectors (Level 2) Main sectors 25010 Business support services institutions 250 Business and Other Service 31110 Agricultural policy admin. management 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31120 Agricultural development 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31130 Agricultural land resources 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31140 Agricultural water resources 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31150 Agricultural inputs 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31161 Food crop production 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31162 Industrial crops/export crops 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31163 Livestock 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31164 Agrarian reform 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31165 Agricultural alternative development 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31166 Agricultural extension 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31181 Agricultural education/training 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31182 Agricultural research 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31191 Agricultural services 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31193 Agricultural financial services 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31194 Agricultural co-operatives 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31195 Livestock/veterinary services 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31210 Forestry policy admin. management 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31220 Forestry development 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31291 Forestry services 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 31310 Fishing policy and admin. management 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 32110 Industrial policy admin. managment 320 Industry, Mining, Construction 32120 310 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 32130 Industrial development Small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) development 320 Industry, Mining, Construction 32140 Cottage industries handicraft 320 Industry, Mining, Construction 32161 Agro-industries 320 Industry, Mining, Construction 32163 Textiles - leather substitutes 320 Industry, Mining, Construction 32171 Engineering 320 Industry, Mining, Construction 32172 Transport equipment industry 320 Industry, Mining, Construction 32182 Technological research development 320 Industry, Mining, Construction 32220 Mineral prospection and exploration 320 Industry, Mining, Construction 32310 Construction policy and admin. Mgmt 320 Industry, Mining, Construction 33110 Trade policy and admin. Management 331 Trade Policy Regulations 33120 Trade facilitation 331 Trade Policy Regulations 33140 Multilateral trade negotiations 331 Trade Policy Regulations 33150 Trade-related adjustment 331 Trade Policy Regulations 33181 Trade education/training 331 Trade Policy Regulations 33210 Tourism policy and admin. Management 332 Tourism 41010 Environmental policy and admin. Mgmt 410 General Environmental Protection 41020 Biosphere protection 410 General Environmental Protection 43 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual Table A.2 (concluded) CRS code (5 digits) 41030 3-digit codes Subsectors (Level 2) Bio-diversity 410 Main sectors General Environmental Protection 41081 Environmental education/training 410 General Environmental Protection 41082 Environmental research 410 General Environmental Protection 43010 Multi-sector aid 430 Other Multi-sector 43030 Urban development and management 430 Other Multi-sector 43040 Rural development 430 Other Multi-sector 43081 Multi-sector education/training 430 Other Multi-sector 43082 Research/scientific institutions 430 Other Multi-sector 51010 General budget support-related aid 510 General budget support 52010 Food aid/Food security programmes 520 Dev. Food Aid/Food Security 60020 Debt forgiveness 600 Action Relating to Debt 72010 Material relief assistance and services 720 Emergency Response 72040 720 Emergency Response 72050 Emergency food aid Relief co-ordination; protection and support services 720 Emergency Response 73010 Reconstruction relief and rehabilitation 730 Reconstruction relief 74010 Disaster prevention and preparedness 740 Disaster Prevention and preparedness 91010 Administrative costs (non-sector allocable) 910 Administrative Cost of Donors 93010 Refugees in donor countries (non-sector allocable) 930 Refugees in Donor Countries 99810 Sectors not specified Promotion of development awareness (non-sector allocable) 998 Unallocated/Unspecified 998 Unallocated/Unspecified 99820 Source: Authors based on the OECD Creditor Reporting system. OCDE (2009), Reporting directives for the Creditor Reporting System, Addendum on Types of Aid. 44 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual DIAGRAMA A.1 DETAIL OF THE OECD DATABASE UPDATE Source: Official website of the ODA Committee (OECD). http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/50462138.pdf. 45 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual Glossary Official Development Assistance: Official Development Assistance (ODA), also known in the literature as Development Aid, is comprised of grants or loans to countries and territories on DAC list (developing countries) and to Multilateral Organizations. These grants and loans: a) are granted by the public sector; b) have as their main objective the promotion of economic development and welfare; c) are issued under financially-favorable terms (if loans have a minimum grant element of 25 percent). In addition to money flows, ODA includes technical cooperation. Grants, loans and credits for military purposes are excluded. Generally no payments to private individuals are taken into account (e.g., pensions, reparations or insurance payments). The concept of ODA was first defined by the DAC in 1969 and was officially defined in 1972. Since then, it has become an international benchmark for statistics on aid activities (WTO, Frequently Asked Questions online at: http://www.wto.org/spanish/res_s/booksp_s/a4t_qa_s.pdf). Trade-related Technical Assistance: All aid provided by donors to countries and with the objective of contributing to trade strategy, trade policy design, and international insertion including capacity to engage in, and benefit from, multilateral trade negotiations and trade agreements. Trade-related Adjustment Assistance: All the aid donated to developing countries to reduce the costs associated with trade liberalization, including tariff reductions, preference erosion, or declining terms of trade. Aid for Trade: AfT is a part of Official Development Assistance (ODA), comes from the government sector and is not considered a charitable activity. Essential loans to finance a wide range of trade-related needs are granted on concessional terms, with a grant element of at least 25 percent. On the other hand, it makes the donor country responsible for projects and their fruition. The loans are particularly suitable for financing large infrastructure projects that require multi-year disbursements. Furthermore, given the conditions under which they are granted, these loans are less onerous than those provided by banks and the private sector. Productive Capacity Building: All aid intended to promote trade in various domestic industries that produce goods (e.g., agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining and manufacturing) and services (business, banking, financial, etc.). The purpose of the aid, in this case, is to support industries so that they may exploit their comparative advantages and diversify their exports, with the goal of improve its their insertion into the global economy. Provision of aid for trade: A share of a general bilateral aid programs designed to give greater priority to trade and industrial areas in a number of development projects. It can be in the form of export credit guarantees or via soft loans in which an unconditional part is included in order to enable a development bank or financial institution to provide additional credits at lower interest rate to the government of a particular country. Promise of contribution: A promise or offer of contribution normally involves a political announcement that reveals the intent of a donor to provide a certain amount of funds in a particular area. In concrete terms, it is only an announcement such as the one, for example, made by Japan, the European Union and the United States in December 2005 at the WTO Ministerial Conference held in Hong Kong in which they promised to increase Aid for Trade. Commitment: A commitment is a little more than a pledge. It is a firm obligation, contracted to by an official donor and backed by the necessary funds, to provide specific assistance to a recipient country or a multilateral organization. In the case of bilateral commitments, the total amount of the proposed transfer is indicated irrespective of the time necessary to disburse the funds. In the case of commitments to Multilateral Organizations, sums indicated include: i) disbursements made in that year but which had not been previously notified as commitments; and ii) disbursements expected in 46 ECLAC – Project Documents Collection Aid for Trade indicators Dashboard: user manual the year that follows. Examples of commitments include the European Union Cooperation Programs with ACP member countries. Disbursement: A disbursement is the delivery of funds to a beneficiary or acquiring goods or services on their behalf; by extension, it also includes the amounts spent for that purpose. Disbursements represent international transfers of financial resources or of goods and services valued at the donor’s cost. For activities carried out in donor countries – e.g., training programs, management or public awareness - a disbursement is considered as made when the funds have been transferred to the service provider or beneficiary. It can be recorded in gross amounts (the total amount disbursed over a given accounting period) or net amounts (the gross amount less the repayment of the loan or the amount of donations received during the same period). Total disbursement of a commitment can take several years. Trade-related infrastructure: All aid destined to the improvement of the economic infrastructure in the recipient country. The scope of aid for infrastructure includes transport and storage, communications, and generation and supply of different types electricity (i.e., nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind). Any aid that focuses on connecting national markets of the recipient country to the world economy, through investment in roads, ports and communication networks, is considered as aid for trade-related infrastructure. 47