International trade has long been viewed as an essential element of national prosperity

The
Global
Enabling
Trade
Report
2009
The
Global
Enabling
Trade
Report
2009
The
Global
Enabling
Trade
Report 2009
The
Global
Enabling
Trade
Report
2009

International trade has long been viewed as an essential element of national prosperity
and well-being. Further enabling trade across borders in the wake of the global financial
International
tradetrade
has has
long
been
viewed
as an
essential
of of
national
prosperity
International
long
been
viewed
asborders
an essential
of
national
prosperity
and
well-being.
Further
enabling
trade
across
inelement
theelement
wake
the
global
financial
cover.mech.r2.pantone280pc

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009

6/24/09 3:24 PM Page 1
crisis will not only
enhance trade and boost economic growth in the longer term, but

and
well-being.
Further
enabling
trade
across
borders
in the
of the
financial
and
well-being.
Further
enabling
trade
across
borders
in wake
the in
wake
of global
the global
financial
crisis
will
not only
enhance
trade
and
boost
economic
the
longer
term,
but
will also
contribute
to
mitigate thegrowth
effects of
the
current
crisis
by reducing
the transaction
crisis
will
not
only
enhance
trade
and
boost
economic
growth
in
the
longer
term,
but
crisis
will
not
only
enhance
trade
and
boost
economic
growth
in
the
longer
term,
but
trade. of the current crisis by reducing the transaction
will also contribute to mitigatecost
theofeffects
will
also
contribute
to mitigate
the effects
of the
crisiscrisis
by reducing
the transaction
willofalso
contribute
to mitigate
the effects
of current
the current
by reducing
the transaction
cost
trade.
In this context, The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 measures and analyzes institutions,
costcost
of trade.
of trade.

policies, and services enabling trade in national economies around the world, highlighting

Trade Report
2009strengths
measures
andchallenges
analyzestoinstitutions,
In this context, The Global Enabling
for policymakers
a country’s
and the
be addressed. The Report
The
Global
Enabling
Trade
Report
2009
measures
and
analyzes
Inpolicies,
this
context,
The
Global
Enabling
Trade
Report
2009
measures
and
analyzes
institutions,
In this
context,
includes
most current
data and recent
analysis
the institutions,
factors
enabling trade in indusand services enabling
trade the
in national
economies
around
the of
world,
highlighting
trialized
and
emerging
economies,
as
well
asthe
the world,
latest
thinking
and research from trade
policies,
and
services
enabling
trade
in
national
economies
around
highlighting
policies,
and
services
enabling
trade
in
national
economies
around
the
world,
highlighting
for policymakers a country’s strengths and the challenges to be addressed. The Report
experts and industry practitioners.
Report
for
policymakers
a country’s
strengths
and
the
tofactors
be
The
Report
for policymakers
a country’s
strengths
and
the
to
be
addressed.
The
International
trade
haschallenges
longchallenges
been
viewed
asaddressed.
anenabling
essential
element
national prosperity
includes
the most
current
data
and recent
analysis
of the
trade
inofindusand
well-being.
Further
enabling
trade
across
borders
intrade
the wake
ofinthe
global financial
includes
the
most
current
data
and
recent
analysis
of
the
factors
enabling
in
indusincludes
the
most
current
data
and
recent
analysis
of
the
factors
enabling
trade
industrialized and emerging economies,
as well
as the
latest thinking
and Enabling
research
from
trade
presents
the rankings
of the updated
Trade
Index
(ETI), developed
The Report

crisis will not only enhance trade and boost economic growth in the longer term, but
trialized
and
emerging
economies,
well
as the
latest
andwith
research
from
trade
trialized
emerging
economies,
asEconomic
well
as Forum
the latest
thinking
and
research
from
tradeand leaders
by theas
World
inthinking
collaboration
international
trade
experts
experts
andand
industry
practitioners.
will also contribute to mitigate the effects of the current crisis by reducing the transaction
from
the
logistics
and
transport
industry.
It
is
a
comprehensive
index
intended
to capture
experts
and and
industry
practitioners.
experts
industry
practitioners.
cost of trade.
the full range of issues that contribute to impeding trade, ranking nations according to

of the updated Enabling Trade Index (ETI), developed
The Report presents the rankings
factors that facilitate the free flow of goods across national borders and to destination.
Theupdated
GlobalEnabling
Enabling
Trade
Report
2009
measures
and
analyzes institutions,
In thisofcontext,
Report
presents
the
rankings
the
Trade
Index
(ETI),
developed
The
Report
presents
the
rankings
of updated
the
Enabling
Trade
(ETI),
developed
The
by the World Economic Forum in collaboration
with international
tradeIndex
experts
and
leaders
Since the publication of the Report in 2008, the Index has been enhanced by explicitly

policies, and services enabling trade in national economies around the world, highlighting
byfrom
the
Economic
in collaboration
international
experts
and
leaders
by World
the logistics
World
Economic
Forum
in collaboration
with
international
trade
experts
and
leaders
Report
detailed profiles
introducing
the It
export
The last trade
section
of
the
the
and Forum
transport
industry.
iswith
a dimension.
comprehensive
index
intended
tocontains
capture
for policymakers a country’s strengths and the challenges to be addressed. The Report
for
the
121
economies
covered
by
the
ETI.
from
the
logistics
transport
industry.
It isimpeding
comprehensive
index
intended
to capture
the logistics
and
transport
industry.
Ita is
a comprehensive
index
intended
to capture
thefrom
full range
of and
issues
that
contribute
to
trade, ranking
nations
according
to

includes the most current data and recent analysis of the factors enabling trade in indus-

the
full
of issues
thatfree
contribute
impeding
trade,
ranking
according
the range
full
range
of issues
that
contribute
to impeding
trade,
ranking
nations
according
to from trade
trialized
andto
emerging
economies,
as well
asnations
the and
latest
thinking
andto
research
factors
that
facilitate
the
of
goods
across
national
borders
to
destination.
includes
insightful
contributions
from
a number of trade experts.
Inflow
addition,
the Report
experts
industry
practitioners.
factors
that
facilitate
the
flow
ofand
goods
across
national
and and
to destination.
factors
facilitate
the
flow
of
goods
across
national
borders
to
destination.
Report
in
2008,
the
has borders
been
enhanced
Since
the that
publication
offree
thefree
Among these
essays
areIndex
explorations
of different
aspectsby
of explicitly
trade facilitation, such
in
2008,
the
Index
hasin
been
enhanced
by
explicitly
Since
the publication
of dimension.
the
in 2008,
thefinance
has
enhanced
by explicitly
Since
thethe
publication
of Report
the
as Report
theThe
availability
of trade
the been
current
financial
climate,
analysis of non-tariff
Report
contains
detailed
profiles
introducing
export
last
section
ofIndex
the
presents
the rankings
of
the updated
Enabling
Trade Index
(ETI), developed
The Report
barriers,
and
global
efforts
in
the
area
of
trade
facilitation.
A
particular
focus this year is
contains
detailed
profiles
introducing
the
export
dimension.
The
lastETI.
section
of the
contains
detailed
profiles
the export
dimension.
The
last
section
of Report
the Report
forintroducing
the 121
economies
covered
byWorld
the
by the
Economic Forum in collaboration with international trade experts and leaders

on customs, a key area of the Doha negotiations.
for the
economies
covered
bythe
the
ETI.
for 121
the 121
economies
covered
bylogistics
the ETI.
from
and transport industry. It is a comprehensive index intended to capture
the full range of issues that contribute to impeding trade, ranking nations according to

insightful
contributions
from
a number
of trade
In addition, the Report includes
appealsexperts.
to a broad audience
Written
in a nontechnical
language
and style,
the Report
factors
that facilitate
the free flow
of goods
across of
national
borders
and to destination.
Report
includes
insightful
contributions
from
a
number
trade
experts.
InAmong
addition,
the
Report
includes
insightful
contributions
from
a
number
of
trade
experts.
In addition,
the
that
includes
policymakers,
business
leaders,
and
members
of
the
academic
community.
these essays are explorations of different aspects of trade facilitation, such
Since the publication of the Report in 2008, the Index has been enhanced by explicitly

It providesof
a yardstick
to aspects
measure
the
to
which
countries
Among
essays
explorations
different
of extent
trade
facilitation,
suchhave
these
essays
are
explorations
of different
aspects
of trade
facilitation,
suchin place the necas Among
the these
availability
of are
trade
finance
in the
financial
climate,
analysis
of non-tariff
contains detailed profiles
introducing
the current
export dimension.
The
last section
of the Report
essary attributes for facilitating the free flow of goods, and aims to provoke dialogue
asbarriers,
the
of trade
finance
inarea
the
current
financial
analysis
of non-tariff
as availability
the and
availability
of trade
finance
ineconomies
the
current
financial
analysis
of non-tariff
the
121
covered
byclimate,
the
ETI.
global
efforts
infor
the
of
trade
facilitation.
Aclimate,
particular
focus
this
year is

among stakeholders about how best to improve the situation to offset the present crisis

barriers,
and and
global
efforts
the
area
of trade
facilitation.
A particular
focus
this this
yearyear
is is
global
efforts
inDoha
the
area
of trade
facilitation.
A particular
focus
onbarriers,
customs,
a key
area
ofinthe
negotiations.
and
ultimately
raise the prosperity of the world’s citizens.
In addition, the Report includes insightful contributions from a number of trade experts.
on customs,
a key
areaarea
of the
negotiations.
on customs,
a key
of Doha
the Doha
negotiations.
Among these essays are explorations of different aspects of trade facilitation, such

Reportinappeals
tofinancial
a broad
audience
Written in a nontechnical language
and style,
the finance
as the availability
of trade
the current
climate,
analysis of non-tariff
Report
appeals
to
a
broad
audience
Written
in
a
nontechnical
language
and
style,
the
Report
appeals
to
a
broad
audience
Written
in
a
nontechnical
language
and
style,
the
barriers,
and
global
efforts
in
the
area
of
trade
facilitation.
A
particular
focus this year is
that includes policymakers, business leaders, and members of the academic community.
onbusiness
customs,
aleaders,
key and
area of
themembers
Doha negotiations.
that
includes
business
leaders,
members
of the
community.
that
includes
policymakers,
of academic
the
community.
It provides
apolicymakers,
yardstick
to measure
the
extent
to and
which
countries
haveacademic
in place
the
necIt essary
provides
a
yardstick
to
measure
the
extent
to
which
countries
have
in
place
the
necIt provides
a
yardstick
to
measure
the
extent
to
which
countries
have
in
place
the necattributes for facilitating the free flow of goods, and aims to provoke dialogue

Lawrence
Drzeniek
Hanouz

Written in a nontechnical language and style, the Report appeals to a broad audience

essary
attributes
for facilitating
thebest
free
flow
of goods,
and and
aimsto
to provoke
essary
attributes
for
facilitating
the to
free
flow
ofthe
goods,
aims
to provoke
dialogue
among
stakeholders
about
how
improve
situation
the dialogue
present
crisis community.
that includes
policymakers,
business
leaders, offset
and members
of the academic
among
stakeholders
about
how
best
to
improve
the
situation
to
offset
the
present
crisis
among
stakeholders
about
how
best
to
improve
the
situation
to
offset
the
present
It
provides
a
yardstick
to
measure
the
extent
to
which
countries
have
incrisis
place the necand ultimately raise the prosperity of the world’s citizens.

Moavenzadeh

The Global Enabling Trade
The
Global
Enabling
Trade
The
TheGlobal
Global
EnablingTrade
Trade
Report
2009 Enabling

Report
2009
Report
Report2009
2009

The Global Enabling Trade
Report 2009

Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University
Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, World Economic Forum
John Moavenzadeh, World Economic Forum

essaryof
attributes
facilitating
the free flow of goods, and aims to provoke dialogue
and and
ultimately
raiseraise
the prosperity
the
citizens.
ultimately
the prosperity
of world’s
theforworld’s
citizens.
among stakeholders about how best to improve the situation to offset the present crisis
and ultimately raise the prosperity of the world’s citizens.

ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-22-7

Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Drzeniek
Lawrence
Drzeniek
Drzeniek
Hanouz
Drzeniek
Hanouz
Hanouz
Hanouz
Moavenzadeh
Moavenzadeh
Moavenzadeh
Moavenzadeh

ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-22-7
ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-22-7
ISBN-13:
978-92-95044-22-7
ISBN-13:
978-92-95044-22-7

Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University
Robert
Z. Lawrence,
Harvard
University
Robert
Z. Lawrence,
Harvard
University
Robert
Z. Lawrence,
Harvard University
Margareta
Drzeniek
Hanouz, World Economic Forum
Margareta
Drzeniek
World
Economic
Forum
Margareta
Drzeniek
Hanouz,
World
Economic
Forum
Margareta
Drzeniek
Hanouz,Hanouz,
World
Economic
Forum
John Moavenzadeh,
World
Economic
Forum
John
Moavenzadeh,
World Economic
Forum
John
Moavenzadeh,
World
Economic
Forum
John
Moavenzadeh,
World
Economic
Forum

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page iv

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page i

World Economic Forum
Geneva, Switzerland 2009

Sean Doherty
Project Leader
Qin He
Project Manager

The Global Enabling Trade
Report 2009

Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University
Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, World Economic Forum
John Moavenzadeh, World Economic Forum
Editors

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page ii

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 is
published by the World Economic Forum
within the framework of the Global
Competitiveness Network and the Industry
Partnership Programme for Logistics and
Transport.

World Economic Forum
Geneva
Copyright © 2009
by the World Economic Forum
This publication is available online at
http://www.weforum.org/getr

Professor Klaus Schwab
Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum
Robert Greenhill
Chief Business Officer, World Economic
Forum

All rights reserved. No part of this publication
may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
or otherwise without the prior permission of
the World Economic Forum.
ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-22-7

EDITORS

At the John F. Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University:
Robert Z. Lawrence, Albert L. Williams
Professor of Trade and Investment

This book is printed on paper suitable for
recycling and made from fully managed and
sustained forest sources.
Printed and bound in Switzerland by SRO-Kundig.

At the World Economic Forum:
Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, Director, Senior Economist
Qin He, Project Manager, Logistics and Transportation
John Moavenzadeh, Senior Director,
Sustainable Mobility and Strategy

LOGISTICS AND TRANSPORT TEAM

Sean Doherty, Head of Logistics and Transport Industry
Yasmina Makar, Team Coordinator, Mobility Industries
China Ziegenbein, Team Coordinator, Mobility Industries

GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS NETWORK

Jennifer Blanke, Director, Senior Economist,
Head of Global Competitiveness Network
Ciara Browne, Senior Community Manager
Agustina Ciocia, Community Manager
Thierry Geiger, Economist, Global Leadership Fellow
Irene Mia, Director, Senior Economist
Pearl Samandari, Team Coordinator
Eva Trujillo Herrera, Research Assistant

A special thank you to Hope Steele for her
superb editing work and Neil Weinberg for
his 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 international 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.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page iii

Contents

Partner Institutes

v

Preface

xi

1.8 Implementing Trade Facilitation

83

by Jean-François Arvis, Gerald McLinden, and Monica Alina
Mustra, The World Bank, and Lauri Ojala, Turku School of
Economics, Finland

by Robert Greenhill, World Economic Forum

Executive Summary

xiii

by Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University, and
Sean Doherty, Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, and Qin He,
World Economic Forum

Part 1: Selected Issues on Enabling Trade

1

1.1 Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

3

by Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University, and
Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, Thierry Geiger, and Qin He,
World Economic Forum

1.2 Finance for Trade: Efforts to Restart the Engine

95

2.1 Country/Economy Profiles

97

How to Read Country/Economy Profiles .....................................99
by Eva Trujillo Herrera, World Economic Forum
List of Countries/Economies ......................................................103
Country/Economy Profiles..........................................................104

Technical Notes and Sources

347

About the Authors

353

Acknowledgments

357

iii

37

by Marc Auboin, World Trade Organization (WTO)

1.3 Managing Borders in the 21st Century

Part 2: Country/Economy Profiles

45

by Kunio Mikuriya, World Customs Organization (WCO)

1.4 IATA e-Freight: Taking the Paper Out of Air Cargo

53

by Steve Smith and Michael Moosberger, International Air
Transport Association (IATA)

1.5 A Tour of the Ongoing Work of the World Trade
Organization on Trade Facilitation: The Traders’
Perspective

59

by John Simpson, Global Express Association (GEA)

1.6 Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the
Business Sector: A Cross-Country Comparison

69

by Mondher Mimouni, Carolin Averbeck, Olga Skorobogatova,
International Trade Centre (ITC)

1.7 Enabling Trade: Relationship to Clusters and Setting
an Openness Agenda

77

by Sam Sidiqi and Fouad Alame, Agility

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page iv

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page v

Partner Institutes

Part 1.r2

Partner Institutes

The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness
Network is pleased to acknowledge and thank the following organizations as our valued Partner Institutes,
without whom the realization of The Global Enabling
Trade Report 2009 would not have been feasible:
Albania
Institute for Contemporary Studies (ISB)
Artan Hoxha, President
Elira Jorgoni, Senior Expert and Project Manager
Denalada Kuzumi, Researcher
Algeria
Centre de Recherche en Economie Appliquée pour le
Développement (CREAD)
Youcef Benabdallah, Assistant Professor
Yassine Ferfera, Director
Argentina
IAE—Universidad Austral
María Elina Gigaglia, Project Manager
Eduardo Luis Fracchia, Professor
Armenia
Economy and Values Research Center
Manuk Hergnyan, Chairman
Sevak Hovhannisyan, Board Member and Senior Associate
Gohar Malumyan, Research Associate
Australia
Australian Industry Group
Nicholas James, Economist
Tony Pensabene, Associate Director, Economics & Research
Heather Ridout, Chief Executive

Belgium
Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School
Lutgart Van den Berghe, Professor, Executive Director and
Chairman, Competence Centre Entrepreneurship, Governance
and Strategy
Bieke Dewulf, Associate, Competence Centre Entrepreneurship,
Governance and Strategy
Wim Moesen, Professor
Benin
Micro Impacts of Macroeconomic Adjustment Policies (MIMAP)
Benin
Epiphane Adjovi, Business Coordinator
Maria-Odile Attanasso, Deputy Coordinator
Fructueux Deguenonvo, Researcher
Bosnia and Herzegovina
MIT Center, School of Economics and Business in Sarajevo,
University of Sarajevo
Zlatko LagumdÏija, Professor
˘
˘
Zeljko
Sain,
Executive Director
Jasmina Selimovic, Assistant Director
Brazil
Fundação Dom Cabral
Marina Araújo, Researcher
Carlos Arruda, Professor and Coordinator of Competitiveness
and Innovation Center
Juan Rios, Research Assistant
Movimento Brasil Competitivo (MBC)
Cláudio Leite Gastal, Director President
Lucas Tadeu Melo Câmara, Director
Bulgaria
Center for Economic Development
Anelia Damianova, Senior Expert

Austria
Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO)
Karl Aiginger, Director
Gerhard Schwarz, Coordinator, Survey Department

Burkina Faso
Société d’Etudes et de Recherche Formation pour le
Développement (SERF)
Abdoulaye Tarnagda, Director General

Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan Marketing Society
Fuad Aliyev, Executive Director
Ashraf Hajiyev, Project Coordinator
Saida Talibova, Consultant

Burundi
University Research Centre for Economic and Social
Development (CURDES), National University of Burundi
Richard Ndereyahaga, Head of CURDES
Gilbert Niyongabo, Dean, Faculty of Economics & Management

Bahrain
Bahrain Competitiveness Council, Bahrain Economic
Development Board
Nada Azmi, Business Intelligence Specialist,
Research Services Unit
Jawad Habib, Senior Partner, BDO Jawad Habib
Rima Al Kilani, Director, International Marketing

Cambodia
Economic Institute of Cambodia
Sok Hach, Director
Tuy Chak Riya, Research Associate
Hang Sambopisith, Researcher

Bangladesh
Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD)
Khondaker Golam Moazzem, Senior Research Fellow
Kazi Mahmudur Rahman, Senior Research Associate
Mustafizur Rahman, Executive Director

Cameroon
Comité de Compétitivité (Competitiveness Committee)
Lucien Sanzouango, Permanent Secretary
Canada
Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity
Lance Bialas, Researcher
Roger Martin, Chairman and Dean of the Rotman School of
Management, University of Toronto
James Milway, Executive Director

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

v

Partner Institutes

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page vi

Chad
Groupe de Recherches Alternatives et de Monitoring
du Projet Pétrole-Tchad-Cameroun (GRAMP-TC)
Antoine Doudjidingao, Researcher
Gilbert Maoundonodji, Director
Celine Nénodji Mbaipeur, Program Officer
Chile
Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez
Ignacio Briones, Associate Professor of Economics,
School of Government
Leonidas Montes, Dean, School of Government
China
Institute of Economic System and Management
National Development and Reform Commission
Zhou Haichun, Deputy Director and Professor
Chen Wei, Research Fellow
Dong Ying, Professor
China Center for Economic Statistics Research,
Tianjin University of Finance and Economics
Lu Dong, Professor
Jian Wang, Associate Professor
Huazhang Zheng, Associate Professor
Colombia
National Planning Department
Orlando Gracia Fajardo, Entrepreneurial Development Director
Carolina Rentería Rodríguez, General Director
Mauricio Torres Velásquez, Advisor
Côte d’Ivoire
Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie de Côte d’Ivoire
Mamadou Sarr, General Director

vi

Croatia
National Competitiveness Council
Martina Hatlak, Research Assistant
Mira Lenardic, General Secretary
Cyprus
Cyprus College Research Center
Bambos Papageorgiou, Head of Socioeconomic
and Academic Research
The Cyprus Development Bank
Maria Markidou-Georgiadou, Manager, International
Banking Services Unit and Business Development
Czech Republic
CMC Graduate School of Business
Dagmar Glückaufová, Academic Dean
Filip Hrnãífi, President
Denmark
Copenhagen Business School, Department of International
Economics and Management
Lise Peitersen, Administrative Director
Ole Risager, Professor
Ecuador
Escuela de Postgrado en Administración de Empresas (ESPAE)
Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL)
Elizabeth Arteaga, Project Assistant
Virginia Lasio, Acting Director
Sara Wong, Professor
Egypt
The Egyptian Center for Economic Studies
Hanaa Kheir-El-Din, Executive Director and Director of Research
Estonia
Estonian Institute of Economic Research
Evelin Ahermaa, Head of Economic Research Sector
Marje Josing, Director

Ethiopia
African Institute of Management, Development
and Governance
Tegegne Teka, General Manager
Finland
ETLA—The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy
Petri Rouvinen, Research Director
Pasi Sorjonen, Head of the Forecasting Group
Pekka Ylä-Anttila, Managing Director
France
HEC School of Management, Paris
Bertrand Moingeon, Professor, Deputy Dean
Bernard Ramanantsoa, Professor, Dean of HEC
School of Management
Gambia, The
Gambia Economic and Social Development Research
Institute (GESDRI)
Makaireh A. Njie, Director
Germany
WHU—Otto Beisheim School of Management, Vallendar
Ralf Fendel, Professor of Monetary Economics
Michael Frenkel, Professor, Chair of Macroeconomics
and International Economics
Ghana
Association of Ghana Industries (AGI)
Carlo Hey, Project Manager
Cletus Kosiba, Executive Director
Tony Oteng-Gyasi, President
Greece
SEV Hellenic Federation of Enterprises
Michael Mitsopoulos, Coordinator, Research and Analysis
Thanasis Printsipas, Economist, Research and Analysis
Guatemala
FUNDESA
Edgar A. Heinemann, President of the Board of Directors
Pablo Schneider, Economic Director
Juan Carlos Zapata, General Manager
Guyana
Institute of Development Studies, University of Guyana
Karen Pratt, Research Associate
Clive Thomas, Director
Hong Kong SAR
Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce
David O’Rear, Chief Economist
Federation of Hong Kong Industries
Alexandra Poon, Director
Hungary
KOPINT-TÁRKI Economic Research Ltd.
Ágnes Nagy, Project Manager
Éva Palócz, Chief Executive Officer
India
Confederation of Indian Industry
Chandrajit Banerjee, Director-General
Tarun Das, Chief Mentor
T S Vishwanath, Senior Director and Head,
International Trade Policy
Indonesia
Kadin Indonesia
M.S. Hidayat, Chairman
Tulus Tambunan, Director

Estonian Development Fund
Kitty Kubo, Head of Foresight
Ott Pärna, Chief Executive Officer

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page vii

Ireland
Competitiveness Survey Group, Department of Economics,
University College Cork
Eleanor Doyle, Professor, Department of Economics
Niall O’Sullivan
Bernadette Power
National Competitiveness Council
Adrian Devitt, Manager
Caoimhe Gavin, Policy Advisor
Gráinne Greehy, Graduate Trainee
Israel
Manufacturers’ Association of Israel (MAI)
Shraga Brosh, President
Dan Catarivas, Director
Yehuda Segev, Managing Director
Italy
SDA Bocconi School of Management
Secchi Carlo, Full Professor of Economic Policy, Bocconi University
Paola Dubini, Associate Professor, Bocconi University
Francesco A. Saviozzi, SDA Assistant Professor, Strategic
and Entrepreneurial Management Department
Jamaica
Mona School of Business (MSB), University of the West Indies
Patricia Douce, Survey Coordinator
Michelle Tomlinson, Survey Coordinator
Neville Ying, Executive Director and Professor
Japan
Hitotsubashi University, Graduate School of International
Corporate Strategy (ICS)
in cooperation with Keizai Doyukai (Japan Association
of Corporate Executives)
Yoko Ishikura, Professor
Kiyohiko Ito, Vice-President and General Manager
for Policy Studies, Keizai Doyukai

Lesotho
Mohloli Chamber of Business
Refiloe Kepa, General Manager
Lithuania
Statistics Lithuania
Ona Grigiene, Head, Economical Survey Division
Algirdas ?emeta, Director General
Luxembourg
Chamber of Commerce of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
François-Xavier Borsi, Attaché, Economic Department
Philippe Courtin, Attaché, Economic Department
Carlo Thelen, Chief Economist, Member of the Managing Board
Macedonia, FYR
National Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness Council (NECC)
Dejan Janevski, Project Coordinator
Zoran Stavreski, President of the Managing Board
Saso Trajkoski, Executive Director
Madagascar
Centre of Economic Studies, University of Antananarivo
Pépé Andrianomanana, Director
Razato Raharijaona Simo, Executive Secretary
Malawi
Malawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry
Chancellor L. Kaferapanjira, Chief Executive Officer
Malaysia
Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS)
Tan Sri Mohamed Jawhar Hassan, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer
Mahani Zainal Abidin, Director-General
Steven C.M. Wong, Assistant Director-General
Malaysia Productivity Corporation (MPC)
Dato’ Nik Zainiah Nik Abdul Rahman, Director General
Chan Kum Siew, Director, International Competitiveness Division

Jordan
Ministry of Planning & International Cooperation
Jordan National Competitiveness Team
Rafat Al-Rawabdeh, Senior Researcher

Mali
Groupe de Recherche en Economie Appliquée et Théorique
(GREAT)
Massa Coulibaly, Coordinator

Kazakhstan
Corporation for Export Development and Promotion
Vakhit Mamatayev, Consultant
Gaziz Myltykbayev, Deputy Chairman of the Board
Kassen Pernebayev, Director, Analytical Department

Mauritania
Centre d’Information Mauritanien pour le Développement
Economique et Technique (CIMDET/CCIAM)
Lô Abdoul, Consultant and Analyst
Khira Mint Cheikhnani, Director
Habib Sy, Analyst

Kenya
Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi
Mohamud Jama, Director and Associate Professor
Paul Kamau, Research Fellow
Dorothy McCormick, Associate Professor
Korea, Republic of
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology-KAIST
Myungchul Shin, Head, School Administration
Bae Soonhoon, Vice President and Professor, Graduate School of
Management
Youjin Sung, Manager, Exchange Program
Kuwait
Economics Department, Kuwait University
Abdullah Alsalman, Assistant Professor
Mohammed El-Sakka, Professor
Reyadh Faras, Assistant Professor
Kyrgyz Republic
Economic Policy Institute “Bishkek Consensus”
Lola Abduhametova, Program Coordinator
Marat Tazabekov, Chairman

Partner Institutes

Part 1.r2

Mauritius
Joint Economic Council of Mauritius
Raj Makoond, Director
Board of Investment, Investmauritius
Dev Chamroo, Director, Planning & Policy
Manisha Dookhony, Manager, Planning & Policy
Raju Jaddoo, Managing Director
Mexico
Center for Intellectual Capital and Competitiveness
Erika Ruiz Manzur, Executive Director
René Villarreal Arrambide, President and Chief Executive Officer
Jesús Zurita González, General Director
Instituto Mexicano Para la Competitividad (IMCO)
Gabriela Alarcon Esteva, Economist
Manuel J. Molano Ruiz, Deputy General Director
Roberto Newell Garcia, General Director
PROMEXICO Trade & Investment
Jose Gustavo Hernandez Rodriguez, Business Intelligence Unit
Lisette Jimenez del Rio, Business Intelligence Unit
Bernardo von Raesfeld Porras, Business Intelligence Unit

Latvia
Institute of Economics, Latvian Academy of Sciences, Riga
Raita Karnite, Director

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

vii

Partner Institutes

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page viii

Moldova
Center for Strategic Territorial Development
Ruslan Codreanu, Executive Director
Roman Smolnitchi, Program Coordinator
Mongolia
Open Society Forum (OSF)
Munkhsoyol Baatarjav, Manager of Economic Policy
Erdenejargal Perenlei, Executive Director
Morocco
Université Hassan II
Fouzi Mourji, Professor of Economics
Mozambique
EconPolicy Research Group, Lda.
Peter Coughlin, Director
Donaldo Miguel Soares, Researcher
Ema Marta Soares, Assistant
Namibia
Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit (NEPRU)
Joel Hinaunye Eita, Senior Researcher
Lameck Odada, Research Assistant
Klaus Schade, Acting Director
Nepal
Centre for Economic Development and Administration (CEDA)
Ramesh Chandra Chitrakar, Executive Director
Menaka Rajbhandari Shrestha, Researcher
Santosh Kumar Upadhyaya, Researcher
Netherlands
Erasmus Strategic Renewal Center, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Frans A. J. Van den Bosch, Professor
Henk W. Volberda, Professor

viii

New Zealand
Business New Zealand
Marcia Dunnett, Manager, Sector Groups
Phil O’Reilly, Chief Executive
The New Zealand Institute
David Skilling, Chief Executive Officer
Nigeria
Nigerian Economic Summit Group (NESG)
Felix Ogbera, Associate Director, Research
Chris Okpoko, Senior Consultant, Research
Norway
BI Norwegian School of Management
Eskil Goldeng, Researcher
Torger Reve, Professor
HSH, The Federation of Norwegian Commercial
and Service Enterprises
Vibeke H. Madsen, Chief Executive Officer
Oman
The International Research Foundation
Azzan Al Busaidi, Chief Executive Officer
Salem Ben Nasser Al-Ismaily, Chairman
Pakistan
Competitiveness Support Fund
Arthur Bayhan, Chief Executive Officer
Amir Jahangir, Manager, Communications
Paraguay
Centro de Análisis y Difusión de Economia Paraguaya (CADEP)
Dionisio Borda, Director
Jaime Escobar, Research Member
Fernando Masi, Research Member

Philippines
Makati Business Club
Alberto A. Lim, Executive Director
Michael B. Mundo, Chief Economist
Mark P. Opulencia, Deputy Director
Poland
Warsaw School of Economics
Bogdan Radomski, Associate Professor
Portugal
PROFORUM, Associação para o Desenvolvimento da Engenharia
Ilídio António de Ayala Serôdio, Vice President of the
Board of Directors
Forum de Administradores de Empresas FAE
Pedro do Carmo Costa, Member of the Board of Directors
Adilia Lisboa, General Director
Qatar
Qatari Businessmen Association (QBA)
Issa Abdul Salam Abu Issa, Secretary-General
Bassam Ramzi Massouh, General Manager
Ahmed El-Shaffee, Economist
Romania
Group of Applied Economics (GEA)
Anca Rusu, Program Coordinator
Liviu Voinea, Executive Director
Russian Federation
Bauman Innovation, Academy of National Economy under
the Government of the Russian Federation
Alexei Prazdnitchnykh, Principal, Associate Professor
Stockholm School of Economics, Russia
Igor Dukeov, Research Fellow
Carl F. Fey, Associate Dean of Research
Saudi Arabia
National Competitiveness Center (NCC)
Awwad Al-Awwad, Deputy Governor for Investment
Khaldon Mahasen, Manager, Investment Performance Assessment
Senegal
Centre de Recherches Economiques Appliquées (CREA),
University of Dakar
Aly Mbaye, Director
Singapore
Economic Development Board
Lim Hong Khiang, Director Planning 2
Chua Kia Chee, Head, Research and Statistics Unit
Slovak Republic
Business Alliance of Slovakia (PAS)
Robert Kicina, Executive Director
Slovenia
Institute for Economic Research
Art Kovacic, Researcher
Peter Stanovnik, Senior Researcher
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics
Mateja Drnov˘sek, Assistant Professor
Ale˘s Vahcic, Professor
South Africa
Business Leadership South Africa
Connie Motshumi, Director
Michael Spicer, Chief Executive Officer
Business Unity South Africa
Jerry Vilakazi, Chief Executive Officer
Vic Van Vuuren, Chief Operating Officer

Peru
Centro de Desarrollo Industrial (CDI), Sociedad Nacional
de Industrias
Néstor Asto, Project Director
Luis Tenorio, Executive Director

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page ix

Spain
IESE Business School, International Center for Competitiveness,
Anselmo Rubiralta Center for Globalization and Strategy
Eduardo Ballarín, Professor
María Luisa Blázquez, Research Associate
Almudena Clemente Tiemblo, Research Associate
Sri Lanka
Institute of Policy Studies
Indika Siriwardena, Database Manager
The Ceylon Chamber of Commerce
Prema Cooray, Secretary General
Sweden
Center for Strategy and Competitiveness, Stockholm
School of Economics
Christian Ketels, Senior Research Fellow
Örjan Sölvell, Professor

Uganda
Makerere Institute of Social Research, Makerere University
Robert Apunyo, Research Associate
Delius Asiimwe, Senior Research Fellow
Catherine Ssekimpi, Research Associate
Ukraine
CASE Ukraine, Center for Social and Economic Research
Dmytro Boyarchuk, Executive Director
Vladimir Dubrovskiy, Senior Economist
United Arab Emirates
Economic & Policy Research Unit (EPRU), Zayed University
Jay Squalli, Assistant Professor
Nico Vellinga, Professor
Dubai Competitiveness Council
Adel Alfalasi, Director

Switzerland
University of St. Gallen, Executive School of Management,
Technology and Law (ES-HSG)
Franz Jaeger, Professor
Beat Bechtold, Project Manager

United States
US Chamber of Commerce
Scott Eisner, Deputy Chief of Staff
Cecile Remington, Marketing Manager
James Robinson, Senior Vice President and Counselor
to the President

Syria
Ministry of Economy and Trade
Amer Housni Louitfi, Minister of Economy and Trade

Uruguay
Universidad ORT
Isidoro Hodara, Professor

State Planning Commission
Tayseer Al-Ridawi, Head of State Planning Commission

Venezuela
CONAPRI—Venezuelan Council for Investment Promotion
Ana Acosta, Economic Analyst
Adolfo Castejón, Investor Services Manager
Giuseppe Rionero, Economic Affairs Manager

UNDP Damascus, “Towards Changing the Mindset for
Competitiveness”
Nuhad Dimashkiyyah, National Project Director
Taiwan, China
Council for Economic Planning and Development, Executive Yuan
Tain-Jy Chen, Chairman
J. B. Hung, Director, Economic Research Department
Chung Chung Shieh, Researcher, Economic Research Department
Tajikistan
The Center for Sociological Research “Zerkalo”
Qahramon Baqoev, Director
Ol’ga Es’kina, Researcher
Alikul Isoev, Sociologist and Economist
Tanzania
Economic and Social Research Foundation
Irene Alenga, Commissioned Studies Department
Haidari Amani, Executive Director and Professor
Dennis Rweyemamu, Commissioned Studies Department
Thailand
Sasin Graduate Institute of Business Administration,
Chulalongkorn University
Pongsak Hoontrakul, Senior Research Fellow
Toemsakdi Krishnamra, Director of Sasin
Piyachart Phiromswad, Faculty of Economics
Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI)
Somchai Jitsuchon, Research Director
Chalongphob Sussangkarn, Distinguished Fellow
Yos Vajragupta, Senior Researcher
Tunisia
Institut Arabe des Chefs d’Entreprises
Majdi Hassen, Executive Counsellor
Chekib Nouira, President
Turkey
TUSIAD Sabanci University Competitiveness Forum
A. Gunduz Ulusoy, Director and Professor
Hande Yegenoglu, Project Specialist

Partner Institutes

Part 1.r2

Vietnam
Central Institute for Economic Management (CIEM)
Dinh Van An, President
Phan Thanh Ha, Deputy Director, Department of
Macroeconomic Management
Pham Hoang Ha, Senior Researcher, Department of
Macroeconomic Management
Institute for Economic Research of HCMC
Nguyen Van Quang, Vice Director
Du Phuoc Tan, Head, Department of Urban Development Studies
Trieu Thanh Son, Research Fellow
Zambia
Institute of Economic and Social Research (INESOR),
University of Zambia
Mutumba M. Bull, Director
Patricia Funjika, Staff Development Fellow
Jolly Kamwanga, Coordinator
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
Arturo Condo, Rector
Marlene de Estrella, Director of External Relations
Luis Reyes, Manager
Roy Zuñiga, Dean
Latvia, Lithuania
Stockholm School of Economics in Riga
Karlis Kreslins, Executive MBA Program Director
Anders Paalzow, Rector

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

ix

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page x

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Preface

Preface
ROBERT GREENHILL
Chief Business Officer, World Economic Forum

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 is being
launched at a crucial time for global trade. As overall
economic activity has declined and liquidity has become
scarce, trade finance has dried up alongside mounting
insecurity about the future. According to some estimates, trade volumes have seen a larger decline than
during the Great Depression. And as governments have
responded through countercyclical policies, calls for protecting local profits and jobs have been on the rise.
Despite pledges to keep markets open, some countries
have reverted to protectionist measures.
Protectionism is not the cause of the crisis, but it
could be one of its most important consequences.When
17 of the G-20 countries acted against their pledge
to keep markets open and World Trade Organization
(WTO) members increased protection without breaking
trade rules, it became apparent that the present global
institutions are not able to prevent a larger protectionist
backlash if the recession continues. Limiting global trade
would not only amplify the current downturn, in the
longer term it would also reduce growth—in particular
in developing countries—plunging millions of people
back into poverty.
In today’s highly interdependent world, recovery
will necessitate that countries increase the amount of
goods that they purchase from each other, thus spurring
demand. Further lowering barriers to trade would support this process, while raising barriers would reduce
demand. Against this background, The Global Enabling
Trade Report 2009 provides an assessment of the obstacles to trade in 121 countries around the world. At the
core of the Report is the Enabling Trade Index (ETI),
which has been developed by the World Economic
Forum for the purpose of this Report. Beyond tariffs and
quotas, the Index captures barriers to trade related to
border administration, infrastructure, logistics, and the
business environment, all of which can have a significant
effect on trade.The aim of this Report is to provide
countries with a yardstick on how they do in terms
of enabling trade and to spur discussion among stakeholders about how to improve the situation in order
to better benefit from trade.
The Report is a result of work undertaken within
the context of the World Economic Forum’s industry
partnership in logistics and transportation. Over the past
two years, the Forum has engaged key industry leaders,
academics, and international organizations active in the
area of trade to identify the main obstacles to trading

across borders and to develop the ETI. In this year’s
edition, the Index has been further refined to capture
the flow of goods out of countries as well as into them.
The Report contains detailed profiles for each of
the economies covered by the study.They provide an
overview of the results on all indicators included in
the ETI. In addition, the Report contains thoughtful
contributions by a number of trade experts and industry
practitioners.These essays explore different aspects of
trade facilitation, such as the availability of trade finance in
times of the financial crisis, analysis of non-tariff barriers,
and logistics performance of countries. A particular
focus has been placed this year on customs, one the key
areas of the Doha negotiations on trade facilitation.
The Global Enabling Trade Report would not have
been possible without the distinguished academics and
practitioners who have shared with us their knowledge
and experience.We thank our Data Partners—the
Global Express Association (GEA), the International Air
Transport Association (IATA), the International Trade
Centre (ITC), the United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development (UNCTAD),The World Bank, the
World Customs Organization (WCO), and the World
Trade Organization (WTO) for their help in developing
and updating the ETI and for making trade-related
data available.We are grateful to the Industry Partners
contributing to this Report—Agility, Deutsche Post
DHL, DP World, FedEx Corporation, GeoPost
Intercontinental, Stena,TNT N.V.,Transnet, and UPS.
We also wish to thank the editors of this volume,
Robert Z. Lawrence of Harvard University and
Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz and John Moavenzadeh
from the World Economic Forum, for their enthusiasm
and their commitment to the project. And we would
like to express our gratitude to the management team
of the project, Sean Doherty and Qin He, for driving
the process smoothly throughout the year. Appreciation
goes also to Jennifer Blanke, Head of the Global
Competitiveness Network Team and other team members:
Ciara Browne, Agustina Ciocia,Thierry Geiger,Yasmina
Makar, Irene Mia, Pearl Samandari, and Eva Trujillo
Herrera. Last but not least, this Report would have not
been possible without the hard work and enthusiasm of
our network of 150 Partner Institutes worldwide, who
carry out the Executive Opinion Survey, which provides
the basis of this Report.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

xi

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page xii

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page xiii

Executive Summary
ROBERT Z. LAWRENCE, Harvard University
SEAN DOHERTY, MARGARETA DRZENIEK HANOUZ and QIN HE, World Economic Forum

Launched in the midst of a dramatic slump in world
trade that has been driven by declines in overall economic
activity, lowered sales, and unwanted inventories, The
Global Enabling Trade Report’s assessment of obstacles to
trade may seem less acute than before. However, as businesses take on fewer trading risks, as the psychological
barriers to serving new markets mount, and as the trade
financing to bridge the time between production and
delivery has become harder to obtain, the continued
importance of smoothing the path between buyers and
sellers and reducing the cost of the transaction itself is
evident.
As trade volumes fall and public authorities adopt
countercyclical stimulus policies and institutional reform,
it is worth remembering the fundamental attributes that
govern nations’ ability to benefit from trade, be they
market access, border administration, infrastructure, or
the business environment.This reminder is particularly
timely, as measures of some countries overtly favor
domestic industries while other countries impose barriers to trade to protect companies and jobs at home.
Although these measures are not the main driver of
the present slump in world trade, the risk of protectionism
is still present. By ranking countries according to the
barriers to trade they have in place, the Report serves as a
reminder both of the risks of protectionism demonstrated
in previous downturns and of the widespread prosperity
and poverty reduction associated with the expansion of
international trade in the years leading up to 2008.
The Report is intended to be a motivator and a
foundation for dialogue, providing a yardstick of the
extent to which countries enjoy the factors facilitating
the free flow of goods, and identifying areas of the Index
where improvements are most needed.The contributions
from industry and leading international trade organizations highlight current priorities and tools to manage
the rapidly changing situation.

The Enabling Trade Index
A key purpose of this Report is to assess the extent to
which countries around the globe have in place the
institutions and policies for enabling trade.To this end,
Chapter 1.1 features the Enabling Trade Index (ETI),
which was introduced in the last edition.The ETI measures the institutions, policies, and services facilitating the
free flow of goods over borders and to final destinations.

The ETI was developed within the context of the
World Economic Forum’s Industry Partnership
Programme for the Logistics and Transport sector. A
number of Data Partners have collaborated in this
endeavor: the Global Express Association (GEA), the
International Air Transport Association (IATA), the
International Trade Centre (ITC), the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD),The
World Bank, the World Customs Organization (WCO),
and the World Trade Organization (WTO).We have also
received important feedback from companies that are
Industry Partners in the effort, namely Agility, Deutsche
Post DHL, DP World, FedEx Corporation, GeoPost
Intercontinental, Stena,TNT N.V.,Transnet, and UPS.
The Index mirrors the main enablers of trade,
breaking them into four overall issue areas, called
subindexes: (1) market access, (2) border administration,
(3) transport and communications infrastructure, and (4)
the business environment.The first subindex measures
the extent to which the policy framework welcomes
foreign goods into the country and enables access to
foreign markets for domestic exporters.The second
subindex assesses the extent to which the administration
at the border facilitates the entry and exit of goods.The
third subindex takes into account whether the country
has in place the transport and communications infrastructure necessary to facilitate the movement of goods
within the country and across the border. Finally, the
fourth subindex looks at the quality of governance as
well as the overarching regulatory and security environment impacting the business of importers and exporters
active in the country.
Each of these four subindexes is composed in turn
of a number of pillars of enabling trade, of which there
are nine in all.These are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Domestic and foreign market access
Efficiency of customs administration
Efficiency of import-export procedures
Transparency of border administration
Availability and quality of transport
infrastructure
Availability and quality of transport services
Availability and use of ICTs
Regulatory environment
Physical security

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

xiii

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page xiv

Each of these pillars is in turn composed of a number of individual variables that are obtained from both
hard data and the World Economic Forum’s Executive
Opinion Survey (Survey).The hard data were taken from
publicly available sources and international organizations
active in the area of trade (for example the World Bank,
the ITC, UNCTAD, the ITU, and IATA).The Survey
is carried out annually by the World Economic Forum
among top business leaders in all economies covered by
this study. It captures their perceptions on qualitative
aspects of the business environment in which they operate, including a number of specific aspects of international
trade.
The Index instrument has been revised following
feedback received from academics and users of the
methodology.The main changes concern the explicit
inclusion of exports into the market access and border
administration subindexes. Further, an assessment of
overall governance conditions has been added to the
business environment subindex.
Additional analysis using a gravity model shows
that the revised ETI has notable explanatory power
with respect to a country’s trade performance. In fact, a
1 percent increase in a country’s ETI score is associated
with 1.7 percent more exports and 2.3 percent more
imports.

xiv
The Enabling Trade Index 2009 rankings
The rankings of the 121 economies included are shown
in Tables 1 through 5, including the overall ETI as well
as the results on the four subindexes and the individual
pillars. Since the previous edition of this Report, four new
countries have been added to the study: Côte d’Ivoire,
The Gambia, Ghana, and Malawi; one country covered
last year, Uzbekistan, could not be included this year
because of a lack of data.
The top 10

Two Asian economies, Singapore and Hong Kong, take
up the top two positions in the ETI ranking.The results
mirror the openness of these countries to international
trade and investment as part of their successful economic
development strategy.
Singapore’s positive results reflect high rankings in
all four subindexes.The country’s very open market, as
well as a highly efficient and transparent border administration, a well-developed transport and communications infrastructure, and an open business environment
all contribute to this result. Customs procedures are
assessed as the least burdensome in the world, and time
and cost for both import and export are among the
lowest for all countries covered. Singapore’s exporters
also face relatively low tariffs in target markets (13th).
However, less congested roads and improvements to the
ICT infrastructure could further increase the ease of
getting goods across borders in Singapore.The country’s

excellent regulatory environment facilitates operations
of traders through openness to foreign participation,
fair domestic competition, and a highly transparent and
efficient government.
Hong Kong SAR’s open domestic market mirrors
the economy’s high dependence on exports and imports.
Hong Kong does not apply tariffs on imported products,
yet its exported products face more barriers than
Singapore’s, as reflected in tariffs faced (119th) combined
with a low margin of preference in target markets (112th).
Hong Kong’s strong ranking also rests on its efficient
customs procedures, well-developed transport and
communications infrastructure, and a regulatory environment that promotes and facilitates an open and
secure business environment.The economy’s openness
to foreign participation is attested to by the prevalence
of foreign ownership and relative absence of capital
controls (1st).Traders could, however, further benefit
from improvements to the very congested roads (89th)
and more commitments to open up the transport sector
under the General Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS) framework (55th).
Switzerland places 3rd overall, scoring very high
in three of the four main components of the Index.
It ranks 10th for the quality of border administration,
despite the country’s very high costs to import (84th)
and export (92nd).The ETI also reveals the very high
quality of the transport infrastructure (9th) and of the
associated services (12th), and when it comes to the
availability and use of information and communications
technologies (ICTs), Switzerland is second to none.
Finally, the environment offered to business is particularly
friendly (6th) thanks to its excellent institutions, fierce
competition, openness to foreign participation, and low
prevalence of crime. Switzerland’s major weakness resides
in the market access component, in which it ranks 38th
because of the high level of complexity of the import
tariff structure and fairly high protection of agricultural
markets.
Denmark (4th) ranks among the top five countries
in seven out of the nine pillars of the Index. In particular,
it ranks 2nd both for the efficiency and the transparency
of border administration, notably thanks to the low level
of overall corruption.This, along with several other factors such as the government’s efficiency (4th), the intensity
of local competition (4th), and the high level of security
(4th) contributes to creating an extremely conducive
business environment in Denmark, where the only
drawback remains the relative difficulty of hiring foreign
labor (36th).The data also reveal high levels of quality
and availability of transport (5th) and ICT (4th) infrastructure. Such strong results contrast with Denmark’s
86th rank in the market access component, which mainly
reflects European Union (EU) policies in the area of
agriculture as well as the complex tariff structure
applied by the European Union.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page xv

Ranked just behind Denmark at 5th place overall, Sweden, like its neighbor, possesses a world-class
infrastructure, very transparent and efficient border
administration, and a highly favorable business environment.Yet crime and violence seem to be more of a
problem (22nd), and so are the difficulties of hiring
foreign workers (50th).With respect to market access,
Sweden (88th) posts a comparable performance to
Denmark, the only difference coming from the slightly
lower score on the Index of non-tariff measures.
Coming in at 6th, Canada is one of the three
non-European countries within the top 10. It posts a
strong and remarkably consistent performance across the
board. In particular, it is second only to France for the
availability and quality of transport infrastructure, which
is excellent across all modes of transportation. Border
administration (12th) is characterized by efficient customs
services (15th), speedy and hassle-free clearance procedures, and low levels of corruption, with the only dent
being the cost to import (95th) and export (96th).
Canada ranks a high 13th in the market access pillar.
The import-weighted tariffs average is just 2.4 percent,
and nearly 90 percent of imports enter the country free
of duty. Finally, Canada makes little use of non-tariff
barriers (21st) in international comparison, although
the tariff structure in place is highly complex (79th).
At 7th place overall, and third among the Nordic
countries, Norway owes its rank to a consistent performance across all the pillars.The business environment
is particularly supportive of trade (5th), thanks to favorable regulation, the efficiency of government operations,
its low prevalence of crime and violence (3rd), and—
despite a certain reluctance—foreign participation
(44th). Another strength is Norway’s efficient import
and export procedures (6th). In the market access pillar,
Norway, at 21st, displays much better results than the
Nordic members of the European Union, yet high agricultural tariffs and a complex tariff structure remain a
challenge.
In 8th position, Finland is the last-ranked Nordic
country. Its performance is very much in line with its
fellow EU members, with the major exception of the
customs service index, on which Finland ranks a low
55—far behind Sweden (2nd) and Denmark (10th). On
the other hand, the country ranks slightly higher on the
market access pillar, thanks to its less frequent recourse
to non-tariff measures.
Austria comes in at 9th position and if it was not
for its low 84th rank in the market access component,
it would feature even higher in the ETI ranking.The
country ranks no lower than 8th in the three other components of the Index and no worse than 18th in each of
the associated pillars. Customs are rated as being among
the most efficient in the world (3rd) and, overall, border
administration is deemed efficient, transparent, and rapid,
although not cheap.

The Netherlands (10th) completes the top 10 of
the ETI. One of the world’s main hubs for trade, the
country receives outstanding marks for the quality of
its transport infrastructure (ranking 2nd, behind only
Germany), and the associated services (ranking 2nd,
behind Singapore). In particular, the quality of the
country’s seaports and its connectivity to the rest of the
world come as no surprise, given that Rotterdam has
one of the world’s largest and busiest maritime ports.
This, combined with an efficient and speedy border
administration (4th), makes the movement of goods to
and from the Netherlands almost seamless.

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

Asia and the Pacific

Outside the top 10, in the Asia and Pacific region, New
Zealand comes in 11th. Its highly efficient and transparent border administration contributes to this ranking,
as do the country’s very low tariffs for agricultural products and transparent border administration. Exports,
however, face high barriers.The country’s regulatory
environment is characterized by fairly good ratings on
ethics and a low level of corruption, as well as an effective domestic competition policy, though obstacles still
persist in hiring foreign labor and regulation of FDI.
Upgrading the quality of infrastructure, especially roads
and railroads, would be beneficial to
further facilitate a smooth flow of goods both across
borders and to destinations inside the country.
Australia occupies the 14th position overall.The
rating reflects many aspects that the country does particularly well in facilitating the flow of goods across borders
and to destination, including its strong performances with
respect to transparent border administration, the quality
of transport services, and its high level of commitment
in the sector under GATS, as well as its regulatory environment, which promotes intense domestic competition.
The results are, however, somewhat offset by high
domestic and foreign market barriers. Australia applies
very high tariffs for non-agricultural products in comparison with economies at a similar level of development,
placing the country 96th on this indicator. Lowering
these tariffs would further boost the country’s openness
to trade.
Japan takes up the 23rd position in the ETI
ranking.The country’s highly efficient and transparent
border administration and its well-developed infrastructure, together with its excellent transport services, all
contribute to this rating.The ranking is, however,
severely offset by Japan’s high barriers to market access
in domestic and foreign markets (115th), as reflected in
the high tariffs on agricultural products and the complexity of tariffs, as well as barriers faced when exporting.
In addition, the country’s costly import and export procedures and limited openness to foreign participation are
not conductive to facilitating trade flows. Japan could
also benefit from improving its somewhat burdensome
customs procedures (43rd).

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

xv

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Table 1: The Enabling Trade Index 2009
SUBINDEXES
OVERALL INDEX
Country/Economy

xvi

Page xvi

Singapore
Hong Kong SAR
Switzerland
Denmark
Sweden
Canada
Norway
Finland
Austria
Netherlands
New Zealand
Germany
Luxembourg
Australia
Ireland
United States
France
United Arab Emirates
Chile
United Kingdom
Belgium
Estonia
Japan
Bahrain
Taiwan, China
Korea, Rep.
Spain
Malaysia
Israel
Portugal
Slovenia
Cyprus
Mauritius
Oman
Qatar
Czech Republic
Jordan
Hungary
Croatia
Lithuania
Tunisia
Saudi Arabia
Costa Rica
Latvia
Italy
Slovak Republic
Greece
Turkey
China
Thailand
Uruguay
Moldova
Panama
Romania
Morocco
El Salvador
Poland
Guatemala
Kuwait
Namibia
South Africa
Indonesia
Albania
Armenia
Peru

Market
access

Border
administration

Transport and communications infrastructure

Business
environment

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

5.97
5.57
5.44
5.44
5.44
5.35
5.33
5.33
5.29
5.27
5.27
5.24
5.12
5.07
5.02
5.02
5.02
4.97
4.96
4.93
4.92
4.84
4.78
4.76
4.75
4.73
4.72
4.70
4.66
4.63
4.61
4.56
4.54
4.52
4.50
4.39
4.39
4.39
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.33
4.30
4.30
4.30
4.19
4.19
4.18
4.18
4.15
4.06
4.05
4.01
4.00
3.98
3.97
3.96
3.93
3.92
3.82
3.82
3.81
3.81

2
20
38
86
88
13
21
78
84
87
39
90
58
97
96
49
89
65
3
79
80
71
115
26
99
106
75
32
35
63
82
74
10
23
102
94
61
81
28
60
70
40
5
73
66
93
59
14
103
98
22
6
54
72
51
1
77
8
76
33
92
53
30
42
25

5.63
4.75
4.48
3.81
3.81
4.96
4.72
3.84
3.81
3.81
4.39
3.79
4.00
3.72
3.73
4.16
3.81
3.95
5.58
3.84
3.82
3.91
3.10
4.65
3.70
3.47
3.86
4.60
4.54
3.96
3.82
3.88
4.99
4.69
3.62
3.76
3.97
3.82
4.63
3.97
3.91
4.39
5.44
3.90
3.94
3.77
3.98
4.93
3.60
3.72
4.71
5.38
4.06
3.90
4.09
5.64
3.85
5.08
3.86
4.60
3.78
4.07
4.63
4.25
4.65

1
7
10
3
2
12
18
9
6
4
5
11
24
17
8
15
19
20
21
14
29
16
13
25
27
22
28
33
23
35
26
47
37
49
34
30
36
31
52
42
32
38
46
39
48
40
57
56
43
41
53
72
50
44
51
61
45
55
78
79
54
66
60
87
59

6.49
5.89
5.80
6.31
6.41
5.64
5.47
5.80
5.92
6.04
5.95
5.65
5.19
5.54
5.82
5.58
5.46
5.34
5.31
5.62
5.02
5.58
5.63
5.17
5.15
5.28
5.07
4.66
5.25
4.63
5.16
4.31
4.62
4.23
4.63
4.92
4.62
4.69
4.16
4.46
4.67
4.61
4.31
4.60
4.25
4.52
3.99
4.05
4.43
4.48
4.15
3.59
4.22
4.39
4.21
3.90
4.37
4.07
3.52
3.47
4.12
3.75
3.91
3.25
3.93

3
5
9
8
4
17
20
16
6
2
22
1
13
14
23
10
7
24
43
11
12
27
15
41
19
21
18
29
32
26
31
28
55
45
42
35
52
34
37
36
59
47
70
39
25
33
30
49
38
40
78
58
44
51
65
91
46
72
54
75
50
79
94
61
89

5.64
5.57
5.49
5.50
5.63
5.27
5.11
5.37
5.55
5.64
4.97
5.77
5.41
5.39
4.94
5.48
5.54
4.91
3.87
5.47
5.45
4.64
5.38
4.07
5.12
4.99
5.13
4.59
4.37
4.74
4.55
4.60
3.55
3.74
4.04
4.32
3.61
4.34
4.18
4.28
3.46
3.70
3.24
4.09
4.75
4.36
4.58
3.65
4.16
4.07
3.09
3.46
3.75
3.62
3.36
2.90
3.71
3.22
3.55
3.16
3.62
3.04
2.82
3.42
2.94

3
4
6
2
7
17
5
1
8
15
11
10
9
14
16
36
23
13
29
39
20
24
31
27
30
26
38
33
56
25
35
18
32
19
12
50
22
45
55
41
21
42
58
43
66
51
47
75
49
59
40
73
71
65
63
104
80
109
34
54
76
60
83
64
95

6.13
6.08
6.01
6.15
5.90
5.52
6.02
6.29
5.89
5.59
5.75
5.75
5.89
5.62
5.59
4.85
5.26
5.68
5.09
4.81
5.40
5.25
5.02
5.14
5.03
5.16
4.82
4.96
4.46
5.21
4.89
5.45
5.00
5.43
5.70
4.58
5.36
4.70
4.49
4.75
5.40
4.73
4.44
4.72
4.27
4.56
4.65
4.15
4.58
4.44
4.76
4.16
4.21
4.28
4.38
3.58
3.99
3.50
4.90
4.51
4.14
4.43
3.91
4.33
3.70

(Cont’d.)

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page xvii

Table 1: The Enabling Trade Index 2009 (cont’d.)
SUBINDEXES
OVERALL INDEX
Country/Economy

Honduras
Gambia, The
Macedonia, FYR
Malawi
Azerbaijan
Ukraine
Bulgaria
Madagascar
Mexico
Egypt
India
Nicaragua
Sri Lanka
Jamaica
Zambia
Dominican Republic
Philippines
Senegal
Colombia
Uganda
Ghana
Brazil
Bolivia
Vietnam
Lesotho
Cambodia
Tanzania
Kazakhstan
Mozambique
Ethiopia
Benin
Argentina
Kenya
Mali
Pakistan
Kyrgyz Republic
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ecuador
Burkina Faso
Paraguay
Cameroon
Mauritania
Syria
Russian Federation
Nepal
Bangladesh
Algeria
Mongolia
Tajikistan
Guyana
Burundi
Nigeria
Zimbabwe
Venezuela
Côte d’Ivoire
Chad

Market
access

Border
administration

Transport and communications infrastructure

Business
environment

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121

3.80
3.78
3.78
3.77
3.77
3.76
3.76
3.75
3.74
3.72
3.72
3.71
3.70
3.70
3.64
3.64
3.62
3.62
3.61
3.60
3.60
3.58
3.55
3.54
3.51
3.50
3.50
3.49
3.49
3.48
3.47
3.46
3.45
3.44
3.43
3.43
3.42
3.41
3.41
3.39
3.35
3.31
3.30
3.29
3.22
3.20
3.18
3.17
3.14
3.13
2.99
2.97
2.91
2.84
2.78
2.77

16
108
62
12
52
24
55
4
43
117
116
15
64
85
19
69
56
109
48
9
67
100
11
112
7
27
41
45
17
91
47
95
34
37
111
18
107
36
46
31
83
44
121
113
29
57
118
110
104
114
68
120
101
105
119
50

4.87
3.37
3.97
4.97
4.07
4.68
4.02
5.45
4.25
3.05
3.06
4.91
3.95
3.81
4.76
3.91
4.02
3.36
4.16
5.06
3.94
3.67
4.98
3.24
5.25
4.65
4.33
4.20
4.84
3.79
4.17
3.75
4.59
4.51
3.26
4.77
3.41
4.53
4.20
4.62
3.82
4.24
2.25
3.16
4.63
4.01
2.76
3.36
3.57
3.13
3.92
2.72
3.67
3.48
2.74
4.16

82
70
71
97
103
95
69
86
62
65
58
83
67
73
102
64
68
76
74
99
80
77
75
85
105
98
92
119
90
89
101
84
108
111
63
116
81
107
112
93
96
110
91
106
113
104
88
109
118
94
114
100
117
120
115
121

3.42
3.63
3.60
3.06
2.91
3.07
3.64
3.26
3.87
3.78
3.94
3.38
3.75
3.59
2.96
3.80
3.72
3.54
3.55
2.99
3.45
3.53
3.55
3.28
2.84
3.00
3.17
2.27
3.21
3.22
2.97
3.35
2.77
2.64
3.85
2.46
3.44
2.80
2.64
3.16
3.07
2.67
3.17
2.82
2.58
2.88
3.24
2.71
2.40
3.14
2.57
2.98
2.42
2.25
2.55
2.00

82
84
57
112
62
60
48
115
74
66
64
105
69
53
111
73
77
81
76
98
102
68
106
71
118
109
119
63
117
96
99
67
93
113
80
86
85
87
101
103
104
110
88
56
107
108
90
95
116
92
120
100
114
83
97
121

3.01
3.00
3.46
2.44
3.40
3.43
3.68
2.37
3.20
3.35
3.36
2.54
3.29
3.56
2.45
3.20
3.09
3.01
3.13
2.61
2.56
3.33
2.53
3.24
2.33
2.50
2.25
3.39
2.36
2.71
2.60
3.33
2.88
2.40
3.04
2.98
2.98
2.97
2.58
2.56
2.55
2.47
2.96
3.49
2.51
2.50
2.90
2.82
2.37
2.90
2.16
2.60
2.38
3.01
2.70
1.96

84
28
78
48
46
85
97
82
98
44
53
79
90
89
62
99
100
52
103
94
57
93
118
61
101
87
67
77
107
72
74
111
105
68
102
108
86
112
69
115
81
88
37
96
117
110
92
91
70
113
114
106
116
121
119
120

3.91
5.13
4.09
4.60
4.68
3.87
3.68
3.93
3.67
4.71
4.51
4.01
3.82
3.83
4.39
3.64
3.63
4.55
3.58
3.76
4.44
3.79
3.16
4.40
3.63
3.85
4.24
4.10
3.56
4.20
4.16
3.42
3.58
4.23
3.58
3.53
3.87
3.36
4.22
3.22
3.97
3.84
4.83
3.70
3.17
3.42
3.81
3.81
4.22
3.34
3.30
3.57
3.17
2.61
3.15
2.96

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

xvii

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

xviii

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page xviii

Table 2: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Market access
PILLARS
MARKET ACCESS
Country/Economy

El Salvador
Singapore
Chile
Madagascar
Costa Rica
Moldova
Lesotho
Guatemala
Uganda
Mauritius
Bolivia
Malawi
Canada
Turkey
Nicaragua
Honduras
Mozambique
Kyrgyz Republic
Zambia
Hong Kong SAR
Norway
Uruguay
Oman
Ukraine
Peru
Bahrain
Cambodia
Croatia
Nepal
Albania
Paraguay
Malaysia
Namibia
Kenya
Israel
Ecuador
Mali
Switzerland
New Zealand
Saudi Arabia
Tanzania
Armenia
Mexico
Mauritania
Kazakhstan
Burkina Faso
Benin
Colombia
United States
Chad
Morocco
Azerbaijan
Indonesia
Panama
Bulgaria
Philippines
Bangladesh
Luxembourg
Greece
Lithuania
Jordan
Macedonia, FYR
Portugal
Sri Lanka
United Arab Emirates
Italy
Ghana

1. Domestic and foreign market access

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67

5.64
5.63
5.58
5.45
5.44
5.38
5.25
5.08
5.06
4.99
4.98
4.97
4.96
4.93
4.91
4.87
4.84
4.77
4.76
4.75
4.72
4.71
4.69
4.68
4.65
4.65
4.65
4.63
4.63
4.63
4.62
4.60
4.60
4.59
4.54
4.53
4.51
4.48
4.39
4.39
4.33
4.25
4.25
4.24
4.20
4.20
4.17
4.16
4.16
4.16
4.09
4.07
4.07
4.06
4.02
4.02
4.01
4.00
3.98
3.97
3.97
3.97
3.96
3.95
3.95
3.94
3.94

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67

5.64
5.63
5.58
5.45
5.44
5.38
5.25
5.08
5.06
4.99
4.98
4.97
4.96
4.93
4.91
4.87
4.84
4.77
4.76
4.75
4.72
4.71
4.69
4.68
4.65
4.65
4.65
4.63
4.63
4.63
4.62
4.60
4.60
4.59
4.54
4.53
4.51
4.48
4.39
4.39
4.33
4.25
4.25
4.24
4.20
4.20
4.17
4.16
4.16
4.16
4.09
4.07
4.07
4.06
4.02
4.02
4.01
4.00
3.98
3.97
3.97
3.97
3.96
3.95
3.95
3.94
3.94

(Cont’d.)

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page xix

Table 2: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Market access (cont’d.)
PILLARS
MARKET ACCESS
Country/Economy

Burundi
Dominican Republic
Tunisia
Estonia
Romania
Latvia
Cyprus
Spain
Kuwait
Poland
Finland
United Kingdom
Belgium
Hungary
Slovenia
Cameroon
Austria
Jamaica
Denmark
Netherlands
Sweden
France
Germany
Ethiopia
South Africa
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Argentina
Ireland
Australia
Thailand
Taiwan, China
Brazil
Zimbabwe
Qatar
China
Tajikistan
Venezuela
Korea, Rep.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Gambia, The
Senegal
Mongolia
Pakistan
Vietnam
Russian Federation
Guyana
Japan
India
Egypt
Algeria
Côte d’Ivoire
Nigeria
Syria

1. Domestic and foreign market access

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121

3.92
3.91
3.91
3.91
3.90
3.90
3.88
3.86
3.86
3.85
3.84
3.84
3.82
3.82
3.82
3.82
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.79
3.79
3.78
3.77
3.76
3.75
3.73
3.72
3.72
3.70
3.67
3.67
3.62
3.60
3.57
3.48
3.47
3.41
3.37
3.36
3.36
3.26
3.24
3.16
3.13
3.10
3.06
3.05
2.76
2.74
2.72
2.25

68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121

3.92
3.91
3.91
3.91
3.90
3.90
3.88
3.86
3.86
3.85
3.84
3.84
3.82
3.82
3.82
3.82
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.79
3.79
3.78
3.77
3.76
3.75
3.73
3.72
3.72
3.70
3.67
3.67
3.62
3.60
3.57
3.48
3.47
3.41
3.37
3.36
3.36
3.26
3.24
3.16
3.13
3.10
3.06
3.05
2.76
2.74
2.72
2.25

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

xix

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Table 3: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Border administration
PILLARS
BORDER
ADMINISTRATION
Country/Economy

xx

Page xx

Singapore
Sweden
Denmark
Netherlands
New Zealand
Austria
Hong Kong SAR
Ireland
Finland
Switzerland
Germany
Canada
Japan
United Kingdom
United States
Estonia
Australia
Norway
France
United Arab Emirates
Chile
Korea, Rep.
Israel
Luxembourg
Bahrain
Slovenia
Taiwan, China
Spain
Belgium
Czech Republic
Hungary
Tunisia
Malaysia
Qatar
Portugal
Jordan
Mauritius
Saudi Arabia
Latvia
Slovak Republic
Thailand
Lithuania
China
Romania
Poland
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Italy
Oman
Panama
Morocco
Croatia
Uruguay
South Africa
Guatemala
Turkey
Greece
India
Peru
Albania
El Salvador
Mexico
Pakistan
Dominican Republic
Egypt
Indonesia

2. Efficiency of customs
administration

3 Efficiency of importexport procedures

4. Transparency of
border administration

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66

6.49
6.41
6.31
6.04
5.95
5.92
5.89
5.82
5.80
5.80
5.65
5.64
5.63
5.62
5.58
5.58
5.54
5.47
5.46
5.34
5.31
5.28
5.25
5.19
5.17
5.16
5.15
5.07
5.02
4.92
4.69
4.67
4.66
4.63
4.63
4.62
4.62
4.61
4.60
4.52
4.48
4.46
4.43
4.39
4.37
4.31
4.31
4.25
4.23
4.22
4.21
4.16
4.15
4.12
4.07
4.05
3.99
3.94
3.93
3.91
3.90
3.87
3.85
3.80
3.78
3.75

1
2
4
5
8
3
14
6
29
9
21
15
11
7
10
13
24
35
25
19
20
18
27
49
16
12
23
26
33
17
28
30
44
69
59
34
37
31
39
22
43
48
45
42
55
41
46
53
62
73
40
47
68
38
32
72
81
51
79
60
78
52
56
76
77
75

6.43
6.41
6.00
5.94
5.71
6.04
5.42
5.86
4.75
5.70
5.17
5.39
5.52
5.75
5.66
5.44
5.14
4.35
5.11
5.19
5.19
5.27
5.04
3.98
5.31
5.46
5.15
5.06
4.38
5.28
4.90
4.49
4.17
3.42
3.66
4.35
4.30
4.46
4.27
5.17
4.19
4.03
4.15
4.22
3.73
4.23
4.15
3.79
3.56
3.27
4.24
4.14
3.42
4.29
4.40
3.29
3.02
3.83
3.12
3.63
3.12
3.80
3.73
3.18
3.17
3.18

1
4
2
9
20
18
3
15
5
26
8
28
19
21
16
7
32
6
10
14
40
13
17
24
23
59
27
41
34
44
53
39
22
43
31
54
35
25
33
80
11
29
30
45
36
65
98
47
74
12
56
68
87
94
85
46
51
62
61
64
52
78
57
42
38
37

6.46
6.21
6.33
5.94
5.58
5.72
6.26
5.74
6.16
5.36
5.97
5.34
5.71
5.56
5.73
6.03
5.27
6.09
5.92
5.78
5.17
5.80
5.73
5.48
5.50
4.73
5.35
5.14
5.24
5.12
4.85
5.18
5.51
5.13
5.28
4.81
5.23
5.45
5.25
4.26
5.85
5.29
5.28
5.05
5.20
4.62
3.66
4.98
4.31
5.85
4.77
4.52
4.10
3.85
4.11
4.98
4.88
4.67
4.68
4.65
4.87
4.27
4.76
5.13
5.18
5.18

4
1
2
7
3
11
12
14
5
6
15
9
16
18
21
24
8
13
22
26
17
33
28
10
35
23
30
27
19
36
38
37
40
20
29
34
39
51
41
44
67
48
55
54
43
46
25
50
32
63
62
56
31
42
57
53
47
70
49
66
58
64
80
77
91
94

6.57
6.61
6.59
6.22
6.57
6.00
5.98
5.84
6.50
6.33
5.81
6.17
5.66
5.53
5.36
5.27
6.20
5.97
5.35
5.06
5.58
4.79
4.99
6.11
4.69
5.28
4.93
5.00
5.43
4.35
4.32
4.35
4.31
5.36
4.95
4.69
4.32
3.94
4.28
4.12
3.41
4.06
3.85
3.88
4.17
4.10
5.12
3.99
4.83
3.53
3.62
3.82
4.92
4.23
3.71
3.89
4.07
3.32
4.00
3.44
3.70
3.53
3.06
3.11
2.97
2.89

(Cont’d.)

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page xxi

Table 3: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Border administration (cont’d.)
PILLARS
BORDER
ADMINISTRATION
Country/Economy

Sri Lanka
Philippines
Bulgaria
Gambia, The
Macedonia, FYR
Moldova
Jamaica
Colombia
Bolivia
Senegal
Brazil
Kuwait
Namibia
Ghana
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Honduras
Nicaragua
Argentina
Vietnam
Madagascar
Armenia
Algeria
Ethiopia
Mozambique
Syria
Tanzania
Paraguay
Guyana
Ukraine
Cameroon
Malawi
Cambodia
Uganda
Nigeria
Benin
Zambia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Lesotho
Russian Federation
Ecuador
Kenya
Mongolia
Mauritania
Mali
Burkina Faso
Nepal
Burundi
Côte d’Ivoire
Kyrgyz Republic
Zimbabwe
Tajikistan
Kazakhstan
Venezuela
Chad

2. Efficiency of customs
administration

3 Efficiency of importexport procedures

4. Transparency of
border administration

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121

3.75
3.72
3.64
3.63
3.60
3.59
3.59
3.55
3.55
3.54
3.53
3.52
3.47
3.45
3.44
3.42
3.38
3.35
3.28
3.26
3.25
3.24
3.22
3.21
3.17
3.17
3.16
3.14
3.07
3.07
3.06
3.00
2.99
2.98
2.97
2.96
2.91
2.88
2.84
2.82
2.80
2.77
2.71
2.67
2.64
2.64
2.58
2.57
2.55
2.46
2.42
2.40
2.27
2.25
2.00

71
54
61
80
101
67
65
89
63
82
98
112
84
102
96
95
92
83
117
111
64
105
50
87
94
113
86
100
110
93
66
91
70
107
118
57
36
115
99
74
121
109
88
116
108
97
119
85
114
58
90
104
106
103
120

3.31
3.77
3.61
3.10
2.51
3.45
3.47
2.69
3.55
2.97
2.57
2.23
2.91
2.49
2.61
2.63
2.67
2.93
2.17
2.23
3.49
2.40
3.93
2.78
2.63
2.21
2.88
2.51
2.24
2.66
3.46
2.67
3.41
2.36
2.03
3.68
4.35
2.20
2.53
3.20
1.74
2.30
2.75
2.19
2.35
2.60
2.00
2.90
2.21
3.67
2.67
2.45
2.39
2.46
1.94

55
48
79
60
63
97
72
75
89
58
67
69
101
66
50
71
70
77
49
76
99
88
109
92
81
73
95
84
91
90
111
86
106
96
93
112
118
82
100
107
83
102
108
103
110
116
105
117
104
121
115
119
120
114
113

4.78
4.92
4.27
4.70
4.66
3.66
4.32
4.30
4.09
4.75
4.57
4.42
3.39
4.59
4.88
4.36
4.40
4.29
4.90
4.29
3.59
4.10
2.59
3.88
4.25
4.32
3.85
4.14
3.95
4.02
2.34
4.10
2.94
3.76
3.88
2.21
1.79
4.24
3.41
2.67
4.15
3.33
2.60
3.14
2.49
1.95
2.98
1.94
3.05
1.33
2.02
1.71
1.42
2.10
2.12

75
115
82
78
61
59
87
60
85
93
65
52
45
72
97
71
81
96
99
73
106
74
76
92
107
90
102
103
84
113
68
118
108
98
86
89
112
119
110
109
114
105
101
104
79
69
100
95
116
117
111
83
88
120
121

3.15
2.48
3.05
3.10
3.64
3.67
2.99
3.66
3.00
2.91
3.45
3.91
4.11
3.28
2.82
3.28
3.06
2.83
2.78
3.25
2.67
3.23
3.14
2.96
2.63
2.98
2.76
2.76
3.02
2.52
3.39
2.23
2.61
2.81
3.00
2.99
2.58
2.20
2.58
2.59
2.50
2.67
2.76
2.68
3.09
3.37
2.78
2.86
2.40
2.38
2.58
3.03
2.99
2.18
1.95

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

xxi

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Table 4: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Transport and communications infrastructure
PILLARS
TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE
Country/Economy

xxii

Page xxii

Germany
Netherlands
Singapore
Sweden
Hong Kong SAR
Austria
France
Denmark
Switzerland
United States
United Kingdom
Belgium
Luxembourg
Australia
Japan
Finland
Canada
Spain
Taiwan, China
Norway
Korea, Rep.
New Zealand
Ireland
United Arab Emirates
Italy
Portugal
Estonia
Cyprus
Malaysia
Greece
Slovenia
Israel
Slovak Republic
Hungary
Czech Republic
Lithuania
Croatia
China
Latvia
Thailand
Bahrain
Qatar
Chile
Panama
Oman
Poland
Saudi Arabia
Bulgaria
Turkey
South Africa
Romania
Jordan
Jamaica
Kuwait
Mauritius
Russian Federation
Macedonia, FYR
Moldova
Tunisia
Ukraine
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
India
Morocco
Egypt

5. Availability and quality
of transport infrastructure

6. Availability and quality
of transport services

7. Availability and
use of ICTs

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66

5.77
5.64
5.64
5.63
5.57
5.55
5.54
5.50
5.49
5.48
5.47
5.45
5.41
5.39
5.38
5.37
5.27
5.13
5.12
5.11
4.99
4.97
4.94
4.91
4.75
4.74
4.64
4.60
4.59
4.58
4.55
4.37
4.36
4.34
4.32
4.28
4.18
4.16
4.09
4.07
4.07
4.04
3.87
3.75
3.74
3.71
3.70
3.68
3.65
3.62
3.62
3.61
3.56
3.55
3.55
3.49
3.46
3.46
3.46
3.43
3.42
3.40
3.39
3.36
3.36
3.35

8
14
12
6
11
9
1
5
18
3
21
7
19
17
23
4
2
15
26
10
29
20
31
13
50
28
40
16
22
24
34
54
41
60
46
35
42
30
37
33
36
47
48
27
43
83
55
77
62
44
84
59
58
70
32
64
65
75
39
63
69
45
49
51
52
53

5.28
5.12
5.14
5.35
5.15
5.20
5.83
5.44
5.04
5.54
4.96
5.33
5.02
5.07
4.77
5.50
5.58
5.12
4.65
5.17
4.55
4.97
4.47
5.14
3.98
4.64
4.20
5.08
4.95
4.74
4.37
3.88
4.15
3.73
4.09
4.34
4.12
4.48
4.31
4.39
4.31
4.08
4.05
4.65
4.12
3.16
3.86
3.31
3.66
4.11
3.15
3.78
3.79
3.57
4.44
3.63
3.62
3.39
4.21
3.65
3.58
4.11
4.05
3.98
3.95
3.90

3
2
1
11
6
5
10
17
12
14
7
8
13
9
4
18
25
15
22
35
23
31
20
30
21
24
42
40
16
29
33
43
28
26
34
55
37
19
45
27
63
60
51
70
32
49
52
53
48
44
41
39
76
79
106
68
59
38
74
77
50
62
75
46
67
58

5.85
5.91
5.96
5.30
5.55
5.76
5.33
4.97
5.17
5.08
5.50
5.47
5.16
5.43
5.84
4.89
4.64
5.06
4.73
4.22
4.72
4.40
4.84
4.58
4.80
4.70
4.03
4.07
5.00
4.58
4.30
3.96
4.60
4.64
4.26
3.68
4.16
4.87
3.93
4.62
3.50
3.54
3.82
3.34
4.33
3.85
3.81
3.79
3.86
3.95
4.06
4.10
3.22
3.17
2.77
3.41
3.56
4.15
3.24
3.22
3.83
3.51
3.23
3.89
3.43
3.62

3
10
11
2
6
15
24
4
1
12
8
19
5
17
21
13
18
26
7
9
14
20
22
27
23
29
16
32
43
35
28
25
37
31
33
30
38
60
40
59
36
34
44
57
74
39
53
41
52
72
46
65
45
42
49
50
58
71
67
51
70
80
68
93
76
81

6.20
5.89
5.83
6.25
6.00
5.69
5.47
6.10
6.27
5.81
5.95
5.56
6.04
5.67
5.52
5.72
5.58
5.21
5.97
5.93
5.70
5.54
5.50
5.01
5.48
4.87
5.68
4.66
3.82
4.41
4.99
5.28
4.34
4.66
4.61
4.81
4.26
3.12
4.04
3.19
4.38
4.49
3.73
3.26
2.77
4.12
3.42
3.95
3.42
2.81
3.63
2.96
3.68
3.92
3.44
3.43
3.21
2.83
2.92
3.43
2.85
2.59
2.88
2.20
2.69
2.52

(Cont’d.)

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page xxiii

Table 4: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Transport and communications infrastructure (cont’d.)
PILLARS
TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE
Country/Economy

Argentina
Brazil
Sri Lanka
Costa Rica
Vietnam
Guatemala
Dominican Republic
Mexico
Namibia
Colombia
Philippines
Uruguay
Indonesia
Pakistan
Senegal
Honduras
Venezuela
Gambia, The
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Kyrgyz Republic
Ecuador
Syria
Peru
Algeria
El Salvador
Guyana
Kenya
Albania
Mongolia
Ethiopia
Côte d’Ivoire
Uganda
Benin
Nigeria
Burkina Faso
Ghana
Paraguay
Cameroon
Nicaragua
Bolivia
Nepal
Bangladesh
Cambodia
Mauritania
Zambia
Malawi
Mali
Zimbabwe
Madagascar
Tajikistan
Mozambique
Lesotho
Tanzania
Burundi
Chad

5. Availability and quality
of transport infrastructure

6. Availability and quality
of transport services

7. Availability and
use of ICTs

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121

3.33
3.33
3.29
3.24
3.24
3.22
3.20
3.20
3.16
3.13
3.09
3.09
3.04
3.04
3.01
3.01
3.01
3.00
2.98
2.98
2.97
2.96
2.94
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.88
2.82
2.82
2.71
2.70
2.61
2.60
2.60
2.58
2.56
2.56
2.55
2.54
2.53
2.51
2.50
2.50
2.47
2.45
2.44
2.40
2.38
2.37
2.37
2.36
2.33
2.25
2.16
1.96

91
93
38
66
108
81
73
85
25
76
92
99
82
56
72
71
96
57
113
61
86
74
90
68
98
107
78
97
67
80
95
87
114
112
89
79
104
94
100
88
101
102
105
117
111
109
116
106
103
118
110
120
115
119
121

2.99
2.99
4.28
3.61
2.59
3.24
3.45
3.12
4.71
3.31
2.99
2.83
3.24
3.84
3.45
3.48
2.88
3.80
2.45
3.68
3.10
3.44
3.02
3.58
2.87
2.59
3.30
2.87
3.60
3.25
2.93
3.08
2.44
2.49
3.02
3.26
2.72
2.95
2.81
3.06
2.81
2.78
2.71
2.24
2.53
2.58
2.29
2.60
2.72
2.18
2.54
2.02
2.36
2.13
1.70

66
56
81
103
36
69
64
65
115
84
47
101
54
80
72
104
86
97
57
87
78
96
90
111
93
108
73
85
112
71
95
89
61
92
98
119
113
107
102
116
88
105
91
82
100
83
94
109
118
110
114
99
121
117
120

3.44
3.66
3.15
2.86
4.17
3.35
3.50
3.48
2.59
3.10
3.88
2.95
3.69
3.15
3.33
2.86
3.09
3.00
3.63
3.09
3.21
3.00
3.08
2.70
3.03
2.75
3.26
3.10
2.70
3.33
3.01
3.09
3.51
3.05
3.00
2.49
2.62
2.77
2.87
2.59
3.09
2.79
3.05
3.15
2.98
3.12
3.02
2.74
2.56
2.71
2.60
2.98
2.44
2.57
2.47

47
54
84
56
66
61
78
63
95
64
86
48
91
98
89
77
62
90
69
94
79
83
75
85
73
55
99
82
96
121
97
118
111
88
116
107
87
108
103
106
120
102
115
100
110
119
109
113
112
92
105
101
104
114
117

3.57
3.35
2.43
3.26
2.96
3.07
2.65
2.99
2.16
2.98
2.41
3.48
2.21
2.14
2.26
2.68
3.05
2.21
2.87
2.17
2.61
2.44
2.72
2.42
2.79
3.34
2.07
2.48
2.16
1.54
2.15
1.65
1.85
2.26
1.73
1.92
2.33
1.92
1.94
1.93
1.63
1.95
1.75
2.03
1.86
1.63
1.87
1.78
1.82
2.21
1.93
1.99
1.94
1.77
1.70

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

xxiii

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

xxiv

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page xxiv

Table 5: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Business environment
PILLARS
BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT
Country/Economy

Finland
Denmark
Singapore
Hong Kong SAR
Norway
Switzerland
Sweden
Austria
Luxembourg
Germany
New Zealand
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
Australia
Netherlands
Ireland
Canada
Cyprus
Oman
Belgium
Tunisia
Jordan
France
Estonia
Portugal
Korea, Rep.
Bahrain
Gambia, The
Chile
Taiwan, China
Japan
Mauritius
Malaysia
Kuwait
Slovenia
United States
Syria
Spain
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Lithuania
Saudi Arabia
Latvia
Egypt
Hungary
Azerbaijan
Greece
Malawi
China
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Senegal
India
Namibia
Croatia
Israel
Ghana
Costa Rica
Thailand
Indonesia
Vietnam
Zambia
Morocco
Armenia
Romania
Italy
Tanzania

8. Regulatory environment

9. Physical security

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67

6.29
6.15
6.13
6.08
6.02
6.01
5.90
5.89
5.89
5.75
5.75
5.70
5.68
5.62
5.59
5.59
5.52
5.45
5.43
5.40
5.40
5.36
5.26
5.25
5.21
5.16
5.14
5.13
5.09
5.03
5.02
5.00
4.96
4.90
4.89
4.85
4.83
4.82
4.81
4.76
4.75
4.73
4.72
4.71
4.70
4.68
4.65
4.60
4.58
4.58
4.56
4.55
4.51
4.51
4.49
4.46
4.44
4.44
4.44
4.43
4.40
4.39
4.38
4.33
4.28
4.27
4.24

3
2
1
6
10
5
4
13
8
12
9
17
15
11
7
14
16
24
21
20
18
30
22
29
36
27
28
32
37
34
26
33
25
43
44
23
66
40
19
38
54
31
56
49
58
59
53
47
45
61
52
87
46
42
77
39
63
41
48
55
64
57
51
91
85
84
73

5.88
5.92
6.13
5.67
5.50
5.77
5.79
5.40
5.53
5.42
5.52
5.23
5.25
5.49
5.66
5.34
5.25
4.89
4.98
4.98
5.00
4.73
4.93
4.77
4.57
4.80
4.78
4.65
4.56
4.59
4.83
4.64
4.86
4.21
4.16
4.90
3.83
4.44
5.00
4.48
3.97
4.73
3.96
4.05
3.90
3.90
3.98
4.10
4.15
3.90
3.99
3.56
4.13
4.29
3.64
4.47
3.86
4.38
4.09
3.97
3.86
3.92
4.01
3.50
3.60
3.60
3.67

1
4
9
3
2
6
13
5
7
11
15
8
10
23
31
18
21
12
16
20
22
14
29
24
17
32
34
27
26
37
44
40
49
28
25
63
19
45
73
50
33
68
36
39
35
38
41
48
52
43
47
30
57
70
42
83
51
80
64
56
54
59
66
46
53
55
61

6.70
6.38
6.12
6.48
6.54
6.24
6.01
6.37
6.24
6.07
5.97
6.18
6.10
5.75
5.52
5.83
5.79
6.02
5.88
5.82
5.79
5.99
5.59
5.72
5.85
5.52
5.50
5.60
5.61
5.47
5.21
5.36
5.06
5.60
5.62
4.80
5.83
5.19
4.62
5.04
5.52
4.73
5.48
5.37
5.49
5.45
5.33
5.11
5.02
5.27
5.13
5.53
4.88
4.72
5.33
4.46
5.03
4.51
4.79
4.89
4.94
4.87
4.76
5.16
4.95
4.93
4.80

(Cont’d.)

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page xxv

Table 5: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Business environment (cont’d.)
PILLARS
BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT
Country/Economy

Mali
Burkina Faso
Tajikistan
Panama
Ethiopia
Moldova
Benin
Turkey
South Africa
Kazakhstan
Macedonia, FYR
Nicaragua
Poland
Cameroon
Madagascar
Albania
Honduras
Ukraine
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
Mauritania
Jamaica
Sri Lanka
Mongolia
Algeria
Brazil
Uganda
Peru
Russian Federation
Bulgaria
Mexico
Dominican Republic
Philippines
Lesotho
Pakistan
Colombia
El Salvador
Kenya
Nigeria
Mozambique
Kyrgyz Republic
Guatemala
Bangladesh
Argentina
Ecuador
Guyana
Burundi
Paraguay
Zimbabwe
Nepal
Bolivia
Côte d’Ivoire
Chad
Venezuela

8. Regulatory environment

9. Physical security

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121

4.23
4.22
4.22
4.21
4.20
4.16
4.16
4.15
4.14
4.10
4.09
4.01
3.99
3.97
3.93
3.91
3.91
3.87
3.87
3.85
3.84
3.83
3.82
3.81
3.81
3.79
3.76
3.70
3.70
3.68
3.67
3.64
3.63
3.63
3.58
3.58
3.58
3.58
3.57
3.56
3.53
3.50
3.42
3.42
3.36
3.34
3.30
3.22
3.17
3.17
3.16
3.15
2.96
2.61

72
67
80
60
81
94
82
65
35
75
86
106
88
103
90
105
68
107
113
89
102
62
50
108
101
95
92
79
109
99
78
97
98
96
76
71
70
83
74
100
111
69
110
117
116
93
114
115
120
104
118
112
119
121

3.72
3.83
3.63
3.90
3.62
3.45
3.62
3.85
4.59
3.66
3.58
3.19
3.52
3.25
3.51
3.20
3.81
3.14
3.00
3.52
3.27
3.86
4.02
3.14
3.29
3.43
3.50
3.64
3.13
3.31
3.64
3.39
3.32
3.40
3.65
3.73
3.78
3.61
3.67
3.29
3.09
3.81
3.11
2.80
2.80
3.46
2.95
2.86
2.33
3.21
2.64
3.03
2.58
2.09

69
75
62
79
65
58
71
84
105
78
77
60
82
72
86
74
95
76
67
89
85
102
109
81
87
90
93
103
88
91
106
99
97
100
112
114
115
111
113
101
96
119
104
92
98
118
108
110
94
121
107
117
116
120

4.73
4.61
4.80
4.52
4.78
4.87
4.70
4.46
3.70
4.55
4.60
4.83
4.46
4.69
4.34
4.62
4.01
4.61
4.74
4.18
4.41
3.80
3.63
4.48
4.33
4.14
4.02
3.76
4.27
4.04
3.69
3.88
3.94
3.85
3.52
3.43
3.37
3.55
3.47
3.82
3.96
3.20
3.73
4.04
3.91
3.22
3.65
3.57
4.02
3.12
3.68
3.27
3.34
3.13

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

xxv

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

xxvi

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page xxvi

Taiwan, China and Korea, Rep. follow at 25th
and 26th, respectively, among the countries covered. Both
economies boast very good infrastructure. In addition,
infrastructure-related services are efficient and widely
available, and the use of ICTs is widespread.Traders
benefit particularly from efficient customs administration
in Korea, while Taiwan is doing especially well on the
use of ICTs, which improves the connectivity of companies and the ability to track consignments. Both
economies are, however, hampered by restricted access
to domestic and foreign markets and a regulatory environment that does not facilitate the entry of foreign
investment and labor.
Malaysia occupies the 28th position in the ETI
rankings. Efficient import procedures, a low cost of
importing and exporting goods, and the quality of
transport infrastructure and related transport services
all contribute to this good rating, particularly given the
country’s level of development. Improvements to the
transparency of border administration as well as less
congested roads would further enhance the country’s
strengths.The regulatory framework also provides a
good trading environment by means of efficient government operations and fair domestic competition policies.
Improving the usage of the latest ICTs and lowering
business costs of terrorism would allow the country to
even further reap the harvest of international trade.
China ranks 49th among the countries covered.
This ranking underscores a number of characteristics in
China’s economy and its trading regime. China relies
heavily on its successful export performance, although
imports are still significantly inhibited by tariff barriers.
The country performs particularly well in its low cost
to import and export (3rd). Furthermore, because of
large trade volumes, the country is extremely well connected to international markets through its vast port
facilities, with the services provided by liner companies
being second to none. However, improvement in the
overall transport infrastructure—such as airport density
and the quality of air transport infrastructure—would
further facilitate the flow of goods across borders and
to destinations within China, in particular to the inland
provinces. In addition, more transparency in border
administration and improvements to the regulatory
environment that would allow more foreign participation would help enable trade.
Indonesia comes in at 62nd place, reflecting a
pretty balanced performance on all four pillars of the
Index.The flow of goods in and out of the country
benefits from the low cost of import and export procedures, as well as a regulatory environment that is fairly
open toward foreign participation, although businesses are
concerned about the level of corruption at borders and
the high costs incurred to fight terrorism. Improvements
in transport infrastructure and wide adoption of ICTs
would tremendously help the country to better connect
with its trading partners.

India occupies the 76th position, reflecting a mixed
performance on the four pillars. Although the country
has a fairly good border administration and business environment, domestic and foreign market access continues
to be significantly restricted. India ranks 116th on the
applicable component, with tariff barriers representing
a more serious impediment than non-tariff barriers.
India’s border administration meets many needs of
importers and exporters, although it continues to be
affected by corrupt practices.Trade-related transport
infrastructure and the relevant services are equally fairly
well developed in India, ranking 51st and 46th, respectively.The country is well connected through maritime
routes, although it needs more airports and high-quality
roads. India could also benefit from improvement in ease
of hiring foreign labor as well as reduced business costs
of terrorism.
Europe and North America

The world’s biggest exporter, Germany ranks 12th
overall.The country is the world leader on the quality
of transport infrastructure, in particular thanks to high
levels of maritime connectivity.There exists some room
for improvement in terms of customs administration,
particularly an upgrading of customs services. As for the
regulatory environment (12th), Germany ranks reasonably well on all the indicators, with the exception of the
openness to foreign participation where it places 25th
because of the difficulty of hiring foreign labor (76th).
Market access is Germany’s Achilles’ heel, where it ranks
lower than most EU countries because of the pervasiveness of non-tariff measures.
The United States comes in at 16th position
overall. Its performance is uneven across the nine pillars
of the Index.The country obtains high rankings for the
quality of transport infrastructure (3rd) and the associated
services (14th), as well as for the availability and use of
ICTs (12th).The country also owes much to the extent
and availability of customs services (2nd). Also praised
are the efficiency of customs administration (10th) and
of import and export procedures (16th). On a less positive note, the business environment is less supportive of
trade than it could be (36th). Among other issues, businesses voice their concern about the level of security and
indicate that the threat of terrorism and crime and violence impose significant costs. Finally, the United States
ranks 49th in the market access component. Although
only a small share of goods is subjected to duties and
agricultural markets are less protected than in other
countries, the US tariff structure is complex (89th) and
US exporters face some of the highest barriers in the
world.
France ranks 17th overall, helped by its strong
performance in terms of quality of infrastructure across
all modes. In addition, France is very well connected
to major maritime trade routes. Efficient border administration (19th) constitutes another of France’s relative

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page xxvii

strengths. France ranks 1st for the number of documents
required for import and export—only two signatures
need to be obtained. But there is room for improvement, notably in reducing the cost to import and
export, and also, to a lesser extent, in making customs
procedures more transparent. France’s regulatory
environment is quite favorable, although the business
community voices some concern about the efficiency
of government operations (35th), security (29th), and—
most importantly—about limited openness toward foreign participation (50th). Finally, in line with its fellow
EU members, market access is restricted (89th).
With the exception of the market access pillar
where it ranks a low 79th, the United Kingdom’s
performance (20th) mirrors that of the United States.
The efficiency of border administration (14th) and the
quality of infrastructure (11th) are the country’s two
major strengths, while the quality of the business environment is affected by security concerns.The business
community shares the same concern as its American
counterpart about the costs associated with the threat
of terrorism (112th) as well as crime and violence
(81st).
The Russian Federation ranks a low 109th.There
is only one pillar—availability and use of ICTs—where
the country appears in the top half of the ranking (50th).
In all categories, the need for improvement is huge.The
main area of concern is the extremely restricted access
to markets (113th). Not yet a WTO member, Russia
has import tariffs that average 15 percent (114th) overall,
and 26 percent (106th) on agricultural imports.The
complexity of the tariff structure is also extremely high
(90th). Barriers to market access are likely to diminish in
the process of joining the WTO. Russia also does poorly
with respect to border administration (106th), as reflected
in the results associated with import and export procedures, which are bleak by every measure, and with low
levels of transparency. Russia’s business environment
(96th) is not particularly welcoming to international
participation either, especially with respect to investments
(the country ranks 119th for the measure of openness to
foreign ownership). Furthermore, executives have little
trust in the government and doubts about its ability to
enforce law and order. On a positive note, Russia does
somewhat better on the use of ICTs.
Latin America and the Caribbean

Chile, ranked 19th, leads the rankings in Latin America
and the Caribbean by a considerable margin.This excellent showing is not surprising, given Chile’s role as Latin
America’s leading example on how to benefit from
global trade and investment linkages.The country has
shown commitment to free trade by reducing the complexity of tariffs (2nd) and successfully negotiating access
to foreign markets for domestic exporters, who face less
tariff burdens than in any other country covered by the
Index.Yet, despite these pronounced strengths, border

procedures are not among the least costly and rapid
(40th), transport infrastructure and the related services
are below international standards, and the availability
and use of ICTs is not on a par with countries at the
same level of development. On a more positive note, the
country is very open to foreign participation.
Costa Rica’s ranking of 43rd certainly reflects
efforts undertaken in the past decades.The country
ranks a very high 5th in terms of domestic and foreign
market access because of its relatively low tariff and nontariff barriers, its simple and transparent tariff structure,
and the fairly low tariff barriers faced by exporters in
target markets.The country’s trade performance also
benefits from a favorable regulatory environment (41st).
Yet, although Costa Rica’s trade policy is firmly geared
toward openness, streamlining import and export procedures, upgrading the quality of infrastructure and that of
related services, and reducing the cost to business resulting from crime and violence could contribute to further
boosting the country’s trade performance by lowering
the transaction costs associated with trade.
Mexico ranks 74th in this year’s ETI.The results
show that, despite the country’s past export success,
there remains untapped potential for further enabling
trade, which continues to be hampered by a number of
barriers related to trade policy, border administration,
and physical security. Moreover, trade policy continues
to be heavily biased toward protectionism, and although
import and export procedures have been streamlined,
they remain costly.The most serious challenge to be
addressed, however, concerns the government’s inability
to provide the required level of physical security, a problem that has been affecting the country for a number of
years and has been increasingly exacerbated by drugrelated conflicts. On a positive note, Mexico’s exporters
enjoy rather low tariffs for their products in target markets and benefit from high margins of preference. Some
aspects of transport infrastructure and the related services are also assessed positively, in particular those related
to maritime shipping services and services offered by
the logistics industry. Mexico also benefits from its
openness to foreign participation. Further enabling market access and restoring physical security would allow
Mexico to benefit from these advantages.
Latin America’s largest economy, Brazil, ranks 87th
for enabling trade across borders.This low ranking is a
reflection of Brazil’s varied performance across the nine
pillars of the ETI.The country displays strengths in the
quality of transport services and the use and prevalence
of the latest technologies.To a somewhat lesser extent,
this also holds true for the transparency and efficiency
of overall border procedures, although dealing with customs appears to be burdensome.These positive aspects
are partially offset by the level of protection in Brazil,
which remains relatively high, in particular for agricultural products. Other areas to be addressed include the
quality of transport infrastructure (93rd) across all modes

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

xxvii

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page xxviii

of transport as well as making the business environment
and the overall security situation more conducive to
trade (93rd).
Argentina ranks 97th in the ETI. Its position
mirrors a mixed performance across the four pillars.
To further enable trade, Argentina will have to address
a number of challenges, most importantly those related
to the regulatory environment and physical security.
Upgrading the country’s infrastructure, in particular
for transport by air, would further contribute to lowering the transport cost of goods. At the same time, the
country can build on a number of important strengths.
Here the positive assessments of ICT infrastructure, the
quality of transport services, and to a lesser degree also
the efficiency of import-export procedures are worth
noting. Furthermore, the competitiveness of Argentina’s
exporters is supported by reasonably low tariffs faced
abroad and a considerable margin of preference in key
target markets.
Middle East and North Africa

xxviii

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) leads the rankings
for the region at 18th position.The country boasts a
very efficient and transparent border administration
and has one of the lowest costs to import and among
the least burdensome customs procedures of all countries
covered, ranking 5th and 6th, respectively, on the relevant indicators. Further strengths include an excellent
transport infrastructure (13th) and a regulatory environment that is particularly conducive to trade, the result of
its strong institutional framework and also of its openness to foreign participation (19th). Last but not least,
the country is relatively secure (ranking 10th).
Strengthening the country’s position on the Index
would require further lowering tariff barriers, in particular for agricultural tariff products, although it has the
advantage of a very simple tariff structure. Also, further
preferential agreements with main markets would help
lower the relatively high tariffs faced by the country in
its target markets.
Israel enters the ETI rankings at 29th place.
Following its gradual liberalization over the past years,
Israel presently has a reasonably open trade policy with
the exception of agricultural policies, which remain
protective of local producers, ranking 102nd in the
ETI sample.The country’s border procedures are not
perceived as burdensome, the cost of importing and
exporting is among the lowest among the countries
assessed, and the widespread use of ICTs (25th) facilitates
communication and customs clearance. Although the
regulatory environment is fairly open to foreign ownership, the lack of physical security, and in particular the
threat of terrorism, imposes a significant cost on
importers and exporters; addressing these issues would
assist in enabling trade. Israel’s trade could be additionally
enabled though investment in infrastructure, as the qual-

ity and availability of facilities remains behind standards
found in countries at a similar level of development.
Tunisia ranks 41st overall for enabling trade across
borders.Weaknesses in trade policy (70th) are partially
compensated for by an effective customs administration
(30th), fairly efficient import-export procedures (39th),
and a propitious regulatory environment (18th).
Nevertheless, a number of weaknesses remain.Tunisia
imposes high tariffs on imports. It ranks 119th on tariffs
for both agricultural and non-agricultural products—
in absolute terms, the tariffs on agricultural products
amount to 56 percent ad valorem—and subjects a large
majority of its imports to tariffs (over 75 percent, ranking
93rd). In addition to the high level of tariffs, businesses
face a complex tariff structure.While further reduction
in tariffs would be desirable,Tunisia has very successfully
improved access to the main target markets for its
exporters, mainly through preferential trading agreements
with the European Union, currently the destination for
about 80 percent of the country’s exports. In addition,
the country has preferential access to its main markets
with a fairly high preference margin (rank 21). Last but
not least, importers and exporters alike would benefit
from enhanced transport services.
Saudi Arabia ranks 42nd in the ETI, showing
solid performance across many indicators in the analysis.
Import and export procedures, including customs, are
relatively efficient by international comparison, ranking
31st and 25th, respectively. Among other strengths is the
country’s regulatory environment, which is supportive
of trade (31st) because of a transparent and efficient
institutional framework, which compensates for the relative lack of openness to foreign participation. However,
Index results also indicate that physical security in general and the threat of terrorism in particular impose significant cost on businesses. Enhancing the use of ICTs and
the availability and the quality of transport services
would also be beneficial.Yet most of all, further enabling
trade in Saudi Arabia will require opening domestic
markets to trade, in particular in agricultural products,
where the country ranks a low 83rd.Tariff reductions
are under way as commitments of WTO membership
are being implemented over a 10-year period (since
2005).
Egypt ranks 75th for the ease of getting goods
across the border and to destination.The country’s most
notable strengths include a business environment that is
fairly conducive to trade. In particular, it is easy to hire
foreign labor, and the business cost of threats to security
is assessed as low. Despite efforts to liberalize trade over
the past years, trade policy in Egypt remains rather protectionist. Egypt applies very high tariff rates (particularly
on some agricultural products), and the tariff structure is
complex. In terms of border administration, although
importing goods into Egypt is neither costly nor time
consuming, importers raise concerns about the efficiency
of customs and, to an even greater extent, of other border

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page xxix

agencies. On a positive note, Egypt boasts fairly well
developed transport infrastructure (53rd) including the
related services (58th).
Algeria ranks 112th in the overall ETI.The country
remains fairly sheltered from international competition,
despite its ongoing efforts to join the WTO. Market
access remains restricted (118th on the market access
component), yet tariffs are likely to be lowered significantly as Algeria advances toward WTO membership.
WTO accession is also bound to lower the tariffs faced
by Algerian exporters, which are currently among the
highest among the countries covered in this study
(116th). In addition to the restrictive trade policy,
importers and exporters in Algeria are burdened by a
fairly inefficient and opaque border administration, and a
cumbersome, time-consuming, and costly clearance
process that affects customs as well as other border agencies.Trade would also benefit from a more transparent
institutional framework, more domestic competition,
and greater openness to foreign participation.
Sub-Saharan Africa

At 33rd position, Mauritius is, by a large margin, the
highest-ranked country in sub-Saharan Africa.The open
access to the country’s markets, the efficiency of the
border administration, and a regulatory environment
that is conducive to trade all contribute to this high
showing. Access to domestic and foreign markets is
among the most open worldwide; a large share of
goods is imported duty-free, and tariff and non-tariff
barriers are reasonable. And although Mauritian
exporters face fairly high barriers abroad, they benefit
from a high margin of preference in their main target
markets. Against this overall very positive assessment
stand weaknesses in the quality of transport services that
make tracking and tracing difficult and lead to delays in
shipments; addressing these weaknesses would enhance
the country’s trade. Equally, more could be done to better
leverage ICTs for development, where the country
ranks 49th.
Namibia is placed at 60th position, the second-best
nation in Africa in terms of enabling trade across borders.
This good showing mirrors the favorable results obtained
by Namibia in terms of market access, in particular its
high share of duty-free imports and high preference
margins for exporters. Despite the fairly open access to
markets, Namibia’s trade is burdened by heavy administration at the borders.The country ranks a low 84th and
101st for the efficiency of customs procedures and overall import-export procedures, respectively, although business leaders attest that the lack of transparency is not a
major problem. Additional strengths include the country’s well-developed transport infrastructure and a regulatory environment that is more efficient and transparent
than in most neighboring countries.To further enable
trade, Namibia will have to address the poor quality of

its transport services and further open the economy to
foreign participation.
South Africa enters the ranking at 61st position.
The country’s relatively good marks on transport and
communications infrastructure and border administration are offset by weaknesses in market access and in its
security environment. South Africa has pursued a trade
liberalization program since 1994, which contributed
significantly to opening its economy.Yet, although tariffs
apply to relatively few import products, they remain
rather high in international comparison and their structure is complex. It is appropriate that a review of the
tariff structure to reduce complexity and lower tariffs for
strategically important upstream sectors is under way.
Other than that, South Africa boasts relatively efficient
infrastructure facilities, and the respective services are
also assessed as good.The country’s solid institutional
framework, with an efficient government and welldefined property rights, is beneficial for importers and
exporters.The main areas of concern in South Africa
relate to the lack of physical security (105th) and insufficient openness to foreign participation, in particular to
hiring foreign labor.
Senegal ranks 83rd overall for getting goods across
borders and to destination.The country’s strengths
include a secure and open business environment and
relatively simple and fast import and export procedures.
Imports benefit from the country’s very simple tariff
structure (9th) with no tariff peaks and only four different types of tariffs overall, which makes it transparent
and easy to navigate. However, the overall level of protection remains high with respect to both tariff and
non-tariff barriers, ranking 90th and 94th, respectively.
In addition to lowering tariffs, to further benefit from
international trade Senegal should upgrade its institutional
framework, which is prone to undue influence (105th)
and lack of transparency (101st). As a result, border
administration is also heavily affected by corrupt practices (93rd). More transparent border administration
would improve revenue collection and allow the country to further lower tariffs while maintaining current
revenue levels.
Tanzania occupies the 92nd position in the ETI.
This result is based on a number of pronounced
strengths and weaknesses throughout the nine pillars of
the Index.While Tanzania has a relatively transparent
and simple tariff structure (40th) and its exporters face
very low tariffs in target markets (5th), burdensome customs and border administration represents a significant
hindrance for both importers and exporters. An upgraded
transport infrastructure as well as improved quality and
availability of transport services along with more intense
use of ICTs would enable the country to harvest the
benefits of international trade.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

xxix

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

xxx

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page xxx

General findings of the Enabling Trade Index
The results of the ETI show a strong correlation between
a country’s level of income and its ease of getting goods
across borders.Although this does not provide information
about the direction of causality, high-income countries
on average tend to be more open to trade, have better
infrastructure facilities, and boast favorable business
environments and efficient border administrations.
Low-income countries, on the other hand, tend to show
weaknesses particularly with respect to ICT infrastructure, along with a low transparency and efficiency of
border administration and, in a number of countries,
less open trade policies. At the same time, regulatory
environments and physical security are at levels comparable with the high-income group. In this sense, the
results of the ETI provide support for the growing focus
on trade facilitation observed over recent decades in the
activities of a number of international organizations, and
they indicate which areas these programs and countries
should tackle as a priority.

Chapters summary
This Report includes insightful contributions from a
number of trade experts that examine different aspects
of enabling trade with particular reference to the global
financial crisis.These excellent contributions are highly
relevant and complement the analysis of the ETI in
Chapter 1.1 and the Country/Economy Profiles found
in Part 2 of the Report.
In Chapter 1.2,“Finance for Trade: Efforts to Restart
the Engine,” Marc Auboin from the WTO provides an
update on the trade finance situation in times following
the financial crisis.Trade finance plays a key role in
bridging the time between production, shipment, and
payment. Some 80–90 percent of world trade relies on
some form of trade finance. However, as a by-product
of the financial crisis, there has been evidence of tightening market conditions for trade finance since the first
half of 2008.The situation worsened in the second half
of the year, and even further in the first quarter of 2009.
According to expectations revealed in market-based surveys, there is little doubt that the trade finance market
will continue to experience difficulties throughout 2009.
This situation is likely to contribute to deepening the
global economic malaise.
Although public-backed institutions have responded
rapidly to the situation over the course of 2008, this has
apparently not been enough to bridge the gap between
supply and demand of trade finance worldwide.This is
why the G-20 Summit in London adopted a wider
package for injecting some US$250 billion in support of
trade finance. Since then, the market has not returned to
normal, as indicated by the high spreads charged for
opening new letters of credit in many countries in the
world.The author concludes that the market situation
needs to be monitored closely in order to avoid any

interruption of trade credit and trade itself, as well as to
ensure that the solutions proposed by the public sector
meet the demand from trade bankers and traders.The
WTO will continue to monitor developments with
partner institutions and mobilize political energy.
In Chapter 1.3, entitled “Managing Borders in the
21st Century,” Kunio Mikuriya from the World Customs
Organization (WCO) takes a detailed look at a number
of trade facilitation and border management instruments, tools, and measures developed by the WCO for
its members.The rapidly changing international trade
environment has placed numerous demands on the
customs community. Being faced with increasing calls
to facilitate legitimate trade and secure the global trade
supply chain at the same time has impelled customs to
concentrate its efforts on managing national borders
more effectively both now and in preparation for the
future. Inefficient procedures, outdated information
technology systems, and inadequate infrastructure result
in high transaction costs and long delays in the clearance
of imports, exports, and transit goods; they also present
significant opportunities for administrative corruption at
borders.To overcome these barriers to trade, customs
recognizes that its business model must become more
responsive, have greater flexibility, generate even more
innovation, and actively champion a beneficial partnership with all legitimate economic operators.
Having developed an armory of trade facilitation
and border management instruments and tools, it is
now up to the WCO to ensure their widespread implementation while advancing the single window for trade
and encouraging coordination and cooperation among
customs, other border agencies, and the business sector.
This is what smart border management is all about; this
is how customs and its stakeholders can meet the
demands of the dynamic 21st century global trading
system.The author concludes that the future endeavors
of the WCO will be aimed at ensuring a more responsive and strengthened customs community, as well as a
creative and flexible border management.
In Chapter 1.4, “IATA e-Freight:Taking the Paper
Out of Air Cargo,” Steve Smith and Michael Moosberger
discuss in detail the IATA e-freight project, an initiative
that aims at improving the effectiveness and efficiency
of international airfreight. International air cargo transportation historically relies on outdated paper-based
processes that make it inherently inefficient. In an economic environment that necessitates the air cargo supply
chain to deliver faster speed, reduced costs, and increased
reliability, IATA e-freight is a supply chain project to
remove the paper associated with the transportation of
air cargo.
IATA e-freight offers economies a common set of
processes and standards for the exchange of electronic
messages.The authors suggest that if the air cargo supply
chain is to continue to efficiently meet the needs of the
consumer through reduced costs, reliability, and

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page xxxi

improved transit time, economies must adopt a framework based on common processes and standards rather
than proprietary ones that would only add cost and
complexity to the air cargo supply chain. In a globalized
market, as manufacturers look to set themselves up in
competitive market places, the project has a formal
delivery approach from how to assess a countries legal
and technical capability and willingness through to the
initial implementation, delivering significant benefits for
the air cargo supply chain and increasing the opportunities for increases in international trade.
In Chapter 1.5, entitled “A Tour of the Ongoing
Work of the World Trade Organization on Trade
Facilitation:The Traders’ Perspective,” John Simpson
from the Global Express Association focuses on frequently
encountered trade barriers resulting from inefficient
customs procedures from the traders’ perspective.The
customs problems—including lack of transparency,
procedural inefficiency, the absence of due process,
and corruption—are well understood. Frameworks for
correcting them have been constructed in both the
WTO, in the form of the Doha Round’s trade facilitation negotiations; and the WCO, in the form of the
International Convention on the Simplification and
Harmonization of Customs Procedures, commonly
known as the revised Kyoto Convention. Funds for
nations needing assistance with customs modernization are available from several sources, chiefly the
World Bank.
The author discusses in detail the lack of cooperation
among customs administrations on trade law compliance
and supply chain security. As a consequence, they cannot
fully and confidently assess risk. Simply demanding
more information, as some customs administrations are
doing, will place additional burdens on trade without
improving risk assessment.The author suggests that
political will is the primary determinant of progress on
trade facilitation, and that a WTO agreement on this
topic is critical and could contribute to reviving global
trade, thereby contributing to a faster recovery from
the present global recession.
In Chapter 1.6, “Obstacles to Trade from the
Perspective of the Business Sector: A Cross-Country
Comparison,” Mondher Mimouni, Carolin Averbeck,
and Olga Skorobogatova from the International Trade
Centre introduce some findings of a survey that assesses
the business sector’s experiences with obstacles to trade.
Trained local partners conducted more than 1,600
face-to-face interviews with companies to identify the
diverse obstacles to trade they experience during the
entire exportation process, in both the destination country and the country of origin.The survey methodology
allows for the analysis of barriers, including their possible patterns across products, destination countries and
regions, as well as potential bottlenecks at the national
level.This chapter assess data obtained from five selected

countries from those covered in the survey: namely,
Chile, the Philippines,Thailand,Tunisia, and Uganda.
The analysis of the survey data suggests that trade
barriers vary considerably across countries, sectors, and
trading partners. Many obstacles to trade are concentrated
on specific sectors and are more prevalent in intraregional trade. Interestingly, the goods affected often enjoy
preferential tariff treatment by the destination country.
At the same time, obstacles to trade can be associated
with a lack of infrastructure and efficient procedures in
the country of origin.
Sam Sidiqi and Fouad Alame from Agility, the
authors of Chapter 1.7, “Enabling Trade: Relationship
to Clusters and Setting an Openness Agenda,” consider
ways that government and business sectors can use the
ETI to facilitate the implementation of trade enablement more effectively. Governments have limitations
of both monetary and political capital, which requires
that they choose which reforms and advances they can
feasibly make, given their constraints. An important area
to be explored is how government can make the most
strategic decisions to enable trade most effectively.The
authors discuss two frameworks linked to the ETI that
can allow a policymaker to make more informed decisions
about where and how to focus implementation efforts.
They first look at theories of clusters and explore the
relationship between ETI and cluster development.With
this link and a closer look at the pillars of the Index, they
describe how one can derive recommendations about
where to prioritize focus based on the performance
across different elements of an economy’s ETI results.
Next, the authors put forward a simple heuristic framework that could help an official to decide what would
be the best strategy when driving the enabling trade
agenda in his or her country.
In Chapter 1.8, “Implementing Trade Facilitation,”
Jean-François Arvis, Gerard McLinden, and Monica
Alina Mustra from The World Bank and Lauri Ojala
from Turku School of Economics discuss emerging
issues and developments as well as implementation in
trade facilitation.They argue that reducing the cost of
trading across borders is essential to the development of
trade and the competitiveness of developing economies.
The importance of trade facilitation and logistics for
development has taken center stage in the last two years
through an increased demand for initiatives, projects,
and assistance in low- and middle-income economies.
This implementation agenda is boosted by a number
of tools and initiatives promoted by a number of international organizations.The focus areas and the needs for
investment and reform have also been changing substantially.While the need for trade-related infrastructure
and core reforms in fiscal administration remain high,
the authors describe how especially in low-income
countries new cross-cutting and potentially complex
policy issues are emerging and have become the binding
constraints.These issues include the need to upgrade

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

xxxi

Executive Summary

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page xxxii

regional facilitation and transit systems, the improvement
and regulation of services, and the integration of border
clearance and management.
Part 2 of the Report is a comprehensive data section
that contains detailed profiles for each of the 121
economies covered. It features the main trade indicators
as well as the ETI results at the subindex, pillar, and
individual indicator level, presented as strengths and
weaknesses.Technical notes and sources, included at the
end of Part 2, provide details on the characteristics and
sources of the variables included in the Report.
Further enabling trade across borders will not only
enhance trade and boost economic growth in the longer
term. In the short term, initiatives aimed at facilitating
trade can also contribute to mitigating the effect of the
current global crisis, as such measures reduce the transaction cost of trade and therefore partially offset the
effects of the demand slump. In fact, because the payoff
of most trade facilitation initiatives tends to be high,
countries are well advised to use the resources available
through stimulus packages to invest in facilitating the
movement of goods across borders. In this context, the
ETI can provide policymakers with insight on a country’s strengths and challenges to be addressed.

xxxii

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 1

Part 1
Selected Issues on Enabling Trade

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 2

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 3

CHAPTER 1.1

Enabling Trade in the Global
Crisis
by ROBERT Z. LAWRENCE, Harvard University
MARGARETA DRZENIEK HANOUZ, THIERRY GEIGER, and QIN HE,
World Economic Forum

This Report is being written at a time when global trade
is shrinking, by some estimates even more rapidly than
it did at the start of the Great Depression (see Figure 1).
For the most part, the decline does not reflect the
impact of the institutional factors we emphasize in the
Enabling Trade Index (ETI). Fortunately, thus far trade
policy is not the driving factor. Global leaders have
acknowledged the dangers of protectionism and, with
some exceptions that we discuss later, have not responded
to the crisis by imposing new barriers. Similarly, customs
and other regulatory agencies are, by and large, operating
in the same way as they were before the turmoil.Transportation costs are actually moderating the declines
because they have dropped in response to lower fuel
prices and the emergence of excess cargo capacity.
Instead, the current contraction in trade primarily
reflects the precipitous declines in overall economic activity brought about by the current financial predicament.
When sales drop and unwanted inventories build up,
trade flows plummet as orders are reduced.The global
nature of the slowdown and its concentration in trade
is compelling evidence of the degree to which the
world economy has become integrated. Global supply
chains mean that spending shortfalls in one country
reverberate in many others. In addition, the crisis has
had a particularly adverse impact on trade financing.
Trade finance is often required to bridge the time
between production, shipment, and payment. But,
unfortunately, a by-product of the financial crisis has
been a reduction in the availability of such finance and
an increase in the premiums charged. Chapter 1.2 in this
Report discusses these challenges in more detail.
The current slump may not be a reflection of trade
policies, but there remain reasons for concern about
the direction policies may take in the future.The world
economy has become highly interdependent and the
current challenge is to ensure not only that countries
refrain from pulling each other down further by
restraining trade, but that they help recovery by buying
from each other. Countries are not equally able to stimulate their own economies. Developing countries are
especially vulner-able. Some have weak fiscal positions
and cannot stabilize their economies through tax cuts
or increased government spending. Others have high
propensities to import, so that domestic demand stimulus leaks out into the rest of the world.These countries
are especially dependent on a strong world economy in
order to prosper.
Historians debate whether the US Smoot-Hawley
Tariff Act passed in 1930 and the retaliation these tariffs
triggered actually caused the Great Depression, but there
is no doubt that they reduced world trade, made the
recession deeper, and left a legacy of high barriers that
took decades to remove. For example, US imports from
Europe declined from a 1929 high of US$1,334 million
to just US$390 million in 1932, while US exports to
Europe fell from US$2,341 million in 1929 to US$784

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

3

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 4

Figure 1: The volume of world trade: Now vs. then

110

Period beginning June 1929
Period beginning April 2008
100

Percent

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

90

80

70

60
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Months
Source: Eichengreen and O’Rourke, 2009.

4
million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some
66 percent between 1929 and 1934, and it took until
the 1970s for the ratio of world trade to GDP to regain
the levels it had in 1929. If it persists for a long time,
the current crisis could similarly engender protectionist
responses that make recovery more difficult and leave
the trading system with lasting damage.
On the one hand, as the real economy falters,
profits plunge, and unemployment rises, the demand
for government assistance grows. On the other hand,
the opportunities to supply that protection increase as
the government becomes increasingly involved in the
economy. Many countries have passed large stimulus
programs. Rescue packages for banks and other financial
institutions have been common.Troubled manufacturing
firms have also received large subsidies. According to the
World Trade Organization (WTO), for example, 12
countries have acted to help their automobile industries.
They note that Brazil, France, and the United States
have handed out generous loans. India has required
import licenses for some products, and Argentina has set
prices for importation of foreign car parts.
With increased public involvement it becomes more
difficult to act in a fashion that does not discriminate
against foreign products and firms. It seems natural, for
example, if taxpayers’ money is being spent, to try to
ensure that the benefits are felt mainly locally. However,
such actions hurt foreigners who depend on open markets for their livelihood.They not only steer demand to
less efficient suppliers but, if they lead to retaliatory

measures abroad, they may be ineffective or even counterproductive in boosting overall economic activity.
It is unlikely that in the current environment the
response would take the overt form it did in the 1930s
when, for example, US tariffs were raised by 47 percent.
Fortunately, because of the WTO, we now have a multilateral trading system, based on the rule of law, that
disciplines countries not to raise tariffs beyond agreed
limits. Similarly, some regional arrangements, such as
the European Union, limit the ability of members to
subsidize domestic firms at the expense of others. In
addition, the legacy of the 1930s has provided a better
appreciation of the dangers of such behavior.The G-20
leaders have pledged that they would “not repeat the
historic mistakes of protectionism of previous eras.”1
Nonetheless, the current situation poses dangers for
an open trading system.These come from the potential
for the adoption of protectionist measures none of
which individually seem major, but whose cumulative
impact could prove permanently damaging.
There is considerable scope to increase protection
without technically breaking WTO rules or violating
international commitments. Some economies—Russia
being the largest—are not WTO members and thus
not bound by its rules. Other economies that are WTO
members do not participate in all WTO agreements. In
particular, the Agreement on Government Procurement
of the WTO is a plurilateral code, in which only 12
members plus the European Union participate. In addition, the WTO rules themselves have incomplete

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 5

coverage. Agricultural products, for example, are currently
exempt from WTO prohibitions on export subsidies.
Some measures that limit foreign investment are currently excluded although they have an impact on trade,
and many aspects of border procedures are not subject
to WTO agreements.
Moreover, many developing countries have either
not bound tariffs under the WTO agreement or have
bound rates that are much higher than the rates they
currently apply. Indeed, there are estimates that current applied tariffs could be doubled without violating
obligations. Similarly, many developed countries have
scope for raising their subsidies without violating the
agreements.The United States, for example, is constrained
not to exceed US$19 billion in trade-distorting agricultural subsidies, yet in 2007, it reported spending only
US$12 billion. Finally,WTO rules allow administered
protection through anti-dumping measures that are tilted
in favor of domestic industries.
In November 2008 and again in April 2009, the
G-20 countries did make pledges not to take additional
protectionist measures.Yet reports issued by the World
Bank and the WTO have uncovered troubling developments.2 The World Bank found that despite the pledge,
as of Spring 2009, 17 of the 20 G-20 countries had
actually taken actions that inhibit trade. Most of these
may not have violated the letter of international trade law,
but they do all constrain trade. In developed countries,
protection has taken the form of increased subsidies
or discriminatory spending. Indeed, in some cases this
occurs automatically as a result of agricultural policies
that target farm incomes. In developing countries, by
contrast, higher tariff and non-tariff barriers have been
imposed.
For example:
• Ten countries and the European Union have raised
tariffs on imported steel.
• Russia has sought to protect its domestic auto
industry by banning imports of used cars.
• In its stimulus package, the US Congress passed
a “buy America” provision that called for the use
of US domestic goods and services unless such
spending violated US international legal obligations.
Since these are mainly obligations under the
WTO Agreement on Government Procurement,
this means the United States can still discriminate
against products from non-signatories such as China
and India.
• The European Union announced new export
subsidies on butter, cheese, and milk powder. As
the rules now stand, these subsidies are again legally
permitted, even though such actions would eventually be prohibited if the Doha Round were to be
concluded.

Several countries have also suddenly discovered new
reasons for regulatory measures that happen to prevent
or limit imports. For a month, the World Bank reports,
India invoked safety concerns and banned imports of
Chinese toys. China claimed that food safety concerns
necessitated bans on Irish pork. Indonesia required that
imports of certain products (garments, footwear, toys,
electronics, food and beverages) be channeled only
through five ports and airports. Argentina imposed nonautomatic licensing requirements on auto parts, textiles,
TVs, toys, shoes, and leather goods. In 2008, globally
there has also been a 25 percent increase in anti-dumping
cases because it becomes easier to prove that foreign
firms are selling below costs in depressed markets.3
To be sure, the picture is not all bleak.There are
also cases where stimulus programs explicitly prohibit
discrimination (as in Germany) or have been applied
in a way that stimulates demand for both domestic and
foreign products.There are also cases where protectionist
proposals have been rejected. Officials in Brazil, for example, dropped plans to implement an old-style import
licensing program in response to resistance from the
private sector.The WTO has also praised some nations
for explicitly promoting trade. Argentina has eliminated
export taxes on 35 dairy products. Brazil has expanded a
program to give loans to exporters. China has scrapped
import tariffs on steel plates.The Philippines has cut
tariffs on wheat and cement.The G-20 has acknowledged the trade finance problem and agreed to provide
US$250 billion in financing through export credit and
investment agencies and the multilateral development
banks.4
The concern of this report is not only about trade
policy, however.The Enabling Trade Index reflects the
view that trade depends on far more than trade policy,
as the term is usually defined.To be sure, the policies
setting tariffs, other border barriers, and the rules of
trade all play an important role, but many other factors
affect whether goods and services will be traded. As
described in last year’s report, there is compelling evidence that a multiplicity of factors raises the transaction
costs and time associated with trading across borders. In
an effort to capture these factors, the ETI measures not
only trade policy but also the efficacy of customs, the
quality of infrastructure and telecommunications, and
the impact of the regulatory and security environment.
Given the key role infrastructure plays in trade, it
is troubling that in the current environment there is
mounting evidence that many transportation, telecommunications, and other infrastructure projects are being
cancelled or postponed. In developing countries, many
of these projects are financed through public-private
partnerships led by banks and/or investment banks, but
the weakened state of these institutions is taking its toll
on these arrangements.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

5

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

6

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 6

Policy priorities
There is a need for both defensive measures to avoid
protectionism and offensive actions to promote trade.
The G-20 have not only pledged to try to avoid protectionism but, aware they may not always succeed, also
agreed to report any actions they do take. In addition,
they have encouraged the issuance of reports such as
those by the World Bank and the WTO that “name
and shame.” Domestic advocates for protection need to
be aware that such actions will be met with retaliation.
Members of the WTO and other agreements can help
by bringing actions against violations by their trading
partners. A recent effective example was Mexico’s
retaliation when the United States failed to honor
its NAFTA commitments on trucking.
WTO rules do allow countries to raise barriers
when trade is a substantial source of injury.The safeguard provisions of the WTO should be the mechanism
countries use for granting protection when it is
unavoidable.This would help to impose disciplines on
the use of protection and to ensure that it is temporary.
The current crisis also offers opportunities.Thus far,
action to complete the Doha Round has been waiting.
Yet the reasons for completing it have become more
compelling.There are now real dangers that countries
will use the leeway they have to raise tariffs and increase
subsidies.This discretion would be limited in a new
agreement. No other action would be as effective in
signaling a global commitment to maintaining an interdependent open system. Implementation of tariff cuts
would also be stimulatory. As we described in last year’s
report, the negotiations have made considerable progress
with respect to agreements on trade facilitation. Passage
would therefore contribute to the measures we would
like to encourage through our Index.
A second set of opportunities is presented by
adopting countercyclical policies that are directed to
improving infrastructure—bridges, roads, and telecommunications—in a manner that can facilitate trade
over the long run. In developed countries where finance
is not a constraint, the challenge is ensuring that the
money is efficiently targeted to this objective. In developing countries, the challenge is not only meeting this
requirement, but also obtaining the requisite finance.
In this regard, multilateral and bilateral assistance has a
crucial role to play.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, there is an
intellectual battle to be fought.We should not fail to
learn the lessons both of the Great Depression, which
pointed to the dangers of protectionism, and also of the
widespread prosperity, particularly in developing countries, that was associated with the expansion of international trade that took place between 2000 and 2008.The
global financial crisis certainly exposed weaknesses in
the monetary system, but they should not be used a pretext for challenging the trading system.

Trade provides potential gains for countries to
obtain higher prices for their exports and to buy their
imports for lower costs than they would incur if produced domestically. It provides increased variety and
choice, offers opportunities to reap economies of scale,
diffuses technological know-how, and spurs competition.
To reap these gains, however, countries have to open
their markets to foreign goods and firms.They also have
to invest in private (e.g., plant, equipment) and public
facilities (e.g., infrastructure) that can service foreign
producers.Thus trade also requires countries to give up
some autonomy, to depend on others, and thus to
expose themselves to potential instability in foreign
markets.
There is a danger that if the current global downturn persists, countries could decide that the potential
rewards are not worth the risks.They could seek to
become more self-reliant.This would be extremely
unfortunate. History shows us that although inwardlooking policies may lead to temporary growth, they
are not compatible with sustained long-run prosperity.
Moreover, when some countries take this course, they
reduce the opportunities for others. It is imperative that
we avoid such a cumulative downward spiral and instead
build an interdependent global system that allows all
nations to fulfill their potential.The financial crisis
points to the need for strong regulatory and policing
institutions to ensure that markets work, but it should
not be interpreted to mean that markets should be
abandoned.

The Enabling Trade Index
The ETI was developed within the context of the
World Economic Forum’s Industry Partnership
Programme for the logistics and transport sector and
was first published in The Global Enabling Trade Report
2008. A number of Data Partners have collaborated in
this endeavor: the Global Express Association (GEA),
the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the
International Trade Centre (ITC), the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD),
The World Bank, the World Customs Organization
(WCO), and the World Trade Organization (WTO).We
have also received important feedback from companies
that are industry partners in the effort, namely Agility,
Deutsche Post DHL, DP World, FedEx Corporation,
GeoPost Intercontinental, Stena,TNT N.V.,Transnet,
and UPS.
The ETI measures the countries’ institutions, policies,
and services facilitating the free flow of goods over borders and
to destination.5 The structure of the Index mirrors the
main enablers of trade, breaking them into four overall
issue areas, or subindexes: (1) market access, (2) border
administration, (3) transport and communications infrastructure, and (4) the business environment.The first
subindex measures the extent to which the policy

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 7

framework of the country welcomes foreign goods
into the country and enables access to foreign markets
for the country’s exporters.The second subindex assesses
the extent to which the administration at the border
facilitates the entry and exit of goods.The third subindex
takes into account whether the country has in place the
transport and communications infrastructure necessary
to facilitate the movement of goods within the country
and across the border. Finally, the fourth subindex looks
at the quality of governance, as well as at the overarching
regulatory and security environment impacting the business of importers and exporters active in the country.
Each of these four subindexes is composed in turn
of a number of pillars of enabling trade, of which there
are nine in all.These are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Domestic and foreign market access
Efficiency of customs administration
Efficiency of import-export procedures
Transparency of border administration
Availability and quality of transport
infrastructure
Availability and quality of transport services
Availability and use of ICTs
Regulatory environment
Physical security

The domestic and foreign market access pillar
measures the level of protection of a country’s markets,
the quality of its trade regime, and the level of protection
that a country’s exporters face in their target markets.
The measures taken into account include tariffs and
non-tariff measures imposed by a country on imported
goods, but also the share of goods imported duty-free,
variance of tariffs, frequency of tariff peaks, number of
distinct tariffs, and the like. Protection in foreign markets
is captured by tariffs faced, but also by the negotiated
margin of preference in target markets.6
The efficiency of customs administration pillar
measures the efficiency of customs procedures as perceived by the private sector, as well as the extent of
services provided by customs authorities and related
agencies. Chapters 1.3 and 1.5 in this Report discuss
topics related to customs administration in detail.
The efficiency of import-export procedures pillar
extends the analysis beyond customs administration
and assesses the effectiveness and efficiency of clearance
process by customs as well as related border control
agencies, the number of days and documents required
to import and export goods, and the total official cost
associated with importing as well as exporting, excluding tariffs and trade taxes. Chapter 1.4 provides an
example of how an automated process can improve
the coordination and data flow among the different
agencies involved in border clearance.

Given the significant hindrance that corruption can
provide in trade, the transparency of border administration
pillar assesses the pervasiveness of undocumented extra
payments or bribes connected with imports and exports,
as well as the overall perceived degree of corruption in
each country.
The availability and quality of transport infrastructure
pillar measures the state of transport infrastructure across
all modes of transport in each country, as demonstrated
by the density of airports, the percentage of paved roads,
and the extent to which they are congested, as well as
the transshipment connections available to shippers from
each country. Also captured is the quality of all types of
transport infrastructure, including air, rail, roads and
ports.7
The availability and quality of transport services
pillar complements the assessment of infrastructure by
taking into account the amount and the quality of
services available for shipment, including the quantity
of services provided by liner companies, the ability to
track and trace international shipments, the timeliness
of shipments in reaching destinations, general postal efficiency, and the overall competence of the local logistics
industry (e.g., transport operators, customs brokers).The
pillar also takes into account the degree of openness of
the transport-related sectors as measured by countries’
commitments under the General Agreement on Trade
in Services (GATS).
Given the increasing importance of information
and communication technologies (ICTs) for the management of shipments, as well as the central role these
technologies play in facilitating customs clearance, the
availability and use of ICTs pillar includes the penetration rates of these tools, such as mobile phones, Internet,
and broadband, in each country.We add a measure of
the perceived readiness to adopt new technologies by
business.
The regulatory environment pillar captures the
extent to which the country’s regulatory environment is
conducive to trade. Included are indicators that capture
the general quality of governance, but also the openness
to foreign participation, which includes the ease of hiring
foreign labor in the country (important for companies
moving goods across borders), the extent to which the
policy environment encourages foreign direct investment (FDI), and the restrictiveness of capital controls.
The security environment is of great importance
for ensuring the delivery of goods to destination without
major frictions. In this context, the physical security pillar
specifically gauges the level of violence (both in terms
of general crime and violence as well as the threat of
terrorism), as well as the reliability of the police services
in protecting businesses from criminals.
Each of these pillars is made up of a number of
individual variables.The dataset includes both hard data
and survey data from the World Economic Forum’s
Executive Opinion Survey (Survey).The hard data were

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

7

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 8

Figure 2: Composition of the four subindexes of the ETI

Transport and
communications
infrastructure

Border
administration

Domestic and foreign
market access

Efficiency of customs
administration

Availability and quality of
transport infrastructure

Efficiency of importexport procedures

Availability and quality of
transport services

Transparency of
border administration

Availability and
use of ICTs

Destination

Market
access

Border

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

Business environment
Subindex

Pillar

Regulatory
environment

Physical
security

8

obtained from publicly available sources and international
organizations active in the area of trade (for example,
the World Bank, the ITC, UNCTAD, the ITU, and
IATA).The Survey is carried out annually by the World
Economic Forum among CEOs and top business leaders
in all economies covered by our research. It captures
their views on the business environment and provides
unique data on many qualitative aspects of the broader
business environment, including a number of specific
issues related to trade. For detailed descriptions of all the
indicators included, please see “Technical Notes and
Sources” at the end of this Report.
The nine pillars are regrouped into the four
subindexes described above,8 as shown in Figure 2,
and the overall score for each country is derived as an
unweighted average of the subindexes.The details of
the composition of the ETI are shown in Appendix A.
One way to validate the ETI is to test whether
the rating of a country in the ETI is correlated with
its trade performance. Such a test can be carried out
using regression analysis.The model of choice is the
gravity equation of trade, which models bilateral trade
flows (the dependent variable) between two countries
as a function of their economic size, the geographical
distance between them, and other attributes, which
typically include the existence of a common currency,
a common language, or colonial ties. In order to test
the explanatory power of the ETI, we added the ETI

score as an additional variable.The details of the analysis
and technical considerations of this empirical study are
summarized in Appendix B.
The results of the regression analysis show, first, that
the ETI has notable explanatory power with respect to a
country’s trade performance. Moreover, it allows us to
quantify the effects of improvements in the ETI score
on a country’s trade performance. In fact, a 1 percent
increase in the ETI score in the exporting country is
associated with an increase of 1.7 percent in its exports,
holding everything else constant (in technical terms, the
elasticity of export flows with respect to the exporting
country’s ETI score equals 1.7).The elasticity with
respect to the importing country’s score is even higher:
the model predicts that a 1 percent improvement in the
ETI score would lead to a 2.3 percent rise in imports.
Taken together, these two effects predict that a 1 percent
increase in the average ETI score of any given country
pair would be associated with a 4 percent increase in
bilateral trade, all else being equal.The significance of
this result is underscored by the gap that separates the
best and worst performers in the ETI rankings. At 6.0,
top-ranked Singapore’s score is more than double—116
percent more, to be precise—that of Chad (2.8).

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 9

Changes to the Index methodology
Since the 2008 edition of The Global Enabling Trade
Report, the ETI has undergone some changes that
reflect the experience of using and interpreting the
Index results, as well as feedback received from experts,
project partners, and users.The single most important
change concerns the explicit introduction of the export
dimension into the Index.This is reflected in the new
structure of the market access subindex, which now
contains one revised pillar that captures access to
domestic markets, but also to foreign ones. Indicators
capturing the efficiency of export procedures were
also added into the efficiency of import and export
procedures pillar.
Furthermore, measures of the complexity of the
tariff structure were also included in the domestic and
foreign market access pillar to provide for a more
nuanced analysis.The regulatory environment pillar was
enriched by indicators measuring aspects of general
governance and regulation as far as they are relevant to
trade, such as protection of property rights, extent of
undue influence and corruption, efficiency of government operations, and intensity of domestic competition.
As data on the openness of bilateral Air Service

Agreements have not been updated recently, an indicator
assessing the level of commitments under GATS as far as it
pertains to the transportation of goods has been included
to proxy a country’s openness to foreign participation in
this sector.

The Enabling Trade Index 2009 rankings and country
coverage
The coverage of this year’s Global Enabling Trade Report
was increased to 121 economies. Four new countries
have been added to the study: Côte d’Ivoire,The Gambia,
Ghana, and Malawi. On the other hand, one country
covered last year, Uzbekistan, could not be assessed in
this edition because of absence of Survey data.The rankings of the 121 economies included are shown in Tables
1 through 5, including the overall ETI as well as the
results on the four subindexes and the individual pillars.
Box 1 analyzes the ETI findings by countries’ stages of
development.

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

Asia and Pacific

Two Asian economies, Singapore and Hong Kong, take
up the top two positions in the ETI ranking.The results
mirror the openness of these countries to international
9

Box 1: ETI findings by stages of development
High-income countries tend to do better with respect to enabling
trade in the Enabling Trade Index (ETI) than low-income countries. As Figure 1 in this box shows, the ETI results are strongly
correlated with levels of per capita income. A further analysis
allows us to draw conclusions about the performance of specific
countries in relation to their income and about priorities for
action at different income levels.
For this purpose we group the ETI results by the country’s
level of development as described in The Global Competitiveness
Report.1 As the figure illustrates, countries at higher levels of
development tend to perform better on the ETI, although some
cases stand out. For example, Moldova performs very well
given its level of development. As a small country, Moldova
imposes low barriers on access to its domestic markets, but the
country has also successfully negotiated access to key markets
abroad through preferential agreements with the European
Union and the Commonwealth of Independent States, which
account for over 80 percent of exports. Equally, Jordan and
Tunisia, along with the well-known trade liberalizers Chile, Hong
Kong, and Singapore, perform better than expected, given their
level of income. For most of these countries, openness to international trade has brought many advantages and ensured high
growth rates. On the other hand, a few countries clearly lag
behind. Algeria, the Russian Federation, and Venezuela, as well
as Kuwait and Qatar, perform below expectations.

Interestingly, many of the underperformers are resourceexporting countries, which possess resources for investment,
for example in trade-related infrastructure, and could draw
significant benefits from more intense trade. These benefits
include welfare gains through reduced prices of import products and more intense competition in domestic markets, but
they also include diversification of the economy, which could
help decouple their economic performance from fluctuations
in commodity prices.
Taking the analysis one level further allows us to identify
areas where low-income countries consistently show weaknesses and where development assistance could make a
difference. Figure 2 shows the performance of countries at the
initial stage of development across the nine pillars of the ETI.
Most of the poorest countries’ scores cluster on the lower end
in pillar 7, which assesses the penetration and usage of latest
technologies, in particular ICTs; the most-developed countries
(stage 3) perform significantly better in this category. This large
divide between low- and high-income countries indicates that
the lack of access to the latest technologies constitutes an
important bottleneck to enabling trade in developing countries
and emerging markets.2 Other areas that stand out because of
a large difference in performance between countries in the lowest stage of development and the other two groups are the
quality of transport infrastructure (pillar 5) and the lack of transparency when dealing with imports and exports (pillar 4).

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

The best performers in these two categories show that it
is possible for low-income countries to reach higher levels.
Transparency levels in Moldova are not too far off from those
found in much more prosperous Croatia, for example, and the
quality of infrastructure in Sri Lanka suits the needs of the
business sector better than it does in Poland or Israel.
In some countries, low efficiency of import and export
procedures (pillar 3) constitutes an important bottleneck. Two
Central Asian countries, the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan,
are the weakest performers in this category; a number of
African countries, including Burundi, Chad, and Zimbabwe
also underperform. Reform of border administration aiming
at a reduction of administrative costs and delays during the
clearance process would contribute to realizing the potential
of international trade in these regions. As Egypt, the best performer in this pillar, demonstrates, progress can be achieved
if commitment to reducing the administrative burden is strong.
On a positive note, the ETI results show that some aspects
in developing countries already contribute to enabling trade.
In most of the countries the lack of physical security is not
considered a significant barrier; many economies, such as
Bolivia and Madagascar, have made great strides at liberalizing their trade regimes and providing exporters with access
to markets abroad.
In this sense, the results of the ETI provide support
for the growing focus on trade facilitation observed over

recent decades in the activities of a number of international
organizations. This is particularly important in light of the
current Doha Development Agenda negotiations, which aim at
helping developing countries benefit from global trade. While
the negotiations focus on enabling access to foreign markets,
recent research has shown that other barriers to trade are
at least as important for developing countries. These can be
related to inappropriate transport and ICT infrastructure; timeconsuming, costly, or non-transparent border procedures;
or shortcomings in the country’s institutional framework.
Addressing some of these issues is currently in the focus of
bilateral and multilateral donors under large-scale programs
such as the Trade Facilitation Facility of the World Bank, or Aid
for Trade. The ETI not only confirms that significant differences
in performance exist depending on income, but it also highlights
some areas where investment, technical assistance, and
capacity building could help improve trade performance.

Notes
1 The Global Competitiveness Index takes into account three stages
of development: the factor-driven stage, the efficiency-driven
stage, and the innovation-driven stage. Countries in transition have
been attributed to the next higher stage. See Sala-i-Martin et al.
2008.
2 The ETI does not, however, make it possible to pronounce on
the relative importance of the different pillars for countries’ trade
performance.

Figure 1: Enabling Trade Index results vs. GDP per capita
7

Singapore

6

Hong Kong SAR
China

New Zealand

Norway

Chile

5

ETI score

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

10

Box 1: ETI findings by stages of development (cont’d.)

Luxembourg

Mauritius
Jordan

Qatar

Tunisia

Moldova

4

The Gambia

Kuwait
India
Russian Federation

Zimbabwe

3

Burundi

Algeria
Venezuela

2
Brazil

1
0

1,000

10,000

GDP per capita, US$ (log)

Source: World Economic Forum, IMF, World Economic Outlook (April 2009).

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

100,000

12:39 PM

Page 11

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

6/19/09

Box 1: ETI findings by stages of development (cont’d.)

Figure 2: Performance of factor-driven economies (stage 1) by ETI pillar

7

ETI score (1 to 7 scale)

6

5

4

3

2

1
Pillar 1

Pillar 2

Pillar 3

Pillar 4

Pillar 5

Pillar 6

Pillar 7

Pillar 8

Pillar 9

Source: World Economic Forum.

11

Figure 3: Performance of efficiency-driven economies (stage 2) by ETI pillar

7

6

ETI score (1 to 7 scale)

Part 1.r2

5

4

3

2

1
Pillar 1

Pillar 2

Pillar 3

Pillar 4

Pillar 5

Pillar 6

Pillar 7

Pillar 8

Source: World Economic Forum.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Pillar 9

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

12

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 12

Table 1: The Enabling Trade Index 2009
SUBINDEXES
OVERALL INDEX
Country/Economy

Singapore
Hong Kong SAR
Switzerland
Denmark
Sweden
Canada
Norway
Finland
Austria
Netherlands
New Zealand
Germany
Luxembourg
Australia
Ireland
United States
France
United Arab Emirates
Chile
United Kingdom
Belgium
Estonia
Japan
Bahrain
Taiwan, China
Korea, Rep.
Spain
Malaysia
Israel
Portugal
Slovenia
Cyprus
Mauritius
Oman
Qatar
Czech Republic
Jordan
Hungary
Croatia
Lithuania
Tunisia
Saudi Arabia
Costa Rica
Latvia
Italy
Slovak Republic
Greece
Turkey
China
Thailand
Uruguay
Moldova
Panama
Romania
Morocco
El Salvador
Poland
Guatemala
Kuwait
Namibia
South Africa
Indonesia
Albania
Armenia
Peru

Market
access

Border
administration

Transport and communications infrastructure

Business
environment

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

5.97
5.57
5.44
5.44
5.44
5.35
5.33
5.33
5.29
5.27
5.27
5.24
5.12
5.07
5.02
5.02
5.02
4.97
4.96
4.93
4.92
4.84
4.78
4.76
4.75
4.73
4.72
4.70
4.66
4.63
4.61
4.56
4.54
4.52
4.50
4.39
4.39
4.39
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.33
4.30
4.30
4.30
4.19
4.19
4.18
4.18
4.15
4.06
4.05
4.01
4.00
3.98
3.97
3.96
3.93
3.92
3.82
3.82
3.81
3.81

2
20
38
86
88
13
21
78
84
87
39
90
58
97
96
49
89
65
3
79
80
71
115
26
99
106
75
32
35
63
82
74
10
23
102
94
61
81
28
60
70
40
5
73
66
93
59
14
103
98
22
6
54
72
51
1
77
8
76
33
92
53
30
42
25

5.63
4.75
4.48
3.81
3.81
4.96
4.72
3.84
3.81
3.81
4.39
3.79
4.00
3.72
3.73
4.16
3.81
3.95
5.58
3.84
3.82
3.91
3.10
4.65
3.70
3.47
3.86
4.60
4.54
3.96
3.82
3.88
4.99
4.69
3.62
3.76
3.97
3.82
4.63
3.97
3.91
4.39
5.44
3.90
3.94
3.77
3.98
4.93
3.60
3.72
4.71
5.38
4.06
3.90
4.09
5.64
3.85
5.08
3.86
4.60
3.78
4.07
4.63
4.25
4.65

1
7
10
3
2
12
18
9
6
4
5
11
24
17
8
15
19
20
21
14
29
16
13
25
27
22
28
33
23
35
26
47
37
49
34
30
36
31
52
42
32
38
46
39
48
40
57
56
43
41
53
72
50
44
51
61
45
55
78
79
54
66
60
87
59

6.49
5.89
5.80
6.31
6.41
5.64
5.47
5.80
5.92
6.04
5.95
5.65
5.19
5.54
5.82
5.58
5.46
5.34
5.31
5.62
5.02
5.58
5.63
5.17
5.15
5.28
5.07
4.66
5.25
4.63
5.16
4.31
4.62
4.23
4.63
4.92
4.62
4.69
4.16
4.46
4.67
4.61
4.31
4.60
4.25
4.52
3.99
4.05
4.43
4.48
4.15
3.59
4.22
4.39
4.21
3.90
4.37
4.07
3.52
3.47
4.12
3.75
3.91
3.25
3.93

3
5
9
8
4
17
20
16
6
2
22
1
13
14
23
10
7
24
43
11
12
27
15
41
19
21
18
29
32
26
31
28
55
45
42
35
52
34
37
36
59
47
70
39
25
33
30
49
38
40
78
58
44
51
65
91
46
72
54
75
50
79
94
61
89

5.64
5.57
5.49
5.50
5.63
5.27
5.11
5.37
5.55
5.64
4.97
5.77
5.41
5.39
4.94
5.48
5.54
4.91
3.87
5.47
5.45
4.64
5.38
4.07
5.12
4.99
5.13
4.59
4.37
4.74
4.55
4.60
3.55
3.74
4.04
4.32
3.61
4.34
4.18
4.28
3.46
3.70
3.24
4.09
4.75
4.36
4.58
3.65
4.16
4.07
3.09
3.46
3.75
3.62
3.36
2.90
3.71
3.22
3.55
3.16
3.62
3.04
2.82
3.42
2.94

3
4
6
2
7
17
5
1
8
15
11
10
9
14
16
36
23
13
29
39
20
24
31
27
30
26
38
33
56
25
35
18
32
19
12
50
22
45
55
41
21
42
58
43
66
51
47
75
49
59
40
73
71
65
63
104
80
109
34
54
76
60
83
64
95

6.13
6.08
6.01
6.15
5.90
5.52
6.02
6.29
5.89
5.59
5.75
5.75
5.89
5.62
5.59
4.85
5.26
5.68
5.09
4.81
5.40
5.25
5.02
5.14
5.03
5.16
4.82
4.96
4.46
5.21
4.89
5.45
5.00
5.43
5.70
4.58
5.36
4.70
4.49
4.75
5.40
4.73
4.44
4.72
4.27
4.56
4.65
4.15
4.58
4.44
4.76
4.16
4.21
4.28
4.38
3.58
3.99
3.50
4.90
4.51
4.14
4.43
3.91
4.33
3.70

(Cont’d.)

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 13

Table 1: The Enabling Trade Index 2009 (cont’d.)
SUBINDEXES
OVERALL INDEX
Country/Economy

Honduras
Gambia, The
Macedonia, FYR
Malawi
Azerbaijan
Ukraine
Bulgaria
Madagascar
Mexico
Egypt
India
Nicaragua
Sri Lanka
Jamaica
Zambia
Dominican Republic
Philippines
Senegal
Colombia
Uganda
Ghana
Brazil
Bolivia
Vietnam
Lesotho
Cambodia
Tanzania
Kazakhstan
Mozambique
Ethiopia
Benin
Argentina
Kenya
Mali
Pakistan
Kyrgyz Republic
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ecuador
Burkina Faso
Paraguay
Cameroon
Mauritania
Syria
Russian Federation
Nepal
Bangladesh
Algeria
Mongolia
Tajikistan
Guyana
Burundi
Nigeria
Zimbabwe
Venezuela
Côte d’Ivoire
Chad

Market
access

Border
administration

Transport and communications infrastructure

Business
environment

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121

3.80
3.78
3.78
3.77
3.77
3.76
3.76
3.75
3.74
3.72
3.72
3.71
3.70
3.70
3.64
3.64
3.62
3.62
3.61
3.60
3.60
3.58
3.55
3.54
3.51
3.50
3.50
3.49
3.49
3.48
3.47
3.46
3.45
3.44
3.43
3.43
3.42
3.41
3.41
3.39
3.35
3.31
3.30
3.29
3.22
3.20
3.18
3.17
3.14
3.13
2.99
2.97
2.91
2.84
2.78
2.77

16
108
62
12
52
24
55
4
43
117
116
15
64
85
19
69
56
109
48
9
67
100
11
112
7
27
41
45
17
91
47
95
34
37
111
18
107
36
46
31
83
44
121
113
29
57
118
110
104
114
68
120
101
105
119
50

4.87
3.37
3.97
4.97
4.07
4.68
4.02
5.45
4.25
3.05
3.06
4.91
3.95
3.81
4.76
3.91
4.02
3.36
4.16
5.06
3.94
3.67
4.98
3.24
5.25
4.65
4.33
4.20
4.84
3.79
4.17
3.75
4.59
4.51
3.26
4.77
3.41
4.53
4.20
4.62
3.82
4.24
2.25
3.16
4.63
4.01
2.76
3.36
3.57
3.13
3.92
2.72
3.67
3.48
2.74
4.16

82
70
71
97
103
95
69
86
62
65
58
83
67
73
102
64
68
76
74
99
80
77
75
85
105
98
92
119
90
89
101
84
108
111
63
116
81
107
112
93
96
110
91
106
113
104
88
109
118
94
114
100
117
120
115
121

3.42
3.63
3.60
3.06
2.91
3.07
3.64
3.26
3.87
3.78
3.94
3.38
3.75
3.59
2.96
3.80
3.72
3.54
3.55
2.99
3.45
3.53
3.55
3.28
2.84
3.00
3.17
2.27
3.21
3.22
2.97
3.35
2.77
2.64
3.85
2.46
3.44
2.80
2.64
3.16
3.07
2.67
3.17
2.82
2.58
2.88
3.24
2.71
2.40
3.14
2.57
2.98
2.42
2.25
2.55
2.00

82
84
57
112
62
60
48
115
74
66
64
105
69
53
111
73
77
81
76
98
102
68
106
71
118
109
119
63
117
96
99
67
93
113
80
86
85
87
101
103
104
110
88
56
107
108
90
95
116
92
120
100
114
83
97
121

3.01
3.00
3.46
2.44
3.40
3.43
3.68
2.37
3.20
3.35
3.36
2.54
3.29
3.56
2.45
3.20
3.09
3.01
3.13
2.61
2.56
3.33
2.53
3.24
2.33
2.50
2.25
3.39
2.36
2.71
2.60
3.33
2.88
2.40
3.04
2.98
2.98
2.97
2.58
2.56
2.55
2.47
2.96
3.49
2.51
2.50
2.90
2.82
2.37
2.90
2.16
2.60
2.38
3.01
2.70
1.96

84
28
78
48
46
85
97
82
98
44
53
79
90
89
62
99
100
52
103
94
57
93
118
61
101
87
67
77
107
72
74
111
105
68
102
108
86
112
69
115
81
88
37
96
117
110
92
91
70
113
114
106
116
121
119
120

3.91
5.13
4.09
4.60
4.68
3.87
3.68
3.93
3.67
4.71
4.51
4.01
3.82
3.83
4.39
3.64
3.63
4.55
3.58
3.76
4.44
3.79
3.16
4.40
3.63
3.85
4.24
4.10
3.56
4.20
4.16
3.42
3.58
4.23
3.58
3.53
3.87
3.36
4.22
3.22
3.97
3.84
4.83
3.70
3.17
3.42
3.81
3.81
4.22
3.34
3.30
3.57
3.17
2.61
3.15
2.96

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

13

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

14

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 14

Table 2: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Market access
PILLARS
MARKET ACCESS
Country/Economy

El Salvador
Singapore
Chile
Madagascar
Costa Rica
Moldova
Lesotho
Guatemala
Uganda
Mauritius
Bolivia
Malawi
Canada
Turkey
Nicaragua
Honduras
Mozambique
Kyrgyz Republic
Zambia
Hong Kong SAR
Norway
Uruguay
Oman
Ukraine
Peru
Bahrain
Cambodia
Croatia
Nepal
Albania
Paraguay
Malaysia
Namibia
Kenya
Israel
Ecuador
Mali
Switzerland
New Zealand
Saudi Arabia
Tanzania
Armenia
Mexico
Mauritania
Kazakhstan
Burkina Faso
Benin
Colombia
United States
Chad
Morocco
Azerbaijan
Indonesia
Panama
Bulgaria
Philippines
Bangladesh
Luxembourg
Greece
Lithuania
Jordan
Macedonia, FYR
Portugal
Sri Lanka
United Arab Emirates
Italy
Ghana

1. Domestic and foreign market access

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67

5.64
5.63
5.58
5.45
5.44
5.38
5.25
5.08
5.06
4.99
4.98
4.97
4.96
4.93
4.91
4.87
4.84
4.77
4.76
4.75
4.72
4.71
4.69
4.68
4.65
4.65
4.65
4.63
4.63
4.63
4.62
4.60
4.60
4.59
4.54
4.53
4.51
4.48
4.39
4.39
4.33
4.25
4.25
4.24
4.20
4.20
4.17
4.16
4.16
4.16
4.09
4.07
4.07
4.06
4.02
4.02
4.01
4.00
3.98
3.97
3.97
3.97
3.96
3.95
3.95
3.94
3.94

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67

5.64
5.63
5.58
5.45
5.44
5.38
5.25
5.08
5.06
4.99
4.98
4.97
4.96
4.93
4.91
4.87
4.84
4.77
4.76
4.75
4.72
4.71
4.69
4.68
4.65
4.65
4.65
4.63
4.63
4.63
4.62
4.60
4.60
4.59
4.54
4.53
4.51
4.48
4.39
4.39
4.33
4.25
4.25
4.24
4.20
4.20
4.17
4.16
4.16
4.16
4.09
4.07
4.07
4.06
4.02
4.02
4.01
4.00
3.98
3.97
3.97
3.97
3.96
3.95
3.95
3.94
3.94

(Cont’d.)

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 15

Table 2: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Market access (cont’d.)
PILLARS
MARKET ACCESS
Country/Economy

Burundi
Dominican Republic
Tunisia
Estonia
Romania
Latvia
Cyprus
Spain
Kuwait
Poland
Finland
United Kingdom
Belgium
Hungary
Slovenia
Cameroon
Austria
Jamaica
Denmark
Netherlands
Sweden
France
Germany
Ethiopia
South Africa
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Argentina
Ireland
Australia
Thailand
Taiwan, China
Brazil
Zimbabwe
Qatar
China
Tajikistan
Venezuela
Korea, Rep.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Gambia, The
Senegal
Mongolia
Pakistan
Vietnam
Russian Federation
Guyana
Japan
India
Egypt
Algeria
Côte d’Ivoire
Nigeria
Syria

1. Domestic and foreign market access

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121

3.92
3.91
3.91
3.91
3.90
3.90
3.88
3.86
3.86
3.85
3.84
3.84
3.82
3.82
3.82
3.82
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.79
3.79
3.78
3.77
3.76
3.75
3.73
3.72
3.72
3.70
3.67
3.67
3.62
3.60
3.57
3.48
3.47
3.41
3.37
3.36
3.36
3.26
3.24
3.16
3.13
3.10
3.06
3.05
2.76
2.74
2.72
2.25

68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121

3.92
3.91
3.91
3.91
3.90
3.90
3.88
3.86
3.86
3.85
3.84
3.84
3.82
3.82
3.82
3.82
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.79
3.79
3.78
3.77
3.76
3.75
3.73
3.72
3.72
3.70
3.67
3.67
3.62
3.60
3.57
3.48
3.47
3.41
3.37
3.36
3.36
3.26
3.24
3.16
3.13
3.10
3.06
3.05
2.76
2.74
2.72
2.25

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

15

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

16

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 16

Table 3: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Border administration
PILLARS
BORDER
ADMINISTRATION
Country/Economy

Singapore
Sweden
Denmark
Netherlands
New Zealand
Austria
Hong Kong SAR
Ireland
Finland
Switzerland
Germany
Canada
Japan
United Kingdom
United States
Estonia
Australia
Norway
France
United Arab Emirates
Chile
Korea, Rep.
Israel
Luxembourg
Bahrain
Slovenia
Taiwan, China
Spain
Belgium
Czech Republic
Hungary
Tunisia
Malaysia
Qatar
Portugal
Jordan
Mauritius
Saudi Arabia
Latvia
Slovak Republic
Thailand
Lithuania
China
Romania
Poland
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Italy
Oman
Panama
Morocco
Croatia
Uruguay
South Africa
Guatemala
Turkey
Greece
India
Peru
Albania
El Salvador
Mexico
Pakistan
Dominican Republic
Egypt
Indonesia

2. Efficiency of customs
administration

3 Efficiency of importexport procedures

4. Transparency of
border administration

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66

6.49
6.41
6.31
6.04
5.95
5.92
5.89
5.82
5.80
5.80
5.65
5.64
5.63
5.62
5.58
5.58
5.54
5.47
5.46
5.34
5.31
5.28
5.25
5.19
5.17
5.16
5.15
5.07
5.02
4.92
4.69
4.67
4.66
4.63
4.63
4.62
4.62
4.61
4.60
4.52
4.48
4.46
4.43
4.39
4.37
4.31
4.31
4.25
4.23
4.22
4.21
4.16
4.15
4.12
4.07
4.05
3.99
3.94
3.93
3.91
3.90
3.87
3.85
3.80
3.78
3.75

1
2
4
5
8
3
14
6
29
9
21
15
11
7
10
13
24
35
25
19
20
18
27
49
16
12
23
26
33
17
28
30
44
69
59
34
37
31
39
22
43
48
45
42
55
41
46
53
62
73
40
47
68
38
32
72
81
51
79
60
78
52
56
76
77
75

6.43
6.41
6.00
5.94
5.71
6.04
5.42
5.86
4.75
5.70
5.17
5.39
5.52
5.75
5.66
5.44
5.14
4.35
5.11
5.19
5.19
5.27
5.04
3.98
5.31
5.46
5.15
5.06
4.38
5.28
4.90
4.49
4.17
3.42
3.66
4.35
4.30
4.46
4.27
5.17
4.19
4.03
4.15
4.22
3.73
4.23
4.15
3.79
3.56
3.27
4.24
4.14
3.42
4.29
4.40
3.29
3.02
3.83
3.12
3.63
3.12
3.80
3.73
3.18
3.17
3.18

1
4
2
9
20
18
3
15
5
26
8
28
19
21
16
7
32
6
10
14
40
13
17
24
23
59
27
41
34
44
53
39
22
43
31
54
35
25
33
80
11
29
30
45
36
65
98
47
74
12
56
68
87
94
85
46
51
62
61
64
52
78
57
42
38
37

6.46
6.21
6.33
5.94
5.58
5.72
6.26
5.74
6.16
5.36
5.97
5.34
5.71
5.56
5.73
6.03
5.27
6.09
5.92
5.78
5.17
5.80
5.73
5.48
5.50
4.73
5.35
5.14
5.24
5.12
4.85
5.18
5.51
5.13
5.28
4.81
5.23
5.45
5.25
4.26
5.85
5.29
5.28
5.05
5.20
4.62
3.66
4.98
4.31
5.85
4.77
4.52
4.10
3.85
4.11
4.98
4.88
4.67
4.68
4.65
4.87
4.27
4.76
5.13
5.18
5.18

4
1
2
7
3
11
12
14
5
6
15
9
16
18
21
24
8
13
22
26
17
33
28
10
35
23
30
27
19
36
38
37
40
20
29
34
39
51
41
44
67
48
55
54
43
46
25
50
32
63
62
56
31
42
57
53
47
70
49
66
58
64
80
77
91
94

6.57
6.61
6.59
6.22
6.57
6.00
5.98
5.84
6.50
6.33
5.81
6.17
5.66
5.53
5.36
5.27
6.20
5.97
5.35
5.06
5.58
4.79
4.99
6.11
4.69
5.28
4.93
5.00
5.43
4.35
4.32
4.35
4.31
5.36
4.95
4.69
4.32
3.94
4.28
4.12
3.41
4.06
3.85
3.88
4.17
4.10
5.12
3.99
4.83
3.53
3.62
3.82
4.92
4.23
3.71
3.89
4.07
3.32
4.00
3.44
3.70
3.53
3.06
3.11
2.97
2.89

(Cont’d.)

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 17

Table 3: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Border administration (cont’d.)
PILLARS
BORDER
ADMINISTRATION
Country/Economy

Sri Lanka
Philippines
Bulgaria
Gambia, The
Macedonia, FYR
Moldova
Jamaica
Colombia
Bolivia
Senegal
Brazil
Kuwait
Namibia
Ghana
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Honduras
Nicaragua
Argentina
Vietnam
Madagascar
Armenia
Algeria
Ethiopia
Mozambique
Syria
Tanzania
Paraguay
Guyana
Ukraine
Cameroon
Malawi
Cambodia
Uganda
Nigeria
Benin
Zambia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Lesotho
Russian Federation
Ecuador
Kenya
Mongolia
Mauritania
Mali
Burkina Faso
Nepal
Burundi
Côte d’Ivoire
Kyrgyz Republic
Zimbabwe
Tajikistan
Kazakhstan
Venezuela
Chad

2. Efficiency of customs
administration

3 Efficiency of importexport procedures

4. Transparency of
border administration

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121

3.75
3.72
3.64
3.63
3.60
3.59
3.59
3.55
3.55
3.54
3.53
3.52
3.47
3.45
3.44
3.42
3.38
3.35
3.28
3.26
3.25
3.24
3.22
3.21
3.17
3.17
3.16
3.14
3.07
3.07
3.06
3.00
2.99
2.98
2.97
2.96
2.91
2.88
2.84
2.82
2.80
2.77
2.71
2.67
2.64
2.64
2.58
2.57
2.55
2.46
2.42
2.40
2.27
2.25
2.00

71
54
61
80
101
67
65
89
63
82
98
112
84
102
96
95
92
83
117
111
64
105
50
87
94
113
86
100
110
93
66
91
70
107
118
57
36
115
99
74
121
109
88
116
108
97
119
85
114
58
90
104
106
103
120

3.31
3.77
3.61
3.10
2.51
3.45
3.47
2.69
3.55
2.97
2.57
2.23
2.91
2.49
2.61
2.63
2.67
2.93
2.17
2.23
3.49
2.40
3.93
2.78
2.63
2.21
2.88
2.51
2.24
2.66
3.46
2.67
3.41
2.36
2.03
3.68
4.35
2.20
2.53
3.20
1.74
2.30
2.75
2.19
2.35
2.60
2.00
2.90
2.21
3.67
2.67
2.45
2.39
2.46
1.94

55
48
79
60
63
97
72
75
89
58
67
69
101
66
50
71
70
77
49
76
99
88
109
92
81
73
95
84
91
90
111
86
106
96
93
112
118
82
100
107
83
102
108
103
110
116
105
117
104
121
115
119
120
114
113

4.78
4.92
4.27
4.70
4.66
3.66
4.32
4.30
4.09
4.75
4.57
4.42
3.39
4.59
4.88
4.36
4.40
4.29
4.90
4.29
3.59
4.10
2.59
3.88
4.25
4.32
3.85
4.14
3.95
4.02
2.34
4.10
2.94
3.76
3.88
2.21
1.79
4.24
3.41
2.67
4.15
3.33
2.60
3.14
2.49
1.95
2.98
1.94
3.05
1.33
2.02
1.71
1.42
2.10
2.12

75
115
82
78
61
59
87
60
85
93
65
52
45
72
97
71
81
96
99
73
106
74
76
92
107
90
102
103
84
113
68
118
108
98
86
89
112
119
110
109
114
105
101
104
79
69
100
95
116
117
111
83
88
120
121

3.15
2.48
3.05
3.10
3.64
3.67
2.99
3.66
3.00
2.91
3.45
3.91
4.11
3.28
2.82
3.28
3.06
2.83
2.78
3.25
2.67
3.23
3.14
2.96
2.63
2.98
2.76
2.76
3.02
2.52
3.39
2.23
2.61
2.81
3.00
2.99
2.58
2.20
2.58
2.59
2.50
2.67
2.76
2.68
3.09
3.37
2.78
2.86
2.40
2.38
2.58
3.03
2.99
2.18
1.95

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

17

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

18

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 18

Table 4: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Transport and communications infrastructure
PILLARS
TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE
Country/Economy

Germany
Netherlands
Singapore
Sweden
Hong Kong SAR
Austria
France
Denmark
Switzerland
United States
United Kingdom
Belgium
Luxembourg
Australia
Japan
Finland
Canada
Spain
Taiwan, China
Norway
Korea, Rep.
New Zealand
Ireland
United Arab Emirates
Italy
Portugal
Estonia
Cyprus
Malaysia
Greece
Slovenia
Israel
Slovak Republic
Hungary
Czech Republic
Lithuania
Croatia
China
Latvia
Thailand
Bahrain
Qatar
Chile
Panama
Oman
Poland
Saudi Arabia
Bulgaria
Turkey
South Africa
Romania
Jordan
Jamaica
Kuwait
Mauritius
Russian Federation
Macedonia, FYR
Moldova
Tunisia
Ukraine
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
India
Morocco
Egypt

5. Availability and quality
of transport infrastructure

6. Availability and quality
of transport services

7. Availability and
use of ICTs

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66

5.77
5.64
5.64
5.63
5.57
5.55
5.54
5.50
5.49
5.48
5.47
5.45
5.41
5.39
5.38
5.37
5.27
5.13
5.12
5.11
4.99
4.97
4.94
4.91
4.75
4.74
4.64
4.60
4.59
4.58
4.55
4.37
4.36
4.34
4.32
4.28
4.18
4.16
4.09
4.07
4.07
4.04
3.87
3.75
3.74
3.71
3.70
3.68
3.65
3.62
3.62
3.61
3.56
3.55
3.55
3.49
3.46
3.46
3.46
3.43
3.42
3.40
3.39
3.36
3.36
3.35

8
14
12
6
11
9
1
5
18
3
21
7
19
17
23
4
2
15
26
10
29
20
31
13
50
28
40
16
22
24
34
54
41
60
46
35
42
30
37
33
36
47
48
27
43
83
55
77
62
44
84
59
58
70
32
64
65
75
39
63
69
45
49
51
52
53

5.28
5.12
5.14
5.35
5.15
5.20
5.83
5.44
5.04
5.54
4.96
5.33
5.02
5.07
4.77
5.50
5.58
5.12
4.65
5.17
4.55
4.97
4.47
5.14
3.98
4.64
4.20
5.08
4.95
4.74
4.37
3.88
4.15
3.73
4.09
4.34
4.12
4.48
4.31
4.39
4.31
4.08
4.05
4.65
4.12
3.16
3.86
3.31
3.66
4.11
3.15
3.78
3.79
3.57
4.44
3.63
3.62
3.39
4.21
3.65
3.58
4.11
4.05
3.98
3.95
3.90

3
2
1
11
6
5
10
17
12
14
7
8
13
9
4
18
25
15
22
35
23
31
20
30
21
24
42
40
16
29
33
43
28
26
34
55
37
19
45
27
63
60
51
70
32
49
52
53
48
44
41
39
76
79
106
68
59
38
74
77
50
62
75
46
67
58

5.85
5.91
5.96
5.30
5.55
5.76
5.33
4.97
5.17
5.08
5.50
5.47
5.16
5.43
5.84
4.89
4.64
5.06
4.73
4.22
4.72
4.40
4.84
4.58
4.80
4.70
4.03
4.07
5.00
4.58
4.30
3.96
4.60
4.64
4.26
3.68
4.16
4.87
3.93
4.62
3.50
3.54
3.82
3.34
4.33
3.85
3.81
3.79
3.86
3.95
4.06
4.10
3.22
3.17
2.77
3.41
3.56
4.15
3.24
3.22
3.83
3.51
3.23
3.89
3.43
3.62

3
10
11
2
6
15
24
4
1
12
8
19
5
17
21
13
18
26
7
9
14
20
22
27
23
29
16
32
43
35
28
25
37
31
33
30
38
60
40
59
36
34
44
57
74
39
53
41
52
72
46
65
45
42
49
50
58
71
67
51
70
80
68
93
76
81

6.20
5.89
5.83
6.25
6.00
5.69
5.47
6.10
6.27
5.81
5.95
5.56
6.04
5.67
5.52
5.72
5.58
5.21
5.97
5.93
5.70
5.54
5.50
5.01
5.48
4.87
5.68
4.66
3.82
4.41
4.99
5.28
4.34
4.66
4.61
4.81
4.26
3.12
4.04
3.19
4.38
4.49
3.73
3.26
2.77
4.12
3.42
3.95
3.42
2.81
3.63
2.96
3.68
3.92
3.44
3.43
3.21
2.83
2.92
3.43
2.85
2.59
2.88
2.20
2.69
2.52

(Cont’d.)

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 19

Table 4: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Transport and communications infrastructure (cont’d.)
PILLARS
TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE
Country/Economy

Argentina
Brazil
Sri Lanka
Costa Rica
Vietnam
Guatemala
Dominican Republic
Mexico
Namibia
Colombia
Philippines
Uruguay
Indonesia
Pakistan
Senegal
Honduras
Venezuela
Gambia, The
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Kyrgyz Republic
Ecuador
Syria
Peru
Algeria
El Salvador
Guyana
Kenya
Albania
Mongolia
Ethiopia
Côte d’Ivoire
Uganda
Benin
Nigeria
Burkina Faso
Ghana
Paraguay
Cameroon
Nicaragua
Bolivia
Nepal
Bangladesh
Cambodia
Mauritania
Zambia
Malawi
Mali
Zimbabwe
Madagascar
Tajikistan
Mozambique
Lesotho
Tanzania
Burundi
Chad

5. Availability and quality
of transport infrastructure

6. Availability and quality
of transport services

7. Availability and
use of ICTs

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121

3.33
3.33
3.29
3.24
3.24
3.22
3.20
3.20
3.16
3.13
3.09
3.09
3.04
3.04
3.01
3.01
3.01
3.00
2.98
2.98
2.97
2.96
2.94
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.88
2.82
2.82
2.71
2.70
2.61
2.60
2.60
2.58
2.56
2.56
2.55
2.54
2.53
2.51
2.50
2.50
2.47
2.45
2.44
2.40
2.38
2.37
2.37
2.36
2.33
2.25
2.16
1.96

91
93
38
66
108
81
73
85
25
76
92
99
82
56
72
71
96
57
113
61
86
74
90
68
98
107
78
97
67
80
95
87
114
112
89
79
104
94
100
88
101
102
105
117
111
109
116
106
103
118
110
120
115
119
121

2.99
2.99
4.28
3.61
2.59
3.24
3.45
3.12
4.71
3.31
2.99
2.83
3.24
3.84
3.45
3.48
2.88
3.80
2.45
3.68
3.10
3.44
3.02
3.58
2.87
2.59
3.30
2.87
3.60
3.25
2.93
3.08
2.44
2.49
3.02
3.26
2.72
2.95
2.81
3.06
2.81
2.78
2.71
2.24
2.53
2.58
2.29
2.60
2.72
2.18
2.54
2.02
2.36
2.13
1.70

66
56
81
103
36
69
64
65
115
84
47
101
54
80
72
104
86
97
57
87
78
96
90
111
93
108
73
85
112
71
95
89
61
92
98
119
113
107
102
116
88
105
91
82
100
83
94
109
118
110
114
99
121
117
120

3.44
3.66
3.15
2.86
4.17
3.35
3.50
3.48
2.59
3.10
3.88
2.95
3.69
3.15
3.33
2.86
3.09
3.00
3.63
3.09
3.21
3.00
3.08
2.70
3.03
2.75
3.26
3.10
2.70
3.33
3.01
3.09
3.51
3.05
3.00
2.49
2.62
2.77
2.87
2.59
3.09
2.79
3.05
3.15
2.98
3.12
3.02
2.74
2.56
2.71
2.60
2.98
2.44
2.57
2.47

47
54
84
56
66
61
78
63
95
64
86
48
91
98
89
77
62
90
69
94
79
83
75
85
73
55
99
82
96
121
97
118
111
88
116
107
87
108
103
106
120
102
115
100
110
119
109
113
112
92
105
101
104
114
117

3.57
3.35
2.43
3.26
2.96
3.07
2.65
2.99
2.16
2.98
2.41
3.48
2.21
2.14
2.26
2.68
3.05
2.21
2.87
2.17
2.61
2.44
2.72
2.42
2.79
3.34
2.07
2.48
2.16
1.54
2.15
1.65
1.85
2.26
1.73
1.92
2.33
1.92
1.94
1.93
1.63
1.95
1.75
2.03
1.86
1.63
1.87
1.78
1.82
2.21
1.93
1.99
1.94
1.77
1.70

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

19

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

20

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 20

Table 5: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Business environment
PILLARS
BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT
Country/Economy

Finland
Denmark
Singapore
Hong Kong SAR
Norway
Switzerland
Sweden
Austria
Luxembourg
Germany
New Zealand
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
Australia
Netherlands
Ireland
Canada
Cyprus
Oman
Belgium
Tunisia
Jordan
France
Estonia
Portugal
Korea, Rep.
Bahrain
Gambia, The
Chile
Taiwan, China
Japan
Mauritius
Malaysia
Kuwait
Slovenia
United States
Syria
Spain
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Lithuania
Saudi Arabia
Latvia
Egypt
Hungary
Azerbaijan
Greece
Malawi
China
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Senegal
India
Namibia
Croatia
Israel
Ghana
Costa Rica
Thailand
Indonesia
Vietnam
Zambia
Morocco
Armenia
Romania
Italy
Tanzania

8. Regulatory environment

9. Physical security

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67

6.29
6.15
6.13
6.08
6.02
6.01
5.90
5.89
5.89
5.75
5.75
5.70
5.68
5.62
5.59
5.59
5.52
5.45
5.43
5.40
5.40
5.36
5.26
5.25
5.21
5.16
5.14
5.13
5.09
5.03
5.02
5.00
4.96
4.90
4.89
4.85
4.83
4.82
4.81
4.76
4.75
4.73
4.72
4.71
4.70
4.68
4.65
4.60
4.58
4.58
4.56
4.55
4.51
4.51
4.49
4.46
4.44
4.44
4.44
4.43
4.40
4.39
4.38
4.33
4.28
4.27
4.24

3
2
1
6
10
5
4
13
8
12
9
17
15
11
7
14
16
24
21
20
18
30
22
29
36
27
28
32
37
34
26
33
25
43
44
23
66
40
19
38
54
31
56
49
58
59
53
47
45
61
52
87
46
42
77
39
63
41
48
55
64
57
51
91
85
84
73

5.88
5.92
6.13
5.67
5.50
5.77
5.79
5.40
5.53
5.42
5.52
5.23
5.25
5.49
5.66
5.34
5.25
4.89
4.98
4.98
5.00
4.73
4.93
4.77
4.57
4.80
4.78
4.65
4.56
4.59
4.83
4.64
4.86
4.21
4.16
4.90
3.83
4.44
5.00
4.48
3.97
4.73
3.96
4.05
3.90
3.90
3.98
4.10
4.15
3.90
3.99
3.56
4.13
4.29
3.64
4.47
3.86
4.38
4.09
3.97
3.86
3.92
4.01
3.50
3.60
3.60
3.67

1
4
9
3
2
6
13
5
7
11
15
8
10
23
31
18
21
12
16
20
22
14
29
24
17
32
34
27
26
37
44
40
49
28
25
63
19
45
73
50
33
68
36
39
35
38
41
48
52
43
47
30
57
70
42
83
51
80
64
56
54
59
66
46
53
55
61

6.70
6.38
6.12
6.48
6.54
6.24
6.01
6.37
6.24
6.07
5.97
6.18
6.10
5.75
5.52
5.83
5.79
6.02
5.88
5.82
5.79
5.99
5.59
5.72
5.85
5.52
5.50
5.60
5.61
5.47
5.21
5.36
5.06
5.60
5.62
4.80
5.83
5.19
4.62
5.04
5.52
4.73
5.48
5.37
5.49
5.45
5.33
5.11
5.02
5.27
5.13
5.53
4.88
4.72
5.33
4.46
5.03
4.51
4.79
4.89
4.94
4.87
4.76
5.16
4.95
4.93
4.80

(Cont’d.)

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 21

Table 5: The Enabling Trade Index 2009: Business environment (cont’d.)
PILLARS
BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT
Country/Economy

Mali
Burkina Faso
Tajikistan
Panama
Ethiopia
Moldova
Benin
Turkey
South Africa
Kazakhstan
Macedonia, FYR
Nicaragua
Poland
Cameroon
Madagascar
Albania
Honduras
Ukraine
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
Mauritania
Jamaica
Sri Lanka
Mongolia
Algeria
Brazil
Uganda
Peru
Russian Federation
Bulgaria
Mexico
Dominican Republic
Philippines
Lesotho
Pakistan
Colombia
El Salvador
Kenya
Nigeria
Mozambique
Kyrgyz Republic
Guatemala
Bangladesh
Argentina
Ecuador
Guyana
Burundi
Paraguay
Zimbabwe
Nepal
Bolivia
Côte d’Ivoire
Chad
Venezuela

8. Regulatory environment

9. Physical security

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121

4.23
4.22
4.22
4.21
4.20
4.16
4.16
4.15
4.14
4.10
4.09
4.01
3.99
3.97
3.93
3.91
3.91
3.87
3.87
3.85
3.84
3.83
3.82
3.81
3.81
3.79
3.76
3.70
3.70
3.68
3.67
3.64
3.63
3.63
3.58
3.58
3.58
3.58
3.57
3.56
3.53
3.50
3.42
3.42
3.36
3.34
3.30
3.22
3.17
3.17
3.16
3.15
2.96
2.61

72
67
80
60
81
94
82
65
35
75
86
106
88
103
90
105
68
107
113
89
102
62
50
108
101
95
92
79
109
99
78
97
98
96
76
71
70
83
74
100
111
69
110
117
116
93
114
115
120
104
118
112
119
121

3.72
3.83
3.63
3.90
3.62
3.45
3.62
3.85
4.59
3.66
3.58
3.19
3.52
3.25
3.51
3.20
3.81
3.14
3.00
3.52
3.27
3.86
4.02
3.14
3.29
3.43
3.50
3.64
3.13
3.31
3.64
3.39
3.32
3.40
3.65
3.73
3.78
3.61
3.67
3.29
3.09
3.81
3.11
2.80
2.80
3.46
2.95
2.86
2.33
3.21
2.64
3.03
2.58
2.09

69
75
62
79
65
58
71
84
105
78
77
60
82
72
86
74
95
76
67
89
85
102
109
81
87
90
93
103
88
91
106
99
97
100
112
114
115
111
113
101
96
119
104
92
98
118
108
110
94
121
107
117
116
120

4.73
4.61
4.80
4.52
4.78
4.87
4.70
4.46
3.70
4.55
4.60
4.83
4.46
4.69
4.34
4.62
4.01
4.61
4.74
4.18
4.41
3.80
3.63
4.48
4.33
4.14
4.02
3.76
4.27
4.04
3.69
3.88
3.94
3.85
3.52
3.43
3.37
3.55
3.47
3.82
3.96
3.20
3.73
4.04
3.91
3.22
3.65
3.57
4.02
3.12
3.68
3.27
3.34
3.13

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

21

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

22

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 22

trade and investment as part of their successful economic
development strategy.
Singapore’s positive results reflect the country’s
openness to trade and demonstrate high rankings in all
four subindexes.The country’s very open market, as
well as a highly efficient and transparent border administration, a well-developed transport and communications
infrastructure, and an open business environment all
contribute to this result. Customs procedures are assessed
as the least burdensome, and time and cost for both
import and export are among the lowest for all countries
covered. Singapore’s exporters also face relatively low
tariffs in target markets (13th). However, less congested
roads and improvements to the ICT infrastructure could
further increase the ease of getting goods across borders
in Singapore.The country’s excellent regulatory environment facilitates operations of traders through openness
to foreign participation, fair domestic competition, and
a highly transparent and efficient government.
Hong Kong SAR’s open domestic market mirrors
the economy’s high dependence on exports and imports.
Hong Kong does not apply tariffs on imported products,
yet its exported products face more barriers than
Singapore’s, as reflected in tariffs faced (119th) combined
with a low margin of preference in target markets
(112th). Hong Kong’s strong ranking also rests on
efficient customs procedures, well-developed transport
and communications infrastructure, and a regulatory
environment that promotes and facilitates an open and
secure business environment.The region’s openness to
foreign participation is attested to by the prevalence of
foreign ownership and relative absence of capital controls (1st).Traders could, however, further benefit from
improvements to the very congested roads (89th) and
more commitments to open up the transport sector
under the GATS framework (55th).
New Zealand comes in at the 11th position. Its
highly efficient and transparent border administration
contributes to this ranking, as do the country’s very
low tariffs for agricultural products. Exports, however,
face high barriers.The country’s regulatory environment
is characterized by fairly good ratings on ethics and a
low level of corruption, as well as an effective domestic
competition policy, though obstacles still persist in hiring
foreign labor and regulation of FDI. Upgrading the
quality of infrastructure, especially roads and railroads,
would be beneficial to further facilitate a smooth flow
of goods across borders and to destinations inside the
country.
Australia occupies the 14th position for countries
from all regions.The rating reflects the many aspects in
which the country does particularly well in facilitating
the flow of goods across borders and to destination,
including its strong performances with respect to
transparent border administration and the quality of
transport services; its high level of commitment in the
sector under GATS; and its regulatory environment,

which promotes intense domestic competition.The
results are, however, somewhat offset by high domestic
and foreign market barriers. Australia applies very high
tariffs for non-agricultural products in comparison with
economies at a similar level of development, placing at
96th position on this indicator. Lowering these tariffs
would further boost the country’s openness to trade.
Japan takes up the 23rd position in the ETI ranking.
The country’s highly efficient and transparent border
administration and well-developed infrastructure, together
with its excellent transport services, all contribute to
this rating.The ranking is, however, severely offset by
Japan’s high barriers to market access in domestic and
foreign markets (115th), as reflected in its high tariffs
on agricultural products and complexity of tariffs, as
well as barriers faced when exporting. In addition, the
country’s costly import and export procedures and limited openness to foreign participation are not conducive
to facilitating trade flows.With respect to the latter,
obstacles to hiring foreign labor and low prevalence
of foreign ownership are the two aspects in need of
improvement. Japan could also benefit from improving
its somewhat burdensome customs procedures (43rd).
Taiwan, China and Korea, Rep. follow at 25th
and 26th place, respectively, among the economies
covered. Both economies boast very good infrastructure.
In addition, infrastructure-related services are efficient
and widely available, and the use of ICTs is widespread.
Traders benefit particularly from efficient customs
administration in Korea;Taiwan is doing especially well
on the use of ICTs, which improves the connectivity
of companies and the ability to track consignments.
Both economies are, however, hampered by restricted
access to domestic and foreign markets and a regulatory
environment that does not facilitate the entry of foreign
investment and labor.
Malaysia occupies the 28th position in the ETI.
Efficient import procedures and a low cost of importing
and exporting goods, as well as the quality of transport
infrastructure and related transport services, all contribute
to this good ranking, particularly given the country’s
level of development. Improvements to the transparency
of border administration as well as less congested roads
would further enhance the country’s strengths.The regulatory framework also provides a good trading environment
by means of efficient government operations and fair
domestic competition policies. Improving the usage of
the latest technologies and lowering business costs of
terrorism would allow the country to even further reap
the harvest of international trade.
China ranks 49th among the countries covered.
This ranking underscores a number of characteristics in
China’s economy and its trading regime. China relies
heavily on its successful export performance, although
imports are still significantly inhibited by tariff barriers.
The country performs particularly well in its low cost to
import and export (3rd). Furthermore, because of large

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 23

trade volumes, the country is extremely well connected
to international markets through its vast port facilities,
with the services provided by liner companies being
second to none.The quality and availability of transport
services are also among its comparative advantages
(19th). However, improvement in the overall transport
infrastructure—in particular, airport density and the
quality of air transport infrastructure—would further
facilitate the flow of goods across borders and to destinations within China, in particular to the inland
provinces. In addition, more transparency in border
administration and improvements to the regulatory
environment that would allow more foreign participation would help enable trade.
Thailand follows China to occupy the 50th
position.Thailand boasts a highly efficient border administration with few documents required for importing goods
into the country.Well-developed transport infrastructure
and related transport services also contribute to an easy
flow of goods to destinations. However, domestic and
foreign market access is restricted, particularly through
high tariff barriers for agricultural products and a very
complex tariff structure. In addition, the country’s trading environment would significantly benefit from more
transparency at the border, more openness to foreign
participation, and reduced costs to business resulting
from terrorism.
Indonesia comes in at 62nd place, reflecting a
pretty balanced performance on all four pillars of the
Index.The flow of goods in and out of the country
benefits from the low cost of import and export
procedures as well as a regulatory environment that
is fairly open toward foreign participation, although
businesses are concerned about the level of corruption
at borders and high costs incurred to fight terrorism.
Improvements in transport infrastructure and wide
adoption of technologies would tremendously help
the country to better connect with its trading partners.
India occupies the 76th position in the ETI,
reflecting a mixed performance on the four pillars.
While having fairly good border administration and
business environment, domestic and foreign market access
continues to be significantly restricted. India ranks 116th
on the relevant component, with tariff barriers representing a more serious impediment than non-tariff barriers.
India’s border administration meets many needs of
importers and exporters. Ranked 58th on this indicator,
a vast number of customs-related services are available
in India, although it continues to be affected by corrupt
practices.Trade-related transport infrastructure and the
relevant services are equally well developed in India,
ranking 51st and 46th, respectively.The country is well
connected through maritime routes, although it needs
more airports and high-quality roads. India could also
benefit from improvements in the ease of hiring foreign
labor as well as reduced business costs of terrorism.

Most other countries from Asia and the Pacific rank
in the lower part of the ETI, and the regional ranking
closes with Bangladesh at 111th and Mongolia at
113th.
Europe and North America

Behind Singapore and Hong Kong, Switzerland (3rd)
completes the top three of the ETI 2009.The Nordics
follow closely, led by Denmark, Sweden, and, two
notches behind, Norway (7th) and Finland (8th). Only
Canada comes in between, at 6th.With Austria ranked
9th and the Netherlands 10th, Europe boasts seven
countries in the top 10—five of which are members of
the European Union. Despite the necessary similarities
among all EU members in terms of market access, the
other dimensions of the Index are source of enormous
variation across them. As a result, 43 ranks separate
Denmark (4th) from Greece (47th), the lowest-ranked
representative of the EU15.9 When considering the entire
European Union, the gap becomes more vertiginous:
Bulgaria ranks 72nd, 68 places lower than Denmark.
Switzerland places 3rd, scoring very high in three
of the four main components of the Index. It ranks
10th for the quality of border administration, despite
the very high costs to import (84th) and export (92nd).
The ETI also reveals the good quality of its transport
infrastructure (9th) and of the associated services (12th).
Yet Switzerland gets low marks on the two measures
of maritime connectivity featured in the Index, namely
the transshipment index (88th) and the liner shipping
index (94th).10 But when it comes to the availability and
use of ICTs, Switzerland is second to none. Finally, the
business environment is particularly friendly (6th) thanks
to its excellent institutions, fierce competition, openness
to foreign participation, and low prevalence of crime.
Switzerland’s major weakness resides in the market
access component, in which it ranks 38th.This is
explained by the high level of complexity of Switzerland’s
import tariff structure, for which it ranks a rock-bottom
120th.This measure takes into account the variance
of tariffs (117th), the share of tariff lines subjected to
tariff peaks (8.1 percent, 79th) and to specific tariffs
(81.6 percent, 120th), and finally the number of distinct
tariffs. On this latter indicator, Switzerland ranks last
with over 6,500 different duties, almost four times that
of penultimate Russia.The high complexity is somewhat balanced by the very low tariffs. Despite a 26
percent average tariff on agricultural imports (105th),
import-weighted tariffs remain low thanks to the near
zero tariffs (0.3 percent, the third lowest in the world)
on non-agricultural products. Over 90 percent (5th
highest share) of all imports to Switzerland are subject
to no duty.
Denmark (4th) ranks among the top five countries
in seven out of the nine pillars of the Index. In particular,
it ranks 2nd both for the efficiency and the transparency
of border administration, notably thanks to the low level

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

23

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

24

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 24

of overall corruption as reflected in Denmark’s excellent
1st place in the Corruption Perceptions Index.This, along
with several other factors—such as the government’s
efficiency (4th), the intensity of local competition (4th),
and the high level of security (4th)—contributes to
creating an extremely conducive business environment
in Denmark (second only to Finland), where the only
drawback remains the relative difficulty of hiring foreign
labor (36th).The data also reveal high levels of quality
and availability of transport (5th) and ICT (4th) infrastructure. For instance, Denmark boasts the world’s
highest penetration of broadband Internet (36 percent
of the population). On a less positive note, the two
connectivity indexes for transshipment and liner
shipping put the country in 62nd and 35th positions,
respectively.
Such strong results make the contrast with Denmark’s
86th rank in the market access component particularly
stark. Notwithstanding the very low import-weighted
average tariff of 1.1 percent—the world’s third lowest—
and the high share of duty-free imports (68 percent,
22nd), all the other measures of access place Denmark
below the 50th rank.This results from the common
policies of the European Union, which significantly
distort trade, particularly that of agricultural products.
Denmark’s tariff structure is highly complex, as reflected
in the variance of tariffs, the share of tariff peaks, and
specific duties. In addition, non-tariff barriers are pervasive
in Denmark (71st) and throughout the European Union
(median rank of 65).
Ranked just behind Denmark, Sweden, like its
neighbor, possesses a world-class infrastructure, a very
transparent and efficient border administration, and a
highly favorable business environment.Yet crime and
violence seem to be more of a problem (22nd), and
so are the difficulties of hiring foreign workers (50th).
With respect to market access, Sweden (88th) posts a
performance comparable to that of Denmark, the only
difference coming from the slightly lower score on the
index of non-tariff measures.
Coming in at 6th place overall, Canada is one of
the three non-European countries within the top 10. It
posts a strong and remarkably consistent performance
across the board. In particular, it is second only to France
for the availability and quality of transport infrastructure,
which is excellent across all modes of transportation.
Only the low percentage of paved roads (40 percent,
65th)—not surprising given the land area—prevents
Canada from being number one. Border administration
(12th) is characterized by efficient customs services
(15th), speedy and hassle-free clearance procedures, and
low levels of corruption, with the only dent being the
cost to import (95th) and export (96th).The Doing
Business study reveals that the fees levied upon the
importation and exportation of a 20-foot container
amount to US$1,785 and US$1,660, respectively, four
times those collected by Singapore.

Canada ranks 13th in the market access pillar. It is
the only advanced economy along with Singapore (2nd)
and Hong Kong (20th) to feature in the top 20 within
this category.The import-weighted tariffs average just
2.4 percent, despite a 16 percent tariff levied on agricultural imports—which is not so surprising for one of the
world’s biggest agricultural producers and exporters. In
addition, nearly 90 percent of imports enter the country
free of duty. Finally, Canada makes little use of non-tariff
barriers (21st), although the tariff structure in place is
highly complex (79th).
In 7th place overall, and third among the Nordic
countries, Norway owes its rank to a consistent
performance across all the pillars.The business environment is particularly supportive to trade (5th), thanks to
favorable regulation, the efficiency of government operations, its low prevalence of crime and violence (3rd),
and—despite a certain reluctance—foreign participation
(44th). Another strength is Norway’s efficient import and
export procedures (6th).The number of documents
required, the time, and the costs are very low by international standards both on the export and import sides.
In the market access pillar, Norway, at 21st, displays
much
better results than the Nordic members of the European
Union.The average tariff of 60 percent on agricultural
products—the second highest in the world after
Armenia—is largely compensated for by the tariff on
other imports set close to zero (the third lowest, right
behind Hong Kong and Singapore). More than the average level, the complexity of applied tariffs is a cause for
concern: Norway ranks second to last in this indicator.
The Netherlands (at 10th overall) completes
the top 10 of the ETI. One of the world’s main hubs
for trade, the country receives outstanding marks for
the quality of its transport infrastructure (ranking 2nd,
behind only Germany), and the associated services
(ranking 2nd, behind Singapore). In particular, the
quality of the country’s seaports and its connectivity
to the rest of the world come as no surprise, given that
Rotterdam has one of the world’s largest and busiest
maritime ports.This, combined with its efficient and
speedy border administration (4th), makes the movement of goods to and from the Netherlands almost
seamless.
Coming in at 12th overall, Germany presents characteristics very similar to those of its western neighbor.
The world’s biggest exporter, Germany is the leader on
the quality of transport infrastructure. In particular, the
two connectivity indexes reveal Germany’s prominence
as a trade platform, which benefits from local companies
that provide world-class transport-related and logistics
services.There exists some room for improvement in
terms of customs administration, with Germany ranking
a relatively low 23rd on the customs services index. As
for the regulatory environment (12th overall), Germany
ranks reasonably well on all the indicators, with the

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 25

exception of the index of openness to foreign participation.There it places 25th because of the difficulty of
hiring foreign labor (76th). Market access is Germany’s
Achilles’ heel. At 90th, it ranks even lower than the
European Union’s median rank of 79 because of the
pervasiveness of non-tariff measures—the only source
of variation among EU members in this pillar. In
Germany, 56 percent of trade is affected by such
measures, the most among all advanced economies.
The United States comes in at 16th position.
Its performance is uneven across the nine pillars of the
Index.The United States obtains high rankings for the
quality of transport infrastructure (3rd) and the associated
services (14th), as well as for the availability and use of
ICTs (12th).The efficiency of customs administration
(10th) owes much to the extent and availability of customs
services (2nd). Also praised is the efficiency of import
and export procedures (16th), thanks to the little time
and limited paperwork associated with them.
On a less positive note, the business environment
is not as supportive of trade as could be expected (36th).
Among other issues, businesses voice their concern
about the level of security in the country (74th) and
indicate that the threat of terrorism and crime and
violence impose significant costs upon them (114th).
Finally, the United States ranks 49th in the market
access component. More than 75 percent of all imports
enter the country free of duty (20th).The importweighted average tariff on agricultural products is a low
6.7 percent (8th), below levels attained by Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
and EU countries on average,11 and tariffs on other
imported goods amount to only 1.3 percent (33rd).
Contrasting with such low levels is the complexity
of the US tariff structure (89th).There are over 1,100
distinct tariffs and nearly 10 percent of tariff lines are
subject to specific tariffs, tariff peaks, or both. Finally, US
exporters face some of the highest tariffs in the world—
6 percent on average.
France ranks 17th overall, helped by its strong
performance in terms of infrastructure. In particular, it
tops the transport infrastructure pillar thanks to the
quality of all modes of transport and despite a relatively
low airport density (39th). France is very well connected
to major trade routes, as reflected in its 2nd place
(behind the United Kingdom) in the transshipment
connectivity index. Border administration constitutes
another of France’s relative strengths (19th). France ranks
1st for the number of documents required for import
and export—only two signatures need to be obtained.
But there is room for improvement, notably in reducing
the cost to import and export, and, to a lesser extent, in
making customs procedures more transparent. France’s
regulatory environment is quite propitious, although the
business community voices some concern about the
efficiency of government operations (35th), security
(29th), and, most importantly, limited openness toward

foreign participation (50th). Finally, in line with its fellow EU members, market access is restricted (89th).
With the exception of the market access pillar
where it ranks a low 79th, the United Kingdom’s
performance (20th) mirrors that of the United States.
The efficiency of border administration (14th) and the
quality of infrastructure (11th) are also the country’s two
major strengths, while the business environment is affected
by security concerns.The business community shares the
same concern as its American counterpart about the
costs associated with the threat of terrorism (112th) as
well as crime and violence (81st).
At 22nd, Estonia is the highest ranked of the 12
EU accession countries by a comfortable margin.
Second-placed Slovenia ranks 31st and two Baltic
countries, Lithuania and Latvia, position somewhat
lower at 40th and 44th, respectively. Reflecting the
government’s commitment to free trade following independence, Estonia precedes 15 European Union countries, including four EU15 members.The country
obtains first-rate marks for the efficiency of its border
administration (16th).Time required for import and
export procedures has been brought down to five days—
2nd and 1st rank, respectively.The number of required
documents for such procedures was also reduced to a
minimum. Furthermore, Estonia outshines many other
countries in the ICTs pillar (16th), boasting, respectively,
the 5th and 20th highest penetration rates of mobile
telephony and Internet.This is not a surprise given the
government’s exceptional push toward ICT readiness.
More generally, Estonia provides exporters with a mostly
favorable business environment, with the best rating
among all Eastern European countries (24th). Finally,
thanks to fewer non-tariff barriers, Estonia does better
than a majority of EU members in the market access
pillar (71st).
The Russian Federation ranks an unflattering
109th, making the world’s eighth biggest economy one
of the least open and least attractive to both importers
and exporters. Quite tellingly, there is only one pillar,
availability and use of ICTs, where the country appears
in the first half of the ranking (50th). But even here, as
in all the other categories, the need for improvement is
huge.The main area of concern is the extremely restricted
access to markets (113th). Not yet a WTO member,
Russia has import tariffs that average 15 percent (114th)
overall, and 26 percent (106th) on agricultural imports.
The complexity of the tariff structure is also extremely
high (90th), and the country does poorly with respect to
border administration (106th), as reflected in the results
associated with import and export procedures, which
are bleak by every measure: efficiency of clearance
(115th), time to export (103rd) and import (99th), and
cost to export (111th) and import (102nd), as well as
transparency (109th). Russia’s business environment
(96th) is not
particularly welcoming to international participation

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

25

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

26

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 26

either, especially with respect to investments (119th
for the measure of openness to foreign ownership).
Furthermore, executives have little trust in the government and doubt its ability to enforce law and order.
Latin America and the Caribbean

Chile, ranked 19th, leads the rankings in Latin America
and the Caribbean by a considerable margin.This excellent showing is not surprising, given Chile’s role as Latin
America’s leading example on how to benefit from
global trade and investment linkages.The country has
shown commitment to free trade by reducing the complexity of tariffs (2nd) and successfully negotiating access
to foreign markets for domestic exporters, who face less
tariff burdens than in any other country in the sample.
Yet, despite these pronounced strengths, some areas in
need of improvement can be identified through an
analysis of the ETI results. Border procedures, for example,
although transparent (17th), could be less costly and
time consuming (40th), which imposes an undue burden
on traders. Equally, transport infrastructure and the related services are below international standards in terms
of quality and availability, and the availability and use of
ICTs is not on a par with countries at the same level of
trade intensity. On a more positive note, the country is
very open to foreign participation, which ensures a high
level of competition overall.
With Costa Rica, ranked 43rd, another Latin
American best-practice example in economic development occupies the second position in the region. Costa
Rica’s successful economic strategy, aimed at diversifying
exports and increasing their value-added, contributes to
this good result.12 The country ranks a very high 5th in
terms of domestic and foreign market access because of
its relatively low tariff and non-tariff barriers, its simple
and transparent tariff structure, and the fairly low tariff
barriers faced by exporters in target markets.The country’s trade performance also benefits from a favorable
regulatory environment (41st) characterized by high
governance standards and a significant degree of openness to foreign participation (21st). Although Costa
Rica’s trade policy is firmly geared toward openness,
a number of barriers remain and add to the cost of
importing and exporting. Streamlining import and export
procedures, upgrading the quality of infrastructure and
that of related services, and reducing the cost to business
resulting from crime and violence could contribute to
further boosting the country’s trade performance by
lowering the transaction costs associated with trade.
Mexico, a country that has significantly benefited
from trade over the past decades, ranks 74th in this year’s
ETI.The results show that, despite the country’s past
export success, there remains untapped potential for
further enabling trade. Presently, trade continues to be
hampered by a number of barriers related to trade policy,
border administration, and most of all, the lack of physical
security. All these factors have a significant bearing on

trade, as they raise the related transaction costs.Trade
policy continues to be heavily biased toward protectionism, in particular of the agricultural sector, and although
import and export procedures have been streamlined,
they remain costly compared with the regional average.
This is reflected in the low ranking obtained by Mexico
on the indicators capturing the cost to import (107th)
and export (89th).The most serious weakness, however,
concerns the government’s inability to provide the
required level of physical security, a problem that has
been affecting the country for a number of years and is
increasingly exacerbated by drug-related conflicts. On a
positive note, Mexico’s exporters enjoy rather low tariffs
for their products in target markets and benefit from
high margins of preference. Some aspects of transport
infrastructure and the related services are also assessed
positively, in particular those related to maritime shipping
services and services offered by the logistics industry.
Mexico also benefits from its openness to foreign
participation.
Latin America’s largest economy, Brazil, ranks
87th for enabling trade across borders.This low ranking
is a reflection of Brazil’s varied performance across the
nine pillars of the ETI.The country displays strengths
in the quality of its transport services and the use and
prevalence of latest technologies.To a somewhat lesser
extent, this also holds true for the transparency and
efficiency of overall border procedures, although the
business sector considers that dealing with customs in
particular is burdensome.These positive aspects are
partially offset by a number of factors in which Brazil’s
performance is weak.This particularly pertains to
domestic and foreign market access. Despite efforts to
liberalize trade domestically and within MERCOSUR,
the level of protection in Brazil remains relatively high.
Although the tariff structure is simple and transparent,
tariffs for non-agricultural products are high by international comparison (87th). Other areas to be addressed
for Brazil to benefit more from international trade
include the quality of transport infrastructure (93rd),
which is below international standards across all modes
of transport. Furthermore, the business environment in
Brazil could be more conducive to trade (93rd).
Achieving this goal would require raising the efficiency
of government institutions, increasing the intensity of
domestic competition, and, in particular, lowering the
cost incurred by businesses that are related to the violent
and insecure environment.
Argentina ranks 97th in the ETI. Its position
mirrors a mixed performance across the four pillars.To
further enable trade, Argentina will have to address a
number of challenges, most importantly those related to
the regulatory environment and physical security. More
openness to foreign participation and a better general
governance framework could considerably improve the
operating environment for business and increase the
level of competition. More efforts to combat crime

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 27

and violence and to render police services more reliable
could contribute to reducing the considerable cost
resulting from poor physical security. Upgrading infrastructure, in particular for transport by air, would further
contribute to lowering the transport cost of goods. At
the same time, the country can build on a number of
important strengths. Here, the positive assessments of
ICT infrastructure, the quality of transport services, and,
to a lesser degree, the efficiency of import-export procedures are worth noting. Furthermore, the competitiveness of Argentina’s exporters is supported by reasonably low tariffs faced abroad and a considerable margin
of preference in key target markets.
Middle East and North Africa

Countries from the Middle East and North Africa
region enable trade to varying degrees. Indeed, the performance on the ETI spreads across almost the entire
sample, ranging from best-performer United Arab
Emirates at 18th to Algeria at 112th. On average, Gulf
countries enable trade across borders to a greater degree
than their Arab and North African counterparts.This
reflects, among other factors, the small size of most of
the Gulf economies as well as their specialization in
energy exports.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) leads the
rankings at 18th position, ahead of Chile and the
United Kingdom.The country boasts a very efficient
and
transparent border administration (ranked 14th on
efficiency of import and export procedures and 26th
on transparency) and has one of the lowest costs to
import and the least burdensome customs procedures
in the entire sample, ranking 5th and 6th, respectively,
on the relevant indicators. Further strengths include an
excellent transport infrastructure (13th) and a regulatory
environment that is particularly conducive to trade
because of the country’s strong institutional framework
and also by virtue of openness to foreign participation
(19th). Last but not least, the country is relatively secure
in international comparison (10th).
Strengthening the country’s position on the Index
would require further lowering tariff barriers, in particular for agricultural tariff products, although it has the
advantage of having a very simple tariff structure. Also,
further preferential agreements with main markets
would help lower the relatively high tariffs faced by
the country in its target markets.
Israel enters at 29th place overall in the ETI.
Following gradual liberalization over the past years,
Israel presently has a reasonably open trade policy
with the exception of agricultural policies, which
remain protective of local producers, ranking 102nd
in the ETI sample.The country’s border procedures
are not perceived as burdensome, the cost of importing
and exporting is among the lowest among the countries
assessed, and the widespread use of new technologies

(25th) facilitates communication and customs clearance.
Although the regulatory environment is fairly open
to foreign ownership, the lack of physical security, in
particular the threat of terrorism, imposes a significant
cost on importers and exporters. Furthermore, Israel’s
trade could be additionally enabled though investment
in infrastructure, as the quality and availability of facilities
remains behind standards found in other countries at a
similar level of development.
Tunisia ranks 41st for enabling trade across borders.
Weaknesses in trade policy (70th) are partly compensated
for by an effective customs administration (30th), fairly
efficient import-export procedures (39th), and a propitious regulatory environment (18th). Equally important,
perceptions regarding physical security in the country
are rather favorable (22nd). Nevertheless, a number of
weaknesses remain and need to be addressed for the
country to further enable trade.Tunisia imposes high
tariffs on imports. It ranks 119th on both tariffs for
agricultural and non-agricultural products—in absolute
terms, the tariffs on agricultural products amount to 56
percent ad valorem—and subjects a large majority of its
imports to tariffs (over 75 percent, ranking 93rd). In
addition to the high level of tariffs, businesses face a
complex tariff structure.While further reduction in
tariffs would be desirable,Tunisia has very successfully
improved access to the main target markets for its
exporters, mainly through preferential trading agreements
with the European Union, currently the destination for
about 80 percent of the country’s exports. In addition,
the country has preferential access to its main markets
with a fairly high preference margin (rank 21).
Importers and exporters alike would benefit from
enhanced transport services. Presently, shipments rarely
reach their destination on time, maritime shipping
connections and services lag behind international
standards, and the competence of the logistics industry
is assessed as only 81st out of 121 countries.
Saudi Arabia ranks 42nd on the ETI, showing
solid performance across many indicators in the analysis.
Import and export procedures, including customs, are
relatively efficient in international comparison, ranking
31st and 25th, respectively. Among other strengths is the
country’s regulatory environment, which is supportive of
trade (31st) because of a transparent and efficient institutional framework, which compensates for the relative
lack of openness to foreign participation. More foreign
ownership would bring Saudi Arabia a number of
advantages, such as access to international know-how as
well as increased competition and hence efficiency, all
of which would strengthen the position of the country’s
exporters in global markets and support diversification.13
Index results also indicate that physical security in
general and the threat of terrorism in particular impose
significant cost on businesses. Enhancing the use of
ICTs and the availability and the quality of transport
services would be beneficial.Yet most of all, further

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

27

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

28

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 28

enabling trade in Saudi Arabia will require opening
domestic markets to trade, in particular in agricultural
products, where the country ranks a low 83rd.Tariff
reductions are under way as commitments of WTO
membership are being implemented over a 10-year
period (since 2005).
Egypt ranks 75th for the ease of getting goods
across the border and to destination.The country’s most
notable strengths include a business environment that
is fairly conducive to trade—in particular, it is easy to
hire foreign labor and the business cost of threats to
security is assessed as low. Despite efforts to liberalize
trade over the past years, trade policy in Egypt remains
rather protectionist. Egypt applies very high tariff rates
(particularly on some agricultural products), the tariff
structure is complex, and the available data on non-tariff
measures indicate that these constitute an important
impediment to enabling trade. In terms of border
administration, although importing goods into Egypt
is neither costly nor time consuming, importers raise
concerns about the efficiency of customs and, to an
even greater extent, of other border agencies. On a
positive note, Egypt boasts a fairly well developed transport infrastructure (53rd) including the related services
(58th).
Algeria ranks 112th in the overall ETI.The country
remains fairly sheltered from international competition,
despite its ongoing efforts to join the WTO. Market
access remains restricted (118th on the market access
component), yet tariffs are likely to be lowered significantly as Algeria advances toward WTO membership.
WTO accession is also bound to lower the tariffs faced
by Algerian exporters, which are currently among the
highest in the sample (116th). In addition to the restrictive trade policy, importers and exporters in Algeria are
burdened by a fairly inefficient and opaque border
administration and a cumbersome, time-consuming, and
costly clearance process that affects customs as well as
other border agencies.Trade would also benefit from
a more transparent institutional framework, more
domestic competition, and greater openness to foreign
participation.
Sub-Saharan Africa

With the exception of best-performer Mauritius, the
countries in sub-Saharan Africa occupy positions in the
lower half of the sample as they struggle with underdeveloped infrastructure, inefficient border administration,
and, in some countries, severely restricted market access.
At 33rd position, Mauritius is, by a large margin,
the highest-ranked country in sub-Saharan Africa.The
open access to the country’s markets, the efficiency of
the border administration, and a regulatory environment
that is conducive to trade all contribute to this high
showing. Access to domestic and foreign markets is
among the most open worldwide; a large share of goods
is imported duty-free, and tariff and non-tariff barriers

are reasonable. And although Mauritian exporters face
fairly high barriers abroad, they benefit from a high
margin of preference in their main target markets.
Against this overall very positive assessment stand weaknesses in the quality of transport services.Tracking and
tracing services are barely available (99th), the logistics
industry is assessed as lacking competence (120th), and
shipments are difficult to arrange (107th) and rarely
reach their destination on time (115th). Equally, more
could be done to better leverage ICTs for development,
where the country ranks 49th.
Namibia is placed at 60th position, the secondbest nation in sub-Saharan Africa in terms of enabling
trade across borders.This good showing mirrors the
favorable results obtained by Namibia in terms of
market access. Although tariffs are quite high on average,
only a very small share of imported goods is subjected
to them. Namibia has also negotiated a fairly high preference margin with its main exporters. Despite the
somewhat open access to markets, Namibia’s trade is
burdened by heavy administration at the borders.The
country ranks a low 84th and 101st for the efficiency
of customs procedures and the overall import-export
procedures, respectively, although business leaders attest
that corruption is not a major problem. Additional
strengths include a well-developed transport infrastructure and a regulatory environment that is more efficient
and transparent than in most neighboring countries.To
further enable trade, Namibia will have to address the
poor quality of its transport services and
further open the economy to foreign participation.
South Africa enters the ranking at 61st position.
The country’s relatively good marks on transport and
communications infrastructure and border administration are offset by weaknesses in market access and in the
security environment. South Africa has pursued a trade
liberalization program since 1994, which contributed
significantly to opening the economy.Yet, although tariffs
apply to relatively few import products, they remain
rather high in international comparison and their structure is complex. It is appropriate that a review of the
tariff structure to reduce complexity and lower tariffs
for strategically important upstream sectors is under way.
Other than that, South Africa boasts relatively efficient
infrastructure facilities and the respective services are
also assessed as good.The country’s solid institutional
framework, with an efficient government and welldefined property rights, is beneficial for importers and
exporters.The main areas of concern in South Africa
relate to the lack of physical security (105th), which
reflects what are the highest business costs of crime and
violence of all countries covered in the Index. Businesses
also express concerns about insufficient openness to
foreign participation, in particular regulations related to
hiring foreign labor.
Senegal ranks 83rd for getting goods across borders
and to destination.The country’s strengths include a

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 29

secure and open business environment and relatively
efficient import and export procedures, with only few
administrative procedures and little time required when
importing or exporting goods. Imports benefit from the
country’s very simple tariff structure (9th) with no tariff
peaks and only four different types of tariffs overall,
which makes it transparent and easy to navigate. However, the overall level of protection remains high with
respect to both tariff and non-tariff barriers, ranking 90th
and 94th, respectively. In addition to lowering tariffs, to
further benefit from international trade, Senegal should
upgrade its institutional framework, which is prone to
undue influence (105th) and lack of transparency (101st).
As a result, border administration is also heavily affected
by corrupt practices (93rd). Border administration that is
more transparent would improve revenue collection and
allow the country to further lower tariffs while maintaining the revenue levels.
Tanzania occupies the 92nd position in the ETI.
This result is based on a number of pronounced
strengths and weaknesses throughout the nine pillars
of the Index.While Tanzania has a relatively transparent
and simple tariff structure (40th) and its exporters face
very low tariffs in target markets (5th), burdensome
customs and border administration represents a significant hindrance for both importers and exporters. An
upgraded transport infrastructure as well as improved
quality and availability of transport services, along with
a more intense use of ICTs would enable the country to
harvest the benefits of international trade.

Conclusions
This chapter has presented and analyzed the results of
the World Economic Forum’s ETI. In its second year,
the Index provides a comprehensive picture of the institutions, policies, and services that enable the movement
of goods across borders and to destination in the 121
countries covered. Based on a thorough review and
feedback obtained from users and partner organizations,
the Index has been enhanced to include exports and to
better capture aspects of the domestic environment in
the countries assessed as well as the level of complexity
of the tariff regime.
The present recession has highlighted the interdependency of countries and the importance of trade
for the world economy. In the wake of the financial
crisis that originated in the United States, global trade
volumes have fallen considerably.This reduction is not
directly related to trade policies or other factors assessed
by the ETI, but mainly results from a demand slump
across many countries. Although many stimulus packages
may contribute to enabling trade if they invest in traderelated infrastructure, there remain reasons for concern
about the direction trade policies may take in the future.
Pressures to protect domestic industries and jobs
through policies and in the context of countercyclical

measures are mounting in many countries.The current
challenge, therefore, is to ensure not only that countries
not pull each other down further by restraining trade
but that they help recovery by trading with each other.
Further enabling trade across borders can contribute to
mitigating the effect of the global crisis, as measures facilitating trade will reduce its transaction cost and therefore
partially offset the effects of the demand slump. In this
context, the ETI can provide guidance on measures that
need to be taken to enable trade.
By benchmarking countries on their ability to enable
trade, the World Economic Forum aims to focus attention on an issue of global importance and to provide a
platform for dialogue among government, business, and
civil society. Such a dialogue can serve as a catalyst for
trade-enhancing reforms with the aim of mitigating the
effect of the present crisis and ultimately raising the
prosperity of the world’s citizens.

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

Notes
1 G-20 2009.
2 Gamberoni and Newfarmer 2009.
3 See WTO 2009a.
4 For more information about the program, see
http://www.londonsummit.gov.uk.
5 We have focused on the flow of trade in goods in the Index for
expository purposes, although we recognize that enabling trade in
services is also important. By circumscribing the issue clearly, the
Index provides a useful vehicle for carrying out policy analysis on
a clearly defined part of the issue. Trade in goods accounts for
upward of 80 percent of all trade, and is therefore highly relevant.
It is also important to note that many of the factors and policies
included in the model would be equally relevant for an analysis of
the factors facilitating the services trade.
6 We include the preferential margin, because bilateral and regional
agreements enable trade for the country that gains the preferential access, although it must be pointed out that they have a number of downsides. They make trade regimes complex to navigate
for exporters, and may be harmful from a global perspective.
7 For landlocked countries, the access to ports is measured.
8 The score of each subindex is derived as an unweighted average
of the pillars that constitute it.
9 The EU15 designates the 15 member countries that joined the
European Union prior to 2004: Austria, Belgium, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
10 Although Switzerland has no direct access to deep sea, it is
connected to the North Sea via the Rhine and does receive
regular liner shipping services. However, river transport imposes
limitations on the size of vessels and traffic, and this affects cargo
capacity and the number of services, hence the low marks in
these two indexes. Nevertheless, considering that the country is
landlocked, access to the Rhine provides significant advantages
compared with other landlocked countries.
11 The OECD average amounts to 14.9 percent, while the European
Union attains 9.3 percent.
12 See Sala-i-Martin et al. 2008 for a brief analysis of Costa Rica’s
economic policy over recent decades.
13 Under the provisions of WTO membership, Saudi Arabia has
opened a number of sectors, such as financial services and energy
to foreign participation, since joining the organization in 2005.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

29

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 30

References
Eichengreen, B. and K. O’Rourke. 2009. “A Tale of Two Depressions.”
Vox. June 4. Available at
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3421.
G-20. 2009. Global plan for recovery and reform: The Communiqué
from the London Summit. Available at:
http://www.londonsummit.gov.uk/
en/summit-aims/summit-communique/.
Gamberoni, E. and R. Newfarmer. 2009. Trade Protection: Incipient but
Worrying Trends. March 17. Available at
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NEWS/Resources/
Trade_Note_37.pdf.
IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2009. World Economic Outlook
Database. April. Available at http://www.imf.org/external/
pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/weodata/index.aspx.
Sala-i-Martin, X. J. Blanke, M. Drzeniek Hanouz, T. Geiger, I. Mia, and
F. Paua. 2008. “The Global Competitiveness Index: Prioritizing
Economic Policy Agenda.” The Global Competitiveness Report
2008–2009. Geneva: World Economic Forum. 3–41.
WTO (World Trade Organization). 2009a. “WTO Secretariat Reports
Increase in New Anti-Dumping Investigations.” May 7. Available
at http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres09_e/pr556_e.htm.
———. 2009b. Statistics Database. Available at http://stat.wto.org.

30

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 31

Appendix A:
&&&::
Composition
(cont’d.) of the Enabling Trade Index
This appendix provides details about the construction of
the Enabling Trade Index (ETI).
The ETI is composed of four subindexes: the market
access subindex; the border administration subindex; the
transport and communications infrastructure subindex;
and the business environment subindex.These subindexes
are, in turn, composed of the nine pillars of the ETI:
domestic and foreign market access, efficiency of customs
administration, efficiency of import-export procedures,
transparency of border administration, availability and
quality of transport infrastructure, availability and quality
of transport services, availability and use of ICTs, regulatory environment, and physical security.These pillars are
calculated on the basis of both hard data and survey
data.
The survey data are mainly derived from the
responses to the World Economic Forum’s Executive
Opinion Survey and range from 1 to 7. In addition,
survey data from the World Bank’s Logistics Performance
Index (LPI) survey have also been included.The hard
data were collected from various recognized sources,
such as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization
(WTO), the International Trade Centre (ITC), or the
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD).The LPI data and the hard data are
described in detail in the Technical Notes and Sources
section at the end of this Report. All of the data used
in the calculation of the ETI can be found in the
Data Tables on the website of the Report
(www.weforum.org/GETR).
The hard data indicators used in the ETI, as well
as the results from the LPI survey, are normalized to a
1-to-7 scale in order to align them with the Executive
Opinion Survey results.1 Each of the pillars has been
calculated as an unweighted average of the individual
component variables.The subindexes are then compounded as unweighted averages of the included pillars.
In the case of the availability and quality of transport
infrastructure pillar, which is itself composed of two
subpillars (availability of transport infrastructure and
quality of transport infrastructure), the overall pillar is
the unweighted average of the two subpillars.The overall ETI is then calculated as the unweighted average of
the four subindexes.The variables and the composition
of pillars are described below. If a variable is one of hard
data, this is indicated in parentheses after the description.

Subindex A: Market access
Pillar 1: Domestic and foreign market access
1.01 Tariff barriers (hard data)2
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products
(hard data)
Tariff barriers for agricultural products (hard data)
1.02 Non-tariff barriers (hard data)
1.03 Complexity of tariffs (hard data)3
Variance of tariffs (hard data)
Domestic tariff peaks (hard data)
Specific tariffs (hard data)
Number of distinct tariffs (hard data)
1.04 Share of duty-free imports (hard data)
1.05 Tariffs faced (hard data)
1.06 Margin of preference in major export markets
(hard data)

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

Subindex B: Border administration
Pillar 2: Efficiency of customs administration
2.01 Burden of customs procedures
2.02 Customs services index (hard data)
Pillar 3: Efficiency of import-export procedures
3.01 Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance4
3.02 Time for import (hard data)
3.03 Documents for import (hard data)
3.04 Cost to import (hard data)
3.05 Time for export (hard data)
3.06 Documents for export (hard data)
3.07 Cost to export (hard data)

31

Pillar 4: Transparency of border administration
4.01 Irregular payments in exports and imports
4.02 Corruption Perceptions Index (hard data)

Subindex C: Transport and communications
infrastructure
Pillar 5: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
A. Availability of transport infrastructure
5.01 Airport density (hard data)
5.02 Transshipment connectivity index (hard data)
5.03 Paved roads (hard data)
B. Quality of transport infrastructure
5.04 Road congestion (hard data)
5.05 Quality of air transport infrastructure
5.06 Quality of railroad infrastructure
5.07 Quality of roads
5.08 Quality of port infrastructure
Pillar 6: Availability and quality of transport services
6.01 Liner Shipping Connectivity Index (hard data)
6.02 Ease and affordability of shipment4
6.03 Competence of the logistics industry4
6.04 Ability and ease of tracking4
6.05 Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination4
6.06 Postal service efficiency
6.07 GATS commitments in the transport sector
(hard data)
(Cont’d.)

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 32

Appendix A:
&&&::
Composition
(cont’d.) of the Enabling Trade Index (cont’d.)
Pillar 7: Availability and use of ITCs
7.01 Firm-level technology absorption
7.02 Mobile telephone subscribers (hard data)
7.03 Broadband Internet subscribers (hard data)
7.04 Internet users (hard data)
7.05 Telephone lines (hard data)

Subindex D: Business environment
Pillar 8: Regulatory environment
8.01 Property rights5
8.02 Ethics and corruption5
8.03 Undue influence5
8.04 Government inefficiency5
8.05 Domestic competition5
8.06 Openness to foreign participation6
Ease of hiring foreign labor
Prevalence of foreign ownership
Business impact of rules on FDI
Capital controls
Pillar 9: Physical security
9.01 Reliability of police services
9.02 Business costs of crime and violence
Business costs of terrorism

32

Notes
1 The standard formula for converting each hard data variable to the
1-to-7 scale is
6 x

(

country score – sample minimum
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:
–6 x

(

country score – sample minimum
sample maximum – sample minimum

)

+ 7

In some instances, adjustments were made to account for
extreme outliers in the data.
2 In the calculation we use import-weighted tariff barriers for all
products but we disclose the breakdown between agriculture and
non-agriculture for information.
3 Complexity of tariffs is the average of the other four variables.
4 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.
5 These variables are composite indicators comprising multiple variables used in the Global Competitiveness Index. For details see
The Global Competitiveness Report 2008–2009.
6 This variable is the average score of the listed four Survey data
variables.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 33

Appendix B: Testing the 2009 Enabling Trade Index using an augmented gravity model
This appendix details the main findings of an empirical
analysis aimed at testing the contribution of the Enabling
Trade Index (ETI) to explaining bilateral trade patterns.1
The method of choice is the gravity model of trade,
which has proven remarkably successful at predicting
bilateral trade flows based on the economic size of the
trading partners, the distance between them, and other
attributes.2 Examples of such attributes include the
quality of institutions, the existence of free trade agreements, colonial ties, and a common border.We believe
that the factors included in the ETI (e.g., market access,
border administration, transport and communications
infrastructure, and the business environment) are such
attributes.

Model and Data
We therefore specify the following gravity model to
which we append—hence the term augmented—the
ETI scores of the two trading partners:
ln(EXPij)

= ␤0 +␤1 ln(DISTij) + ␤2 ln(GDPi)
+ ␤3 ln(GDPj) + ␤4 ln(GDPPCi)
+ ␤5 ln(GDPPCj) + ␤6 ln(REMi)

(1)

+ ␤7 ln(REMj) + ␤8 ln(ETIi)
6

+ ␤9 ln(ETIj) + ∑ ␣k Dkij + ⑀ij
k=1

where

• EXPij represents the exports of country i to country
j.We use mirror data, that is, imports data of j from
i (IMPji), the reason being that monitoring and
measurement of imports flows are more accurate
because they represent a tax base.3 Where IMPji data
were missing, export data, if available, were used
instead.Trade data are for 2007 and were retrieved
from the United Nations’ Comtrade Database on
16th April, 2009;
• DISTij is the distance between i and j, expressed in
kilometers.The distance is weighted to account for
the geographic distribution of population within a
country. Distance data come from the Centre
d’Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations
Internationales (CEPII);
• GDPi represents the gross domestic products (GDP)
valued at power purchasing parity (PPP) of country
i. GDPPCi is for GDP (valued at PPP) per capita of
i. All figures are for 2007 and come from the April
2009 edition of the International Monetary Fund
(IMF)’s World Economic Outlook;

• REMi is a measure of economic remoteness. It corresponds to the sum of distances between i and all
the other countries weighted by the share of each
country in world’s GDP. Formally, we have:
GDPj

GDPj

DIST
REMi = ∑
∑ GDP , where ∑ GDP is
ij

j ≠i

k

k ≠i

k

k ≠i

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

approximated by the share of country j’s GDP in
world GDP less country i’s share;
• ETIi is country i’s overall score in the ETI 2009 as
presented in this chapter.
• Finally, Dk represents a set of dummy variables that
take the value 1 when a certain condition is met and
0 otherwise.The source is CEPII unless mentioned
otherwise. CONTIGij is 1 if i and j share a common
border. COMLANGij is 1 if i and j have at least one
common official language and/or if one language is
spoken by at least 9 percent of the population in
both countries. SMCTRYij is 1 if i and j were, or
are, the same country. COLTIEij is 1 if i and j had,
or still have, colonial ties (i.e., a common colonizer
or a colonizer and colony). LLOCKEDij is 1 if i, j,
or both, are landlocked. Data were collected by the
authors from various sources. Finally, COMCURRij
is 1 if i and j have the same currency.This variable
was constructed using data provided by the
International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) and reflects the situation at the end of 2007.
Using Model (1), we test the hypothesis that the
factors included in the ETI together play some role in
explaining the variance of bilateral trade flows. Drawing
on the latest research, we rely on a Poisson pseudomaximum likelihood estimation method.4 In their
influential article, Santos Silva and Tenreyro show why
Poisson is superior to other estimation techniques when
it comes to constant elasticity models.5 Poisson has the
major advantage of dealing with the heteroskedasticity
issue as well as with the presence of zeros in the
dependent variable.These are two features of the gravity
model that traditional log-linear methods do not handle
properly, thus leading to biased estimates.6 With Poisson,
the gravity model needs not to be log-linearized and
can be estimated in its original multiplicative form.7
Our sample consists of 14,520 observations representing
the total number of bilateral trading relationships among
the 121 economies covered by the ETI.

Results
We estimate the model specified under Equation (1)
and report the results in Table A.8 The two variables of

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

33

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 34

Appendix B: Testing the 2009 Enabling Trade Index using an augmented gravity model (cont’d.)
Table A: Results for the Poisson estimation of the
augmented gravity model
Variable

Model (1)

Robust
standard error

DISTij

–0.888***

(0.04)

GDPi

0.831***

(0.02)

GDPj
GDPPCi

0.802***
–0.036

(0.02)
(0.08)

GDPPCj

0.101*

(0.05)

REMi

0.747***

(0.14)

REMj

1.055***

(0.15)

ETIi

1.742***

(0.35)

ETIj

2.283***

(0.26)

CONTIGij

0.350***

(0.09)

COMLANGij

0.102

(0.07)

SMCTRYij

0.282

(0.22)

COLTIEij

–0.082

(0.09)

LLOCKEDij

–0.206**

(0.07)

COMCURRij

0.041

(0.08)

–38.415***

(2.07)

Intercept
Adjusted pseudo R2
Number of observations

0.906
14,520

Dependent variable is exports EXPij in levels (see text for details).
Significance levels: * = 5 percent, ** = 1 percent, *** = 0.1 percent.

34
interest are ETIi and ETIj.The elasticities of 1.7 for the
exporting country i and 2.3 for importing country j
predicts that a 1 percent increase in the ETI score by
the exporting country i would increase exports by 1.7.
The same increase by importing country j would
increase imports from country i by 2.3 percent. Both
coefficients are significantly different from zero with
z-statistics of 5.0 and 8.7, respectively.This confirms the
hypothesis formulated above, that the factors captured
by the ETI contribute to explaining the patterns of
bilateral trade flow in a non-negligible way. 9
The bigger elasticity on ETIj means that improvements on the importer’s end have a bigger trade-enabling
effect.Yet the elasticity is almost as high on the exporter’s
side, thus suggesting that the conditions in the exporting
country matter nearly as much.This is not surprising,
given that the vast majority of the indicators included
in the ETI clearly affect both ends of the export/import
process—think of roads used to carry goods from the
factory to the seaport and from the seaport to final
destination.
This result also constitutes a serious blow to the
often-held idea that export performance depends mainly
on the quality of access to the destination market: if a
country improves on the factors that facilitate exports,
it is likely to see a surge in exports, regardless of the conditions prevailing in the export markets.
This is all the more encouraging given that the
majority of the ETI factors fall under the purview of
the government. And improving on these often requires

political will (e.g., cutting on red tape) more than financial
capacity.
The joint effect predicts that a 1 percent increase in
the average ETI score of any given country pair would
be associated with a 4 percent increase in bilateral trade,
all else being equal.The significance of this result is
reflected in the gap that separates the best and worst
performers in the ETI rankings. At 6.0, top-ranked
Singapore’s score is more than twice—116 percent to
be precise—that of Chad (2.77).
Looking at the other covariates, the elasticities on
the variables of the standard gravity model bear the
expected signs: negative for distance, positive for GDP.
The bigger and the closer the partners, the more they
trade with each other. In addition, and consistent with
most of other empirical studies, they are close to unity,
although smaller than ordinary least squares estimates.
More interesting is the case of GDP per capita.The
traditional view generally holds that, ceteris paribus, the
richer a country, the more it trades.Yet, based on our
estimation, we cannot reject the hypothesis that the
level of economic development of the exporting country plays no role in determining its proneness to export.
As to the coefficient on the importer’s GDP per capita,
it is small and only significantly different from zero at a
95 percent confidence level: a twofold increase in GDP
per capita would boost exports by a mere 10 percent.
This may be attributed to the boom in trade from, and
among, emerging nations, which weakens the link
between economic wealth and propensity to trade.
Remoteness has a significant and positive impact on
bilateral trade for the exporter and even more so for the
importer.This suggests that two countries far away from
the major economic centers but close to each other —
think of Australia and New Zealand, for instance—will
trade relatively more with each other, all else being
equal. Finally, the coefficients on the dummies bear the
expected signs, with the exception of colonial ties, whose
elasticity is negative.Yet for the latter coefficient, as well
as for those on common currency, common language,
and uniqueness of country, we cannot reject with any
reasonable level of confidence the hypothesis that these
characteristics play no role in explaining trade patterns.
Being landlocked, however, does have a sizeable shrinking effect on bilateral trade.When at least one of the
two countries is enclosed, bilateral trade is reduced by
some 20 percent, all else being equal. Finally, contiguity
has just the opposite effect: sharing a border increases
trade by one third.

Conclusion
Using an augmented gravity model and Poisson quasimaximum likelihood estimation technique, we find that
the Enabling Trade Index (ETI) contributes to explaining

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 35

Appendix B: Testing the 2009 Enabling Trade Index using an augmented gravity model (cont’d.)
trade flow patterns.The elasticity of bilateral trade, measured by export volumes, with respect to the ETI score
is a high 1.7 for the exporting country and 2.3 for the
importing country.This study provides further evidence
that, beyond market access, the other dimensions captured
by the ETI—border administration, infrastructure, and
business environment—matter a great deal in determining
a country’s trade performance.

Santos Silva, J. M. C. and S. Tenreyro. 2006. “The Log of Gravity.”
Review of Economics and Statistics 88 (4): 641–58.
Tinbergen, J. 1962. Shaping the World Economy: Suggestions for an
International Economic Policy. New York: The Twentieth Century
Fund.
Wooldridge, J. M. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and
Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
———. 2003. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Second
edition. Mason, OH: South-Western.

1.1: Enabling Trade in the Global Crisis

Part 1.r2

Notes
1 A first attempt to test the ETI using a gravity model was presented in The Global Enabling Trade Report 2008. See Lawrence et al.
2008.
2 For some milestones in the history of the gravity model of trade,
see Tinbergen 1962; Andersen 1979; and Andersen and Van
Wincoop 2003.
3 Indeed, in our sample of 14,520 trading relationships, there are
3,898 cases where exports from i to j are reported as missing or
zero, while there are “only” 3,322 zeros or missing values reported
for imports of i from j. Furthermore, among the 8,921 observations for which both exports and imports are greater than zero,
63 percent have imports flows greater than exports flows.
4 For an introduction to pseudo-maximum likelihood models and
Poisson regression models, see Wooldridge 2003. For a more
advanced discussion, see Wooldridge 2002.
5 Santos Silva and Tenreyro 2006.
6 Heteroskedasticity is present whenever the variance of the term
term ⑀ij is conditional on the values of the explanatory variables,
and therefore not constant (see Wooldridge 2003, Chapter 8). If
not properly dealt with, heteroskedasticity can lead to misinterpretations of the results. It is widely admitted that trade data do
exhibit heteroskedasticity, even though many studies fail to
address this issue. Indeed a White test confirms the presence of
heteroskedasticity in our sample.
7 This is why, with the Poisson method, exports are expressed
in level, not in log. The multiplicative form can easily be derived
from Equation (1) by exponentiation: EXPij = exp(X␤)␩ij, where X␤
refers to the right hand-side of Equation (1) without the error term
⑀ij, of which ␩ij is a transformation.
8 The model was also estimated using alternative techniques, including Heckman, ordinary least squares, and tobit. These methods
yield results that all confirm the strong trade-enabling effect of
the factors included in the ETI. The effect tends to be even bigger
than with the more conservative Poisson estimates, in line with
Santos Silva and Tenreyro (2006)’s estimates. In the case of
Heckman, for instance, the elasticities of the ETI scores are twice
as big as the Poisson estimates. Results are available from the
authors upon request.
9 One must add a note of caution. In this empirical exercise, we
have not taken into account the possible endogeneity of the ETI
components with respect to trade. For instance, it is fair to
assume that more trade is likely to improve customs procedures,
in which case the causation is reversed.

References
Anderson, J. E. 1979. “A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity
Equation.” American Economic Review 69 (1): 106–16.
Anderson, J. E. and E. Van Wincoop. 2003. “Gravity with Gravitas: A
Solution to the Border Puzzle.” American Economic Review 93
(1): 170–92.
Lawrence, R. Z., J. Blanke, J., M. Drzeniek Hanouz, T. Geiger, and Q.
He. 2008. “The Enabling Trade Index: Assessing the Factors
Impeding International Trade.” The Global Enabling Trade Report
2008. Geneva: World Economic Forum. 3–33.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

35

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 36

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 37

CHAPTER 1.2

Finance for Trade: Efforts to
Restart the Engine
MARC AUBOIN, World Trade Organization (WTO)

Some 80 to 90 percent of world trade relies on some
form of trade finance. Since the first half of 2008, there
has been evidence of tightening market conditions for
trade finance. As expected by market participants, the
situation worsened in the second half of the year, and even
further in the first quarter of 2009.According to expectations revealed in market-based surveys, there is little doubt
that the trade finance market will continue to experience
difficulties throughout 2009.This situation is likely to
contribute to deepening the global economic malaise.
Although public-backed institutions have responded
rapidly to the situation over the course of 2008, this has
apparently not been enough to bridge the gap between
supply and demand of trade finance worldwide.This is
why the G-20 adopted a wider package for injecting
some US$250 billion in support of trade finance.1

Why does trade finance matter?
Part of the reason for the collapse of world trade concerns
problems with trade credit financing.The global market
for trade finance (credit and insurance) is estimated at
between US$10 and US$12 trillion—that is, roughly 67
to 80 percent of 2008 trade flows that are valued at
US$15 trillion.The World Bank estimates that 85 to 90
percent of the fall in world trade since the second half
of 2008 is due to falling international demand, and the
rest—10 to 15 percent—is attributable to a fall in the
supply of trade finance.This chapter lays out some
recent developments and explains decisions made at the
G-20 London Summit regarding what is potentially one
of the main sources of contagion of the financial crisis
from a trade perspective—the supply of trade finance.
The potential damage to the real economy from
shrinking trade finance is enormous. International supply
chain arrangements have globalized not only production,
but also trade finance. Sophisticated supply chain financing
operations—including those for small- and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs)—place a high level of trust
and confidence in global suppliers, relying on their
delivery of their share of value-added and on their
financial ability to produce and export supplies in a
timely manner. Any disruption in the ability of the
financial sector to provide working capital or preshipment export finance, to issue or endorse letters of
credit, or to deliver export credit insurance is likely to
create a gap in complex outward-processing assembly
operations.This can lead to a contraction in trade and output, and is particularly worrisome for the sustainability
of global supply chain operations.

This chapter does not necessarily reflect the views of the WTO. The
opinions and possible errors contained in it remain that of the author.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.2: Finance for Trade: Efforts to Restart the Engine

Part 1.r2

37

1.2: Finance for Trade: Efforts to Restart the Engine

Part 1.r2

38

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 38

The World Trade Organization’s involvement in trade
finance issues
The institutional case for the World Trade Organization
(WTO) to be concerned about the scarcity of trade
finance during periods of crisis is relatively clear. In
situations of extreme financial crises, such as those
experienced by emerging economies in the 1990s, the
credit crunch reduced access to trade finance—which
was already the short-term segment of the market—
and hence reduced trade, which would usually be the
prime vector of balance of payments’ recovery.The
credit crunch also affected some countries during the
Asian financial crisis in 1997 to the point of bringing
the affected economies to a halt. In the immediate aftermath of the Asian crisis, a large amount of outstanding
credit lines for trade had to be rescheduled by creditors
and debtors to re-ignite trade flows—and hence the
economy—as the two are inextricably linked. Under the
umbrella of the Marrakech Mandate on Coherence, in
2003 the heads of the WTO, the International Monetary
Fund (IMF), and the World Bank convened an expert
group of trade finance practitioners to examine what
went wrong in the trade finance market and to prepare
contingencies.The conclusions of the experts were
summarized in two reports.2
The economic case for the involvement of international organizations, in particular the WTO, has been
discussed.3 The main arguments are based on the idea
that trade finance is, to a large extent, a very secure,
short-term, self-liquidating form of finance. Even in
some of the most acute periods of financial crises (1825,
1930), international credit lines have never been cut off.
For centuries, the expansion of trade has depended on
reliable and cost-effective sources of finance backed by
a deep, global secondary market of fluid and secured
financing instruments and a wide range of credit
insurance products, provided by private- and publicsector institutions (including national export credit
agencies, regional development banks, and the World
Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation, or
IFC).Trade finance normally offers a high degree of
security to the trade transaction and its payment. Such
prime, secure corporate lending normally carries little
risk, and hence carries only a small fee—typically this is
a few basis points over the London Inter-Bank Offered
Rate (LIBOR) for a prime borrower.
However, since the Asian crisis, the trade finance
market has not been totally immune from general
reassessments of risk, sharp squeezes in overall market
liquidity, or herd behavior as demonstrated by runs
on currencies or repatriation of foreign assets. Such
reactions might happen again in this current turmoil.
Commercial risk in trade finance normally stems from
the risk of non-payment by the counterparty to the
trade operation (either the client company or its bank).
The perception of this risk obviously has changed with
exchange rate fluctuations, the rise in political risk,

and bank failures, all of which may undermine the profitability of trade. Such rapid change in risk perception
has happened abruptly—for example, through the Fall
of 2008—with respect to certain Eastern European
countries. At the present moment, many lenders have
adopted a wait-and-see attitude triggered by doubts
about the creditworthiness of banks in a number of
regions in the world, including developing countries, as
well as by the increase in the balance of payments risk.
What aggravates the situation is that the secondary
market has also dried up. Just as lending seems to be
directly affected by the tight liquidity situation worldwide, the re-insurance market has suffered from the difficulties faced by American International Group, Inc.
(AIG) and Lloyds.
Of course, it can be argued that such exogenous
factors as liquidity squeeze, exchange rate fluctuations,
and other components impacting risk are not specific to
trade finance. Any un-hedged cross-border flow would
most likely be affected by these elements. Likewise, the
supply of credit would be affected by the greater scarcity
of liquidity available to some banks in the inter-bank
market.Yet, since trade finance has to compete for an
equal or reduced amount of liquidity like any other
segment of the credit market, the price of transactions
has increased sharply under the combined effects of
scarce liquidity to back up loans and a re-assessment
of customer and country risks. Spreads on 90-day letters
of credit have gone through the roof over the course of
2008 (rising from 10–16 basis points to 250–500 basis
points on a normal basis for letters of credit issued by
emerging and developing economies).
It is hard to believe that the safest and most selfliquidating form of finance, with strong receivables and
marketable collaterals, could see its price increase by a
factor of 10 to 50 even when it is under severe stress.
Indeed, this segment of the credit market has been by
far the most resilient since the sub-prime crisis began
in mid 2007, before signs of market gaps at a global
scale appeared in the Fall of 2008, well after they
emerged in other segments of the credit market.This
strong resilience can be partially attributed to facilitation
devices developed by public-backed regional or multilateral financial institutions after the Asian financial crisis.
Trade finance facilitation programs that provide for risk
mitigation between banks issuing and those receiving
trade finance instruments have been developed into a
worldwide network, in which the IFC, the European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD),
the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and the InterAmerican Development Bank (IADB) participate.
Institutions such as the Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC) Fund, the Islamic
Development Bank, and the African Development
Bank have also developed or are developing similar
instruments. In addition, national export credit agencies
have expanded short-term trade finance operations and

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 39

added considerable liquidity to the markets in recent
years, according to Berne Union statistics. Both types
of institutions have hence recently developed a unique
savoir-faire and are potentially ready to add further
liquidity and expand their risk mitigation capacity
should the need arise.

The current situation
Despite the relatively strong resilience of the trade
finance markets, the global liquidity situation—along
with a general re-assessment of counterparty risk and
an expected increase in payment defaults on trade
operations—was a major constraint in 2008 for the
largest suppliers of trade finance.The market gap initially
appeared on Wall Street and in London, as US- and
UK-based global banks—particularly those with deteriorated balance sheets—could not off-load or refinance
their excess exposure in trade credits on the secondary
market.The situation spread to developing countries’
markets in the second part of 2008. As a result, some
banks were unable to meet the demand from their
customers for new trade operations, leaving a market
gap estimated at around US$25 billion in November
2008 out of the global market for trade finance estimated
at some US$10–12 trillion a year. Some very large banks
used to roll over up to US$20 billion per month into
the secondary market; this amount is down to US$200
million or less right now because there is no counterparty. Demand for trade credit is far from being satisfied,
and, according to market specialists, the rise in prices for
opening letters of credit by far outweighs the normal
reassessment of risk. More disturbing is the fact that
large banks have reported on several occasions that the
lack of financing capacity has made them unable to
finance trade operations. It has, however, been argued by
relatively profitable banks that the situation—particularly
in the secondary market—has softened recently,
although not for everyone.
In the course of 2008, the liquidity problem has
spread to other developing countries’ money markets,
with the poorer countries in Asia, Latin America, and
Africa being particularly affected.This adds to the problems faced by local banks in such developing countries
in normal circumstances: the relative lack of depth of
money markets, the lack of capacity to handle large volumes of trade credit, and the lack of reliable information
on the creditworthiness of customers, to name only a
few specific issues confronting these banks. In periods
of crisis, such as the one we are in now, these issues lead
to difficulties in finding partners in developed countries
to accept the counterparty risk.
According to the joint IMF-Bankers’ Association
for Finance and Trade (BAFT) survey,4 flows of trade
finance from developing countries’ banks seem to have
fallen by some 6 percent or more year-on-year (from
the end of the 3rd quarter 2007 through the end of the

3rd quarter 2008).This is more than the reduction in
trade flows from and to developing countries during
the same period, implying that the lack of trade finance
is indeed an issue for these countries. In late 2008, it
was expected that trade finance flows for developingcountry banks would fall by a further 10 percent in
2009.5 If such numbers were to be confirmed (at least
developing-country banks seem to agree with this
estimate, according to the survey), this would mean that
the market gap could be well over the US$25 billion
estimate mentioned above—higher even than US$100
billion, up to US$300 billion. Such scarcity of trade
finance is very likely to accelerate the slowdown of
world trade and output.
Ahead of the G-20 Summit in London, the IMF
and BAFT provided an update of their survey, which
indicated that the decrease in the value of trade finance
accelerated between October 2008 and January 2009 in
almost all regions.While more than 70 percent of the
respondents attributed this further decline to the fall in
demand for trade activities, six in ten respondents attributed it to restrained credit availability, thereby pointing to
the increased difficulties of banks in supplying trade
credit—an escalation caused by the general liquidity
squeeze and the amplified risk aversion to finance crossborder trade operations.6 Spreads (prices) on the opening up of letters of credit were up, from 10 to 15 basis
points above LIBOR up to 300 basis points in some
emerging economies. Some banks even reported 600
basis points for particular destinations.
Results from a survey undertaken by the
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) broadly
confirmed the conclusions drawn by the IMF-BAFT
analysis, albeit relying on a wider panel of banks and
countries (122 banks in 59 countries).7 The results of
the ICC survey were also released for the WTO Expert
Group of March 18, 2009, and further updated before
the G-20 Summit in London. It is obvious that trade
decreased as a result of both the recession and tight
credit conditions. About half of the banks surveyed
had confirmed a decrease both in volume and value of
letters of credit, and in volume and value of aggregate
transactions—a trend that was particularly clear when
comparing data from the 4th quarter of 2007 and data
from the 4th quarter of 2008.This was especially true
for developed countries’ markets (and even more so for
the least-developed countries), with large-scale financing
projects being deferred or having difficulty obtaining
credit.8 Apart from a reduction in the demand for trade,
the main reasons provided by banks for the decrease in
credit lines and increase in spreads were the application
of more stringent credit criteria, capital allocation
restrictions, and reduced inter-bank lending.9 The ICC
also pointed out that intense scrutiny of underlying
guarantees by some banks led to higher rates of rejection
of letters of credit. Prospects for trade finance in 2009

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.2: Finance for Trade: Efforts to Restart the Engine

Part 1.r2

39

1.2: Finance for Trade: Efforts to Restart the Engine

Part 1.r2

40

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 40

were negative, with the general view that “tight credit
conditions may further reduce access to trade finance.”10

Statistical difficulties
Why is the international community relying on surveys
and not on a comprehensive set of international statistics
for trade finance? Until 2004, a series of trade finance
statistics was derived from balance of payments statistics
and Bank for International Settlements (BIS) banking
statistics, collected with the combined efforts of four
international agencies: the IMF, the World Bank, BIS, and
the OECD. Apparently, the cost-to-quality ratio of these
statistics led the agencies to discontinue this effort. At
present, the only available and reliable source of statistics
concerning trade finance comes from the Berne Union
database, which provides data on the amount of business
of export credit agencies (mainly trade credit insurance).
Survey-based data on banks’ activities provide great
value at the moment, but they are only of limited use
for regular reporting.The reasons include the very large
number of transactions carried out by banks, the variability of trade finance instruments used by banks over
time, and, more importantly, the difficulty in obtaining
commercially sensitive data from the largest banks.
The only way to obtain comprehensive information
on an ongoing basis would be through the balance of
payments. Here, confidentiality is less of an issue because
data are collected on an aggregate basis and follow the
resident-nonresident criterion of the balance of payments. Although short-term trade credit should be captured under the IMF’s fifth Balance of Payments Manual,11
it has always proven difficult to collect the information
on a global basis because of the very high costs involved.
Even the richest countries find it difficult, with the highest
level of reporting, to guarantee a high level of accuracy
in the reporting on very short term capital movements
(in the form of short-term trade credit) that may cross
the resident-nonresident border several times a year.

Supply and demand during financial crises:
A mismatch
As indicated above, as long as overall flows are not subject
to comprehensive statistical compilation but only to
measurement by surveys, we are not able to appropriately
gauge changes in trade finance flows. However, the
overall increase in spreads requested for opening letters
of credit is pointing to a shortage in supply despite the
reduced demand that has resulted from the overall fall in
trade transactions. Disagreement persists as to the causes
of the shortage of trade finance.While the public sector
in general maintains that trade finance gaps in extreme
circumstances are a result of market failure, the private
sector traditionally argues that these gaps result from the
cost of (new) rules—in the current case, the implementation of the Basel II Accord.These arguments have

been developed in the WTO, and to some extent can be
applied to the current circumstances.12
The market failure argument rests on the inability
of private-sector operators to avoid herd behavior, in
particular when credit risk and country risk are being
confounded (for example, in cases of rumor of sovereign
default). Also, non-cooperative games are played by
global suppliers, with the best-run institutions refusing
to refinance on the secondary market letters of credit
from banks in a less favorable liquidity situation.
On the regulatory side, commercial bankers have
long complained about the implementation of Basel II
rules, which are regarded as having a pro-cyclical effect
on the supply of credit.When market conditions tighten,
capital requirements for trade finance instruments tend
to increase more than proportionally to the risk when the
counterparty is in a developing country. Both Western
banks and developing countries have recently been complaining that ratings from international rating agencies
maintain a bias against developing countries’ risk.
Several developing countries have made that point
in the WTO Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance,
among other places.13 They argue that they neither have
been involved in the elaboration of recommendations
of Basel II rules by the Basel Committee on Banking
Supervision, nor have they any control over ratings by
international rating agencies. Before and during the
G-20 Summit in London, it was agreed that all G-20
countries would become members of the Financial
Stability Forum and its components, including the Basel
Committee on Banking Supervision and various other
coordinating bodies on financial regulation.They would
thus be able to participate in the review of Basel II rules.

Recommendations by business associations
In the context of the current financial crisis, BAFT,
the ICC, and the apex body of industry federations
BUSINESSEUROPE, as well as individual commercial
banks have been making recommendations to the G-20
Summit in London in the following areas:
1. Reviewing Basel II rules. Results from a
survey conducted by the ICC United Kingdom
in parallel with the ICC Global Survey (March
2009) indicate that the implementation of the
Basel II framework has eroded the incentive of
banks to lend short term for trade because capital weightings do not fully reflect the low risk
level and the short-term character of the activity.
In a risk-weighted asset system, increases in
minimum capital requirements had particularly
adverse consequences on trade lending to SMEs
and counterparties in developing countries.
2. Creating a ring-fenced liquidity pool for
trade finance. The general proposal was to

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 41

design a small and targeted liquidity fund run
by international financial institutions and useful
for smaller segments of the market or for new
countries, in particular those most likely to be
hit by the contraction of trade credit supply.
3. More co-sharing of risk with public
sector–backed institutions. The idea would
be to encourage co-financing among the various
providers of trade finance. Public-sector actors,
such as export credit agencies (ECAs) and
regional development banks, should be mobilized to shoulder some of the private-sector risk.

Efforts by public and private players to boost the
supply of trade finance at the end of 2008
One clear lesson from the Asian financial crisis is that in
periods prone to lack of trust and transparency as well as
herd behavior, all actors—including private banks,14
ECAs, and regional development banks—should pool
their resources to the extent this is practicable.15
Cooperation among the various players is also important
because of an absence of a comprehensive, continuous
dataset on trade finance flows.This means that the main
channel for making a reasonable assessment of the
market situation is via the collection of informed views
and surveys from various institutions.This has been a
key aspect of the activities of the WTO Expert Group
chaired by the Director General of the WTO, in particular after the November 12, 2008, meeting.
The response of public sector–backed institutions
since the fall of 2008 has been more than positive—
actually of a magnitude unseen in recent history.
Capacities in three types of activities were enhanced
significantly:
• All regional development banks and the IFC have,
on average, doubled their capacity under trade
facilitation programs between November 2008
and the G-20 meeting. Further enhancements of
these programs were agreed at the G-20 meeting, in
particular the establishment by the IFC of a liquidity
pool allowing co-financing operations with banks
in developing countries, which would likely have a
high leverage and multiplier effect on trade.
• Export credit agencies have also stepped in with
programs for the short-term lending of working
capital and credit guarantees aimed at SMEs. For
certain countries (e.g., Germany and Japan), the
commitment is very large. In other cases, very large
lines of credit have been granted to secure supplies
with key trading partners (e.g., the United States
with Korea and China); while in some countries,
cooperation has developed to support regional
trade, in particular supply chain operations.To this

effect, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) summit announced the establishment of an
Asia-Pacific Trade Insurance Network to facilitate
intra- and extra-regional flows and investment
through reinsurance cooperation among export
credit agencies in the region. Japan’s Nippon Export
and Investment Insurance (NEXI) is establishing
itself as the leader and main underwriter of this
collective re-insurance system.
• One problem often underestimated in developing
countries is the difficulty that banks and importers
have in finding foreign exchange.This can occur
in cases where the main currency of transactions
(say, the euro or the US dollar) has become scarce
because of the depreciation of the local currency, or
because of the fall in receipts from remittances and
exports. Central banks with large foreign exchange
reserves have been able to supply foreign currency
to local banks and importers generally through
repurchase agreements. Since October 2008, Brazil’s
central bank has provided US$10 billion to the
local market.The Korean central bank has pledged
US$10 billion of its foreign exchange reserves to
do likewise.The central banks of Argentina, India,
Indonesia, and South Africa are also engaged in
similar operations. However, many developing
countries lack foreign exchange reserves and are
unfortunately unable to use similar strategies.

Why has the market not yet re-balanced itself?
The current effort aimed at mobilizing public-sector
institutions to shoulder some of the risk carried by
private-sector banks is, to a certain extent, a race against
time. Although additional financing capacity is provided
by public institutions, it seems that the private sector’s
ability to respond to importers’ and exporters’ demand
for finance has been deteriorating even faster, particularly
in developing countries in the last quarter of 2008 and
the first of 2009. Also BAFT members (commercial
banks) have complained that measures announced by
ECAs and regional development banks are hard to track,
which means that there is a lack of information on who
is providing what and under which conditions. Filling this
information gap was of one of the highest priorities of
the WTO Expert Group Meeting on March 18, 2009.16
In this context, it is important that implementation
and design of ECA programs are carried out in a cooperative manner.The issue of financing both exports
and imports has also been raised by bankers and traders,
as the survival of supply chains partly depends on the
financing of both sides. Perhaps the Asian example of
support by the ECA for both intra- and extra-regional
trade by working as a network should be examined by
other regions.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.2: Finance for Trade: Efforts to Restart the Engine

Part 1.r2

41

1.2: Finance for Trade: Efforts to Restart the Engine

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 42

As a result of the above, policymakers may find that
there is no quick fix to the trade finance problem, but
instead there is a need for quicker and more sequenced
and cooperative implementation of a series of measures
that are already underway. Hence, immediate recommendations are to:
1. accelerate the implementation programs of the
IFC and regional development banks to enhance
trade finance facilitation, which should open a
liquidity window for co-financing;
2. fill the information gap as to what ECAs are
doing by circulating a list of new programs
and open quick and user-friendly liquidity and
re-insurance windows for both exporters and
importers;
3. encourage coordinated actions by ECAs
(possibly regionally);
4. encourage liquidity pools, thus allowing
rapid co-financing among banks, ECAs, and
international financial institutions (this is an
IFC proposal); and

42

5. review the Basel II regulations to acknowledge
the self-liquidating character of trade finance.
In the meantime, there should be no doubt that
the trade finance market will experience difficult times
throughout the first half of 2009, and things might get
worse before they get better. But efforts—such as the
WTO’s advocacy and mobilization work—will continue
to find durable solutions to what is yet another source
of economic contraction.17

The G-20 Summit in London: A trade finance package
The above-mentioned recommendations were to a large
extend reflected in the trade finance package of the
G-20 Summit’s statement, on April 2, 2009. Under the
heading “Resisting protectionism and promoting global
trade and investment,” the last two bullets points of
paragraph 22 state:

We will take, at the same time, whatever steps
we can promote to facilitate trade and investment, and we will ensure availability of at least
$250 billion over the next two years to support
trade finance through our export credit and investment agencies and through the MDBs
(multilateral development banks).

We ask our regulators to make use of available
flexibility in capital requirements for trade finance.

The trade finance package responds largely to the
criteria developed by the WTO Expert Group on Trade
Finance: strengthened public-private sector partnerships
in the context of existing trade finance facilitation programs, which will be further enhanced, not only on
credit insurance, but also by opening and expanding liquidity windows of regional development banks to allow
greater co-lending with banks.The IFC is showing the
way by reinforcing its global trade finance facility through
the introduction of a liquidity pool, co-financing, on a
40–60 percent co-lending agreement with commercial
banks, up to US$50 billion of trade transactions in the
next two years (Standard Chartered Bank and Standard
Bank have already signed off on credit lines with several
hundreds of millions of dollars for financing Africa’s
trade).While jump-starting the IFC’s Global Trade
Finance Liquidity Fund with US$5 billion in IFC funds
(raised by both the IFC and several individual donors),
to be matched by US$7.5 billion in commercial banks
funding according to the co-lending formula, the IFC
Fund could further increase over time by attracting
more donors and hence more funding by banks.The
objective of doubling the IFC’s and donor funding over
time, from US$5 to US$10 billion is feasible, hence
doubling the Fund’s total capacity from US$12.5 billion
to US$25 billion, which means financing over than
US$50 billion in trade transactions.
Another pillar in the package is the strengthening
of existing capacities of ECAs in OECD countries,
allowing them to offer more finance and a wider
spectrum of instruments. In particular, ECAs would be
encouraged to provide more direct funding in the short
run (in the form of working capital lending and other
types of short-term direct support), which would be
matched by a higher capacity on the insurance side, also
in the short term.
Finally, several institutions—either international
financial institutions, ECAs, or other government agencies
—will try to revive the secondary market by intervening
directly.
All in all, the logic of acting by way of increasing
co-financing and co-risk mitigation has been followed
by many heads of state and governments.The logic
implies more liquidity and re-insurance available from
ECAs and international financial institutions. It is very
likely that this package will be implemented over two
years.Therefore some of the early comments by the press
and academics about the lack of new funding should be
put into a longer time perspective, bearing in mind that
most of such a package has been designed with the
objective of raising additional, not re-hashed, funds.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 43

Notes
1 The G-20 is made up of the finance ministers and central bank
governors of 19 countries plus the European Union. The countries
are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany,
India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russian Federation, Saudi
Arabia, South Africa, Korea, Rep., Turkey, the United Kingdom,
and the United States. See http://www.g20.org/
about_what_is_g20.aspx for further information.
2 IMF 2003; Auboin and Meier-Ewert 2003.
3 Auboin and Meier-Ewert 2003; Auboin 2004.
4 Undertaken in the context of the WTO Expert Group Meeting on
November 12, 2008, and presented at the Expert Group Meeting
on March 18, 2009. See in particular WTO Document
WT/WGTDF/W/44, available at http://www.wto.org.
5 IMF 2009.

———. 2003. Trade Finance in Financial Crises: An Assessment of Key
Issues. IMF Board Paper, Prepared by Policy Development and
Review Department in consultation with International Capital
Markets and Monetary and Financial Systems Departments.
Available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/pdr/cr/2003/
eng/120903.pdf.
———. 2009. Survey of Private Sector Trade Credit Developments.
Available at http://www.imf.org/external.
IMF and BAFT (International Monetary Fund and Bankers’ Association
for Finance and Trade). Survey Among Banks Assessing Current
Trade Finance Environment. Available at http://www.baft.org.
WTO. WTO Document WT/WGTDF/W/39. Available at
http://www.wto.org.
———. WTO Document WT/WGTDF/W/44. Available at
http://www.wto.org.

1.2: Finance for Trade: Efforts to Restart the Engine

Part 1.r2

6 IMF and BAFT 2009.
7 See in particular ICC Banking Commission 2009a, 2009b.
8 SWIFT data pointed to a deterioration particularly visible in the
Asian Pacific area.
9 Some 40 percent of the respondent banks indicated that spreads
had increased significantly over the past year, and were not
expected to fall anytime soon.
10 ICC 2009c.
11 IMF 1993.
12 Auboin and Meier-Ewert 2003, p. 6; for some alleged effects of
Basel II rules on trade finance, see ICC Surveys 2009a, 2009b.
13 See in particular WTO Document WT/WGTDF/W/39.
14 Private banks account for some 80 percent of the trade finance
market by way of lending.
15 See IMF 2003.
16 See WTO Document WT/WGTDF/W/44.
17 Such recommendations are drawn from Auboin 2009.

References
Auboin, M. 2004. “The Trade, Debt and Finance Nexus: At the CrossRoads of Micro- and Macroeconomics.” WTO Discussion Paper 6.
Geneva: WTO. Available at
http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/discussion_papers6_e
.pdf.
———. 2009. “Restoring Trade Finance.” Published in the ebook The
Collapse of Global Trade, Murky Protectionism, and the Crisis:
Recommendations for the G20. Available at http://www.voxeu.org.
Auboin, M. and M. Meier-Ewert. 2003. “Improving the Availability of
Trade Finance During Financial Crises.” WTO Discussion Paper 2.
Geneva: WTO. Available at http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/
booksp_e/discussion_papers2_e.pdf.
ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) Banking Commission. 2009a.
An ICC Global Survey for the WTO Group of Experts Meeting on
March 18. ICC Document 470-1118 WJ 1/ March 09. Available at
http://www.iccwbo.org.
———. 2009b. Rethinking Trade Finance 2009. ICC Global Survey sponsored by the Asian Development Bank, Coastline Solutions, the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the InterAmerican Development Bank, the International Financial
Corporation, the International Financial Services Association, and
SWIFT. ICC Document 470 -1120 WJ 31 March 09. Available at
http://www.iccwbo.org.
———. 2009c. “Trade Volume and Value Decline Sharply as a Result of
Crisis.” Policy and Business Practices: Banking Technique &
Practice. March 23. Paris. Available at http://www.iccwbo.org/policy/banking/icccidii/index.html.
IMF (International Monetary Fund). 1993. Balance of Payments Manual.
Washington, DC: IMF.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

43

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 44

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 45

CHAPTER 1.3

Managing Borders in the 21st
Century
KUNIO MIKURIYA, World Customs Organization (WCO)

Border control authorities around the world all face the
same dilemma—increasing volumes of people and goods
notwithstanding—trade flows are slowing during the
current global economic downturn, there is no corresponding increase in resources, and traders and travelers
have greater expectations for speedier processing and
clearance times. Governments and society also expect
border authorities to rigorously apply the law in order
to protect their interests and the health and safety of
their citizens, and to ensure national security.
For customs administrations, this means balancing
trade facilitation on the one hand with trade security on
the other—ensuring that legitimate goods pass through
customs without unnecessary hindrances while protecting the international trade supply chain from threats
posed by organized crime, petty smugglers, commercial
fraudsters, terrorists, and even goods that could endanger
society.
Today, it is recognized that clearance processes by
customs and other agencies are among the most important and problematic links in the global supply chain.
High costs and administrative difficulties associated with
outdated and excessively bureaucratic border clearance
processes are now cited as more serious barriers to trade
than tariffs. Inefficient border processing systems, procedures, and infrastructure result in high transaction costs;
cause long delays in the clearance of imports, exports, and
transit goods; and present significant opportunities for
administrative corruption. All these aspects are reflected
in the border administration component of the Enabling
Trade Index, discussed in Chapter 1.1 of this Report.
With the current financial and economic turmoil
in the world, it is now more necessary than ever for
countries to do all they can to encourage trade flows and
inward investment while ensuring that effective enforcement mechanisms are in place at borders to prevent any
disruptive, toxic, or illicit trade from entering national
territory. Developing countries are particularly vulnerable,
as they feel the credit crunch more severely because of
their weaker economic infrastructure. Indeed, they have
very real fears about revenue security and about how
to maintain revenue collections as the economic crisis
deepens.
Just as the global financial crisis and its economic
impact is coloring world thinking, it is also coloring the
way customs does its business now and will do it in the
future, especially the way borders are managed by customs
and other border agencies. Smart border management,
in cooperation with all trade stakeholders, is now an
imperative if the demands of a dynamic global trading
system are to be met.

Customs takes a proactive stance
The World Customs Organization (WCO) has, of
course, been monitoring global trade developments,
patterns, and trends since its inception. It has produced
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.3: Managing Borders in the 21st Century

Part 1.r2

45

1.3: Managing Borders in the 21st Century

Part 1.r2

46

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 46

instruments and tools, and launched initiatives and
programs, for its members—which now number 174—
that are designed to address problems being experienced
by customs administrations or to assist them to cope
more confidently with the challenges generated by the
evolving international trade environment.
Building on its mandate to ensure that customs
authorities implement best practices on a global basis,
the Council of the WCO—the organization’s highest
decision-making body—adopted its visionary “Customs
in the 21st Century” policy document in June 2008.
This strategic policy, which is aimed at enhancing
growth and development through trade facilitation and
border security, provides a platform and a framework for
future thinking both within the WCO and in customs
administrations. In fact, it essentially describes the key
elements of customs best practice in the future.
The strategy is made up of a cutting-edge list of
10 important building blocks for enhancing customs
operations globally.These building blocks are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

a globally networked customs;
better coordinated border management;
intelligence-driven risk management;
a customs-trade partnership;
implementation of modern working methods,
procedures, and techniques;
enabling technology and tools;
enabling powers;
a more professional, knowledge-based service
culture;
capacity building; and
integrity.

Clearly, enhancing border management and ensuring
that it is coordinated is seen as a critical step for the future.
This entails cooperation among a variety of government
border regulatory agencies.The key challenge is to create
an environment based upon trust that allows customs
and these agencies to work collaboratively at the border.
Within that overall concept, the international trade single
window using electronic data is an important enabler
that provides a technical means for collaboration to be
achieved.
To facilitate the work of customs at borders, over
time the WCO has developed several instruments and
tools, and introduced a number of programs and initiatives, that significantly enhance customs operations.This
body of WCO work is constantly being reviewed for
its efficacy; it plays a vital role in border management
and can contribute enormously to efforts aimed at
ensuring even better border management in the future
based on coordination, collaboration, cooperation, and
communication.

Facilitating cross-border trade
Customs administrations play a vital role in the growth
of international trade and in the development of the
global marketplace.The efficiency and effectiveness of
customs procedures can significantly influence and
advance economic competitiveness and social development.Trade and investment will flow toward efficient,
supportive, and facilitative locations. At the same time,
they will rapidly ebb away from locations perceived by
business as being bureaucratic, lacking in good governance,
short on transparency, and synonymous with high costs.
Systems and processes used by customs must not
be allowed to serve as a barrier to the growth of international trade, or even to be perceived as an obstacle.
Modern production and delivery systems, linked with the
dramatic potential of new forms of electronic commerce,
make swift and predictable customs clearance an important prerequisite for economic development.
The revised Kyoto Convention

The WCO revised Kyoto Convention (RKC) on the
simplification and harmonization of customs procedures
was adopted in June 1999 and entered into force on
February 3, 2006, after being revised to meet the new
dynamics of international trade and changing government expectations. As of June 2009, the RKC counts
59 contracting parties, with a number of others in the
pipeline. It is now regarded as the blueprint for modern
and efficient customs procedures in the 21st century
because it provides international commerce with the
predictability, efficiency, and security that the modern
trading environment requires.
Several key governing principles drive the RKC:
transparency and predictability of customs actions,
standardization and simplification of the goods declaration
and supporting documents, simplified procedures for
authorized persons, maximum use of information technology, minimum necessary customs control to ensure
compliance with regulations, use of risk management
and audit-based controls, coordinated interventions with
other border agencies, and a partnership with trade. It
promotes trade facilitation and effective controls
through its legal provisions that set out simple yet efficient procedures, and contains obligatory rules for its
application. Here it may be mentioned that the WTO
Trade Facilitation Negotiating Group has recognized the
RKC as a valuable source of reference.
Time Release Study

The WCO Time Release Study (TRS) is another critical
WCO tool for effective border management. One of
the methods used for the review of clearance procedures
is to measure the average time taken between the arrival
of goods and their ultimate release by customs. Using
the TRS facilitates the identification both of problem
areas and of potential corrective actions to increase
transparency and efficiency.The use of automation and

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 47

other sophisticated selectivity methods can allow customs
to improve compliance and at the same time improve
facilitation for the majority of low-risk goods.1
TRS methodology allows for the time measurement
of all processes in the clearance procedure, including the
time taken by other government agencies and other
players in the logistics chain.The time required to release
goods has also increasingly become the measure by which
the international trading community assesses the effectiveness of a customs administration.
Recommendations made as a result of a TRS often
provide the framework for targeted interventions aimed at
reducing trade costs by strengthening customs procedures,
streamlining other related procedures, establishing risk
assessment, and supporting the establishment of postclearance audit units.
This WCO tool could be used as a stimulus to start a
dialogue on border management issues among all parties
involved in international supply chain management and
lead to more coordinated border management.
Immediate Release Guidelines

The WCO Immediate Release Guidelines were approved
in March 2003 after being updated following the revision
of the 1974 Kyoto Convention and the development of
the WCO Data Model (see below), and were intended
to take on board the concerns of both customs and the
trade. Originally developed as a set of customs release/
clearance procedures in early 1990, the Guidelines are
aimed at expediting the clearance of large numbers of
small or negligible-value goods being carried by courier
and express mail services.
Along with the instruments that have been highlighted, the WCO has also developed other instruments that
equally facilitate trade and enhance border management.
These include the ATA and Istanbul Conventions regulating temporary admission,2 as well as the Harmonized
System Convention governing the classification of goods.3

Securing global trade
International trade is an essential driver for economic
prosperity, but the global trading system is vulnerable to
exploitation by transnational organized crime and even
terrorist networks.With this in mind, there is a need for
a WCO-endorsed strategy to secure the movement of
global trade in a way that does not impede but, on the
contrary, facilitates the movement of legitimate trade.4
SAFE Framework of Standards

The WCO SAFE Framework of Standards (SAFE
Framework) aims to establish standards that provide
supply chain security and facilitation to goods being
traded internationally. It enables integrated supply chain
management for all modes of transport and champions
the seamless movement of goods along secure trade supply
chains. Its four essential principles are: the commitment

to harmonize advance electronic cargo information
requirements on inbound, outbound, and transit shipments; the application of a consistent risk management
approach to address security threats; the preferred use
of non-intrusive detection equipment to effect customs
examinations of high-risk containers and cargo; and the
provision of benefits to businesses that meet minimum
supply chain security standards and best practices.
The SAFE Framework’s principles rest on two twin
pillars, namely, customs-to-customs network arrangements
and customs-to-business partnerships.This two-pillar
strategy has many advantages, as each pillar contains a set
of standards that have been consolidated to guarantee
ease of understanding and rapid global implementation.
In addition, the WCO is currently considering the
addition of a third pillar relating to cooperation between
customs and other government border agencies—the
customs-to-government pillar—in recognition of the
importance of and need for inter-agency collaboration
to encourage better and more secure coordinated border
management.
To date, 156 WCO members have indicated their
intention to implement the SAFE Framework, clearly
reflecting the importance attached to trade security by
the global customs community. In fact, the SAFE
Framework, which was adopted in 2005, has shifted the
attention of customs from traditional controls at import
to the entire trade supply chain. In this way, customs is
expected to act as a global network that assesses security
risks based on advance electronic information as early
as possible in the supply chain.This scheme requires
standardized cargo data elements based on the WCO
Data Model and consistent risk management to facilitate
customs-to-customs and customs-to-business cooperation.
It goes without saying that the customs-trade partnership is indispensable to the successful implementation
of the SAFE Framework and other WCO instruments
and tools. Not only does the Framework recommend a
number of facilitation benefits for businesses whose cargo
security arrangements are up to scratch, it also offers
compliant traders the possibility of being recognized as
authorized economic operators (AEOs)—one of the most
important benefits of which is the mutual recognition of
this status by other customs administrations.
With respect to mutual recognition, only a few
countries have concluded agreements to date,5 but others
are actively negotiating such agreements. Although there
are slight differences in focus to reflect each country’s
own priorities, nonetheless, it is important that AEO
programs are compatible and consistent with the standards
contained in the SAFE Framework.The WCO will
continue to encourage faster global recognition while
accepting that this may happen slowly but progressively
as more and more customs administrations conclude
agreements among one another.
Other WCO tools, such as the Global Information
and Intelligence Strategy (GIIS) and the Customs

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.3: Managing Borders in the 21st Century

Part 1.r2

47

1.3: Managing Borders in the 21st Century

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:39 PM

Page 48

Enforcement Network (CEN), also play key roles in
securing global trade.These initiatives are supported by
WCO instruments such as the Nairobi and Johannesburg
Conventions as well as the Model Bilateral Agreement,
which promote cooperation and mutual assistance
among customs authorities in all spheres.

Using technology for better border management
Information and documentation are key elements in
controlling international cross-border trade. In today’s
interconnected electronic environment, these controls
increasingly include advance transmission of data to
customs as well as customs-to-customs information
exchange in order to provide the necessary level of
security in addition to acceptable release times. In this
modern era, single-window systems aimed at providing
a coordinated means for governments to interact with
the international trade and transport industries for all
border regulatory data requirements are becoming the
norm. Using international standards is the key to effective and efficient exchange and sharing of information
among a diverse range of parties.
The WCO Data Model

48

The WCO Data Model has kept pace with these developments in technology and now incorporates wider
business and information needs. It provides standard and
harmonized sets of data and electronic messages to be
submitted by business to government to accomplish formalities for the arrival, departure, transit, and clearance
of goods, people, conveyances, and transport equipment
used in international cross-border trade. Intrinsic to the
Data Model, and the WCO revised Kyoto Convention as
well, is the principle that customs administrations should
request as few data as necessary to ensure compliance
with customs laws.
Use of the Data Model enables the various information systems of a customs service, its trading partners,
and other regulatory and border agencies to work together
in the most effective way possible. Its many benefits
include promoting safe and secure borders through the
establishment of a common platform for regulatory data
exchange that enables the early sharing of information;
facilitating customs-to-customs cooperation by enabling
the customs administrations to offer authorized economic operators end-to-end premium procedures, along
with simplified and integrated treatment of the total
transaction; contributing to the rapid release of goods;
eliminating redundant and repetitive data submitted by
the carrier and the importer; reducing the volume of
data required to be presented at time of release; lowering
compliance costs; and promoting greater customs cooperation and coordination.
In addition, the Data Model contributes to the
security and facilitation of the international trade supply
chain and is a key strategic element of the SAFE

Framework.The Data Model therefore provides for the
most efficient and effective supply chain management
possible.Version 3.0 of the Data Model, which is
expected to be released at the end of 2009, extends the
single-window capacity of the Model as more and more
governments view the single window for business as a
way to reduce repetition and as a crucial building block
to the future expansion of international trade.6
The Unique Consignment Reference

The WCO Unique Consignment Reference (UCR) or
unique identifier should be applied as soon as possible in
the trade transaction, preferably by the trader, and should
then form part of every party’s documents and exchanges
along the supply chain to the final destination. Supply
chains are complex and involve many parties, locations,
and exchanges of data. One means to better manage
such exchanges is to provide a unique numeric reference that is quoted in association with all documents
and processes for a given trade transaction.This is what
the UCR does.
Although the UCR was designed with customs
requirements in mind, its benefits can extend to other
government agencies as well as to trade and transport
logistics entities. In 2004, the WCO published its
recommendation and accompanying guidelines for the
UCR guided by the view that if complex systems such
as international trade single windows are to work effectively, a means to track or trace transactions such as that
provided by the UCR would be one essential ingredient.
This WCO tool, in combination with the WCO Data
Model, perfectly complements the movement toward
coordinated border management across the globe.

A single window for trade
The single-window concept and guidelines to its implementation were developed by the UN Centre for Trade
Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT) and
have been published as UN/CEFACT Recommendation
33.The WCO and its partners accept that a single-window
environment is a cross-border “intelligent facility” that
allows parties involved in trade and transport to lodge
standardized information, mainly in an electronic format,
via a single entry point to fulfill all import, export, and
transit-related regulatory requirements.
The establishment of a single-window environment
for border control procedures for conveyances, transport
equipment, goods, and crew is considered by customs
administrations to be the solution for the complex problems of border automation and information management
involving multiple cross-border regulatory agencies. In this
regard, the WCO recognizes that in order to establish a
single-window environment, the policy, legal, and
administrative framework should be examined before
attention turns to the complex technical issues.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 49

While there are several single-window initiatives
taking shape around the world, there are no clear standards or guidelines in this area. Customs is increasingly
being expected to participate in and take responsibility
for the implementation of a single-window environment. It is for this reason that the WCO, using the
UN/CEFACT Recommendation as a basis, produced
a document for its members entitled Single Window:
Implications for Customs Administrations. This document
describes the possible impact that developments around
a single-window environment have on the future of
customs’ business.To complement this document, the
WCO has also developed its Single Window Data
Harmonisation Guidelines to provide single-window
environment developers with tools that can be used to
achieve data harmonization and to develop internationally standardized datasets.
Additionally, the WCO has established a joint legal
task force with the UN Commission on International
Trade Law (UNCITRAL) to develop a comprehensive
legal guide to the legal implications of implementing
a single window and coordinated border management.
This guide will benefit both governments and the
private sector.

Coordinated border management
A coordinated border management (CBM) system has
two major features: a domestic border management system
that involves domestic coordination among agencies in
one country or a customs union, and an international
border management system that involves coordination
among many neighboring countries and trading partners.
The multiplicity of agencies at the border all requiring the same or similar information from a trader could
be a detriment to trade facilitation because compliance
costs soar as a result of the duplication involved in these
trade transactions. Domestic inter-agency coordination
is a first step in implementing a CBM system. Each
border agency needs to review its specific mission
requirements, procedures, processes, and required data
elements before comparing them with those of other
agencies in order to determine whether there are any
redundancies and to identify those aspects that contain
little value-added in terms of effective border control.
In some countries, this review has resulted in the
creation of a single border agency that is mandated to
carry out all border-related functions. In others, it has
resulted in the cross-training of inspectors so that one
inspector can carry out the primary functions of
several agencies and has to refer to another agency only
in cases of doubt or special circumstances. Countries
that follow this model will decide which of its border
agencies should take the lead—it could be customs, but
not necessarily. For example, if customs were the lead
agency performing functions on behalf of other agencies, there would be times when it would have to defer

to another agency for assistance or guidance.This crosstraining of officials leads to border enforcement by a
smaller number of highly trained officials.The use of
memoranda of understanding or special agreements
among various agencies has proven very useful in
reducing overlapping and redundant regulations that
were identified as a result of a review conducted within
the border agencies of a country.The WCO’s Model
Bilateral Agreement that can be customized to suit the
needs of contracting parties has come in handy in this
regard.
Given the current financial crisis, it is more imperative than ever for customs administrations to find
ways to use their limited resources in the most effective
manner possible. One method that has been used to
address the large cost of constructing border control
points is for neighboring countries to consider building
common facilities where both customs and other border
agencies work side by side. In this way, the legal and
policy issues of officers working in another country are
avoided and the cost of constructing border facilities is
reduced. Some administrations have found it practical to
provide a legal basis for customs officials in neighboring
countries to perform certain activities on their behalf.
This has led, for example, to one customs official performing the export checks to satisfy his country’s
requirements and then performing the import checks
of the importing country, resulting in the release of
goods for export or import in one series of checks.
Border agencies could also consider sharing the use
of extremely expensive non-intrusive examination or
inspection equipment or even detector dogs to help
reduce costs or large capital outlays.
National and international cooperation and communication also have an essential role to play in any
CBM system and should be viewed from multiple
perspectives: intra-service cooperation (within ministries
and agencies), inter-agency cooperation (between different border agencies), and international cooperation
(between neighboring states).The success of a CBM
system rests heavily on effective communication. In
order to ensure the operational effectiveness of border
agencies, systems must be in place to ensure that information of mutual benefit is shared and that relevant
information reaches the competent authorities rapidly.
Similarly, the creation of joint committees—whether
national or international—comprising representatives
from all border agencies or neighboring countries could
provide a venue for the discussion and resolution of
issues that affect CBM in addition to facilitating the
exchange of information and the coordination of joint
actions.
The adoption of international standards leads to
simplification and harmonization. In this regard, the WCO
has developed many standards, ranging from very technical ones relating to data contained in the WCO Data
Model to operational ones set out in the WCO revised

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.3: Managing Borders in the 21st Century

Part 1.r2

49

1.3: Managing Borders in the 21st Century

Part 1.r2

50

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 50

Kyoto Convention and the trade supply chain security
standards laid down in the SAFE Framework.The use of
international standards in the border environment adds
to the effectiveness of customs operations and to any
CBM system because they provide a predictable trading
environment and promote easier and better compliance
from traders.
It is equally necessary for the trade and border
officials to be fully aware of the legislation on which the
CBM system is based. Such legislation, including any
regulations, policies, and procedures of a non-confidential
nature, must be published and readily available to the
public. In this respect, it is recommended that countries
establish enquiry points where the public can obtain all
necessary information to facilitate compliance with all
border regulatory requirements.
In cases where neighboring countries decide to
establish juxtaposed offices under the terms of a bilateral
or other agreement, these offices should have the same
hours of service and the same designated competencies.
For example, it is not practical for one country to designate its office at a certain border location as competent
to handle exports of diamonds when the juxtaposed
office in the other country is not competent to process
imports of diamonds. Such juxtaposed offices can carry
out export and import checks in cooperation with one
another to ensure that controls and security issues are
fully addressed.
It is well understood that the provision of advance
electronic information is paramount to successful risk
management and, consequently, to effective CBM
systems. In its instruments, the WCO has reflected this
concept in the two areas most affecting customs—
advance submission by the carrier of cargo information
and advance submission by the airlines of passenger information.The WCO Integrated Supply Chain Management
Guidelines (ISCM) provides global standards on how this
information is to be submitted, while the Guidelines on
Advance Passenger Information (API) performs the same
function where travelers are concerned.7
In planning and implementing a CBM system, it is
imperative that the following critical issues are adequately
considered:
• The necessity for strong political support and
commitment to ensure the availability of adequate
resources, and to avoid, for example, inter-agency
problems and “turf-wars” when designing a new
system.
• The establishment of a multi-agency project team
that includes representatives from the private sector,
dedicated to implementing a CBM system, and
that can draw on the expertise of all participating
institutions.

• The development of a strategic plan, after having
undertaken a thorough review and comparison of
the operations of all border agencies that affect
its outcome; the plan will outline the interlinked
programs required for effective border control.
• The implementation of a sound legal framework
that clearly defines control procedures and the
division of tasks and responsibilities of the agencies
concerned, and that takes into account privacy
provisions; data protection laws associated with
border controls; the exchange of information
among various government authorities; the legal
relations at the border with adjoining countries;
cross-border identity management; and, if necessary,
the protection of employees working in foreign
countries.
• A review of all information and communication
technology issues, in particular the integration of
systems so that all agencies can access the same
databases and use this common information for
risk analysis and management purposes; subject
to data security, the CBM system should also be
accessible by commercial operators in order to
facilitate the speedy transfer of information.
• An infrastructure needs-assessment aimed at rationalizing the infrastructure for cost purposes by, for
example, co-locating agencies in the same building or
operating joint facilities with neighboring countries.
• The adherence to international standards as a means
of creating a predictable trading environment and
promoting enhanced compliance with border regulatory procedures, policies, and requirements.
• The undertaking of a robust inter-agency training
program to expose the expertise that exists among
the different agencies and broaden the knowledge
of officials about the role and responsibilities of
each agency.
• The promotion of a strong communication network
at the inter-agency level and between border agencies
and the private sector to enhance cooperation and
coordination, including the sharing of information
and intelligence.
Over time, through its own in-depth examination
into how to better manage trade at borders, the WCO
has determined that, for border agencies to collaborate
effectively and in a coordinated way, it is essential that
the following basic conditions be met: the computerization and use of electronic data; the maximum use of
e-commerce technologies; the use of commercial data
and systems; the use of data standards; the employment

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 51

of ICT security, authentication, and privacy; and the use
of a unique identifier.
These basic rules and procedures already appear in
the WCO SAFE Framework; although there they have
been tackled from a customs vantage point, they remain
equally applicable to any CBM environment.

Guide, a Model Code of Ethics and Conduct, an Integrity
Action Plan, and the Integrity Best Practice Resource
Centre.11 These tools are re-enforced by the WCO’s
determination to ensure that integrity remains a priority,
horizontal issue throughout the Organization and its
working bodies in line with international best practice.

Building capacity and strengthening integrity
The successful implementation of the wide range of
instruments and tools developed by the WCO depends
largely on their acceptance and application by WCO
members. Capacity to overcome disparities in implementation that may hamper the management of borders
effectively is addressed by the WCO through its capacitybuilding initiatives.The Columbus Programme is the
largest and most comprehensive of these.The WCO is
determined to ensure that its activities in this area must
be sustainable and must increase efficiency and fully
meet the needs of WCO members.
With the future in mind, the WCO will use its
regional structures to provide development and technical
assistance to WCO members, since they are better
placed to deliver a customized product that meets real
regional needs and policy directions.8 Furthermore, as
regional integration increases, the WCO will be placing
more emphasis on ensuring synergy between its work
and that of regional institutions. Coupled with this is the
WCO’s determination to develop an effective dialogue
with the donor community, as this will lead to a more
efficient and effective partnership that will impact positively on WCO members needing capacity-building
assistance to improve border management.
Integrity is another issue of critical importance
when managing borders because corruption, if allowed
to flourish, is insidious by nature and can harm customs
enormously in carrying out its mandate.To address this
complex problem in public services and more specifically
in customs, in 1993 the WCO Arusha Declaration on
Integrity in Customs was adopted.This Declaration
demonstrates the willingness of the customs community
to comply with rules governing integrity. As the focal
point for WCO integrity development efforts, it was
revised in 2003 to take on board additional elements
and to bring it in line with global anti-corruption
initiatives.
These global initiatives were largely driven by the
United Nations Convention against Corruption,9 the
International Group for Anti-Corruption Coordination
(IGAC),10 the Second Global Forum on Fighting
Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity (The Hague/
The Netherlands, May 2002), and the Third Global
Forum on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding
Integrity (Seoul/Korea, May 2003).
To support its members and strengthen integrity,
the WCO has developed a number of tools, such as the
Compendium of Best Practices, the Integrity Self-Assessment

Weathering global developments with a better future
in mind
As the international community grapples with the global
financial crisis and the effects of the economic downturn, the WCO has from the outset continued to stress
the importance of trade facilitation and promotion as a
means to weather current global challenges while
emphasizing the futility of protectionism such as that
which surfaced in the 1930s. Economic nationalism
aimed at protecting domestic industries through the
erection of barriers to free trade has proven itself historically to be unworkable and does not achieve its aims.
Robustly encouraging free trade and its growth will
help the world’s economies to move out of the recession
in which they are currently mired. Indeed, countries can
take measures to support their national industries during
these turbulent economic and financial times, but such
measures should be balanced with campaigns promoting
international trade and ensuring that the movement
of legitimate goods is facilitated to the greatest extent
possible.
The WCO’s stance was confirmed by the G-20 in
their official communiqué issued in London on April 2,
2009, in which the leaders reached agreement on a range
of issues contained in their Global Plan for Recovery and
Reform. Of particular note for the customs community
and border management was their rejection of protectionism in favor of global trade promotion to underpin
economic prosperity and a sustainable recovery from
the crisis. G-20 leaders also made a commitment to
trade facilitation by calling for a balanced and urgent
conclusion to the Doha Development Round.
Because the G-20 commitments will have a direct
impact on border management, the WCO is keen to
play a meaningful role in this regard by actively encouraging its members to implement relevant trade facilitation measures consistent with international standards
and to enhance coordination at borders. Better and
smarter border management that is coordinated and
that promotes cooperation among all trade stakeholders
is the answer to managing borders in the 21st century.
The WCO’s instruments, tools, and measures already
contribute positively to achieving this goal, and its
future endeavors will be aimed at enhancing what it has
done in the past while at the same time becoming even
more innovative.This will ensure a more responsive and
strengthened customs community, a creative and flexible
border management, and a better future for all.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.3: Managing Borders in the 21st Century

Part 1.r2

51

1.3: Managing Borders in the 21st Century

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 52

Notes
1 Measuring the time taken for the release of goods also meets the
concerns of trade circles when it comes to long delays in customs clearance. The TRS helps customs services to respond to
trade requirements, especially the need to plan ahead for the
movement of goods across borders in order to meet tight production schedules and just-in-time inventory systems that require forward planning.
2 Goods may enter a customs territory with relief from duties and
taxes but must be covered by a single document known as the
ATA carnet that is secured by an international guarantee system.

———. 2004a. Accompanying Guidelines to the Recommendation to
the Customs Co-operation Council Concerning a Unique
Consignment Reference (UCR) for Customs Purposes. Available
at http://www.wcoomd.org/files/1.%20Public%20files/
PDFandDocuments/Procedures%20and%20Facilitation/
UCR_new_e.pdf.

3 A multipurpose goods nomenclature used as the basis for customs tariffs and for the compilation of international trade statistics
is an integral part of the Convention.

———. 2004b. Recommendation to the Customs Co-operation Council
Concerning a Unique Consignment Reference (UCR) for Customs
Purposes. Available at http://www.wcoomd.org/
pftoolsucrrecomm.htm.

4 Because customs administrations control and administer international trade, they are in a unique position to enhance supply chain
security and contribute to socioeconomic development by improving trade facilitation and increasing revenue collection—critical factors in the current global economic downturn.

———. 2007a. Compendium of Integrity Best Practices. Available at
http://www.wcoomd.org/files/1.%20Public%20files/
PDFandDocuments/Capacity%20Building/Integrity/
CIBP_for_publication20March2007_English.pdf.

5 AEO programs are in place in Canada, China, the European Union,
Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Sweden, and
the United States.

———. 2007b. Integrity Development Guide. Available at
http://www.wcoomd.org/files/1.%20Public%20files/
PDFandDocuments/Capacity%20Building/
Integrity_Development_Guide_E_March_2007.pdf.

6 The Model will be marketed to customs, software developers,
and the private sector through a series of workshops in each of
the six WCO regions. These are (1) North Africa, Near and Middle
East; (2) West and Central Africa; (3) East and Southern Africa; (4)
South America, North America, Central America and the
Caribbean; (5) Europe; and (6) Far East, South and South East
Asia, Australasia and the Pacific Islands.
7 The API guidelines were established jointly by the WCO, the
International Air Transport Association (IATA), and the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

52

———. 2003. The Revised Arusha Declaration: Declaration of the
Customs Co-operation Council Concerning Integrity in Customs.
Available at http://www.wcoomd.org/files/1.%20Public%20files/
PDFandDocuments/Declarations/Revised_Arusha_Declaration_EN.
pdf.

8 The WCO’s regional structures are its Regional Offices for
Capacity Building (ROCB) and Regional Training Centres (RTC).
9 The UN Convention was adopted by the General Assembly by
Resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003. The text of the Convention
was negotiated during seven sessions of the Ad Hoc Committee
for the Negotiation of the Convention against Corruption, held
between January 21, 2002, and October 1, 2003.
10 Originally, the interagency coordination initiative on anti-corruption
was launched by the UN Deputy Secretary-General, who convened two meetings in New York in late 2001 calling for
enhanced collaboration and coordination of anti-corruption efforts
within the UN. Following this call, the IGAC convened its first
meeting under the auspices of the UNODC in February 2002, and
has been meeting regularly ever since.

———. 2007c. Model Code of Ethics and Conduct. Available at
http://www.wcoomd.org/files/1.%20Public%20files/
PDFandDocuments/Model%20Code%20of%20Ethics%20and
%20Conduct.pdf.
———. 2007d. Single Window: Implications for Customs
Administrations (Annex I to Information Management SubCommittee Document No. PM0186E). Available at
http://www.wcoomd.org/files/6.%20SW%20Files/
SW%20Initiatives/WCO/003-Implications.pdf.
———. 2007e. WCO Data Model, Single Window Data Harmonisation.
Available at http://www.wcoomd.org/files/6.%20SW%20Files/
Single%20Window%20Data%20Harmonisation%20V2.pdf.
WCO/IATA/ICAO (World Customs Organization/International Air
Transport Association/International Civil Aviation Organization).
2003. Guidelines on Advance Passenger Information (API).
Available at http://www.wcoomd.org/files/1.%20Public%20files/
PDFandDocuments/Procedures%20and%20Facilitation/
APIGuidelines_ENG.pdf.

11 The Integrity Best Practice Resource Centre is the name given to
a database of integrity best practices.

References
G-20. 2009. Global Plan for Recovery and Reform: The Communiqué
from the London Summit. Available at
http://www.londonsummit.gov.uk/en/summit-aims/summitcommunique.
UN/CEFACT (United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic
Business). 2005. Recommendations and Guidelines on
Establishing a Single Window to Enhance the Efficient Exchange
of Information between Trade and Government: Recommendation
No. 33. New York and Geneva: United Nations. Available at
http://www.unece.org/cefact/recommendations/rec33/
rec33_trd352e.pdf.
UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime). 2003. United
Nations Convention against Corruption. Available at
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/index.html.
WCO (World Customs Organization). 1993. The Arusha Declaration:
Declaration of the Customs Co-operation Council Concerning
Integrity in Customs. Available at http://www.wcoomd.org/files/
1.%20Public%20files/PDFandDocuments/Capacity%20Building/
Integrity/Arusha%20E.pdf.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 53

CHAPTER 1.4

IATA e-Freight: Taking the
Paper Out of Air Cargo
STEVE SMITH and MICHAEL MOOSBERGER, International Air
Transport Association (IATA)

International trade is a key contributor to global economic growth. Open trade policies encourage trade,
as does reliable, fast, and cost-effective transport. In
fact, there is evidence to suggest that reductions in
transport costs have an equal or greater positive effect
on international trade than lower tariffs.1 Different
types of transaction costs related to trade are captured
in the Enabling Trade Index discussed in Chapter 1.1
of this Report.This chapter examines IATA e-freight, an
initiative that improves the effectiveness and efficiency
of international airfreight and the potential of e-freight
to increase international trade in goods and services.
IATA e-freight replaces paper documents accompanying airfreight shipments with electronic messages.This
facilitates the movement of goods by air; saves billions of
dollars for the supply chain; and offers a modern, more
environmentally friendly alternative to traditional air
cargo shipments.
The air cargo industry almost exclusively relies on
paper-based processes to support the movement of freight.
These paper-based processes are not cost effective, nor
do they serve the pressing needs for security and speed
that are the key characteristics of air cargo. In December
2004, the International Air Transport Association (IATA)
Board mandated IATA to lead an industry-wide project
with the aim of taking paper out of the air cargo supply
chain and creating the conditions needed to replace
the existing processes with new ones that rely on the
electronic exchange of information to facilitate the
movement of freight.Thus an industry action group
was established that included IATA, the World Customs
Organization (WCO), airlines, and freight forwarders to
lead the industry in migrating to a paper-free process.
IATA established a project team to identify those
locations that had the right regulatory and technical
environments to work in an electronic environment
while demonstrating the willingness to migrate from
paper-based to an electronic process. Six pilot locations
were identified as having met these criteria: Canada,
Hong Kong SAR, the Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden,
and the United Kingdom.The project team established
working groups in each of these locations that included
airlines, customs, freight forwarders, and ground handlers
who recognized the need to define a single e-freight
operating process that allows the clearance of exports
and imports without the use of paper documentation.
In November 2007, 12 months after initiating
the project, these pilot locations went live with the new
e-freight process. As of March 2009, 13 more economies
are e-freight live: Australia, Denmark, Dubai, France,
Germany, Korea, Rep., Luxembourg, Mauritius, New
Zealand, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, and the United
States.The project is targeting 44 locations that will be
using e-freight processes by the end of 2010.Together,
these locations account for more than 80 percent of
global international air cargo volumes.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.4: IATA e-Freight: Taking the Paper Out of Air Cargo

Part 1.r2

53

1.4: IATA e-Freight: Taking the Paper Out of Air Cargo

Part 1.r2

54

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 54

Figure 1: The air cargo supply chain

Shippers

Origin freight
forwarders

Export
customs

Origin–destination
carrier

Implementation in a given location now takes
approximately three months and is led by an industry
steering group normally chaired by an airline. However,
the implementation in Korea, Rep. in 2008 was chaired by
customs and supported by the airfreight community, and
as a result it was one of the smoothest implementations.
Today, IATA forecasts a 17 percent reduction in
2009 cargo volumes compared with 2008. Removing
costly, inefficient paper-based processes is more relevant
than ever, as the supply chain looks for simpler ways of
doing business in an economic downturn.

What is the air cargo supply chain?
The air cargo industry consists of a diverse set of parties
involved in the transport of goods. Collectively referred
to as the air cargo supply chain, these parties include shippers, freight forwarders, government customs officials,
airlines, ground handlers, and consignees.The interaction
among these groups, in terms of the flow of business
and information, is shown in Figure 1.

The problem: Too much paper
Today, the air cargo supply chain relies heavily on paper
documents to support the movement of goods. In fact,
the average air cargo shipment generates more than 30
documents, from the Certificate of Origin to the
Import Goods Declaration.
This reliance on paper-based processes is based
on a legacy system of transporting goods. It lengthens
transport times, increases shipment costs, and provides
little real-time visibility for the customer.With so many
stakeholders in the supply chain exchanging information, the manual transfer of data from one to another is
error-prone.These errors cause delays in shipments.
The fact that the customs documents arrive at the
same time or even after the shipments arrive eliminates
the ability to pre-clear goods, causing delays and

Import
customs

Destination
freight forwarders

Consignees

hampering the ability of customs officials to conduct
targeted screening.The administration of so many documents also requires more resources across the air cargo
supply chain, increasing overhead costs.
In addition, inefficient, unpredictable, and unclear
customs procedures and practices contribute to unnecessary costs and delays for exports and imports. In 1974,
the International Convention on the Simplification
and Harmonization of Customs Procedures (Kyoto
Convention) came into force as a voluntary agreement
through the WCO, as an attempt to harmonize customs
systems internationally. Recognizing a need to harmonize
further, countries set forth a revised version of the
Kyoto Convention (see Chapter 1.3 for more details
on the Kyoto Convention).This went into effect on
February 3, 2006, with 44 contracting parties.
The purpose of the treaty is to simplify customs
procedures, eliminate wasteful transaction charges,
improve transparency and predictability, and facilitate
trade. One of the ways the agreement does this is by
providing for the use of electronic data exchange in
customs clearance.This important measure means that
almost 80 percent of international trade will now be
facilitated under the provisions of the revised Kyoto
Convention.
As trade has developed, states have implemented
complex requirements for the provision of information.
Governments often require data to be submitted on
paper and also to more than one authority.This adds to
the cost of doing business without adding value to the
airfreight supply chain or for the end customer.
Suppliers maintain inventory levels of around 12
percent, of which 25 percent can be attributed to the
unreliability of the air cargo supply chain.2 This means
that shippers have to increase their goods inventory by 3
percent to make sure they can deliver on commitments
to the end customer.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 55

Figure 2: The 16 documents that will be replaced by IATA e-freight messaging standards by the end of 2009

Shippers

Origin freight
forwarders

Export
customs

Origin–destination
carrier

Import
customs

Destination
freight forwarders

Consignees

e-Freight messaging

A

B

1. Invoice
2. Packing List
3. Certificate of Origin
4. Letter of Instruction
5. Dangerous Goods Declaration

6. Master Air Waybill
7. House Waybill
8. House Manifest
9. Export Goods Declaration

IATA e-freight: A paper-free alternative
IATA e-freight involves the entire supply chain.
Currently IATA e-freight has published electronic messaging standards that replace 13 paper documents. By
the end of 2009, the project will have removed 16 paper
documents from the air cargo supply chain, accounting
for over 60 percent of the paper documents by volume
(Figure 2).
The implementation of e-ticket in the passenger
domain removed one document—the equivalent of
the Air Waybill that is the contractual document for the
air cargo industry. IATA e-freight, by contrast, removes
a significantly larger number of documents for cargo,
which—unlike a passenger—is unable to walk and
talk.This makes the need for a robust process critical—
otherwise the cargo sits still.
Replacing paper with electronic messages allows for
the faster movement of goods, provides better information
to supply chain participants, and lowers costs for the
industry. Electronic document auto-population allows
one-time data entry at the point of origin, eliminating
shipment delays that result from inconsistent manual
data entry. Electronic documents are also less likely to
be misplaced.They facilitate the transfer of information
required by customs officials before the actual shipment
arrives, allowing government entities to pre-screen
air cargo and target their secondary screening efforts.
In fact, based on the experience of Singapore, IATA
estimates that this ability to send information ahead of

C
11. Flight Manifest
12. Transfer Manifest
13. Export Cargo Declaration
14. Import Cargo Declaration

D
15. Import Goods Declaration
16. Customs Release Import

the shipment can reduce shipment times by a global
average of 24 hours.
Countries adopting e-freight can also benefit from
reducing their environmental footprint. IATA estimates
that e-freight will eliminate almost 8,000 tons of paper
every year—based on the number of paper shipment
documents currently created—enough to fill 80 Boeing
747 freighters.
IATA e-freight messaging standards comply with
international and local regulations relating to the provision
of electronic documents and data required by customs,
civil aviation, and other regulatory authorities. Electronic
documents also restrict the availability of data to only
those parties that require them, enhancing the security
of shipment-related information.
Interoperability is a key criterion in the development
of IATA e-freight messaging standards.The 13 electronic
document standards developed—and the 3 more on the
way in 2009—work for companies large and small.These
standards allow systems to communicate with each other,
including systems operated by customs and civil aviation
authorities. IATA e-freight electronic messages that
replace documents used in all types of transport—such
as the packing list, invoice, or Certificate of Origin—
work for air, sea, and land shipments.

The regulatory environment needed to implement
IATA e-freight
When the IATA e-freight project considered implementation, it looked to economies and customs authorities

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.4: IATA e-Freight: Taking the Paper Out of Air Cargo

Part 1.r2

55

1.4: IATA e-Freight: Taking the Paper Out of Air Cargo

Part 1.r2

56

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 56

that had a legal and regulatory framework that would
allow the removal of paper and operations by means of
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) messaging.
Countries must pass two assessments—a high-level
assessment (HLA) and a detailed-level assessment (DLA)—
to be considered e-freight ready.The HLA criteria are:
• The intent of a country to implement the WCO
Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate
Global Trade.
• The country has already in place, or plans to put in
place, an e-customs program that provides the process
and technology to exchange messages electronically
between air cargo supply chain stakeholders and
governmental authorities (mainly customs). Most of
the documents that are considered for the e-freight
project, such as the Master Air Waybill and the
Certificate of Origin, are part of the customs clearance process. If an e-customs program is in place,
the paper documents can be replaced by standard
electronic messages exchanged with the customs
administrations. If a location cannot support the
exchange of electronic messages, paper cannot be
replaced and e-freight cannot be implemented.
• The country has ratified the Montreal Convention
99 or the Montreal Protocol 4.The Convention or
Protocol eliminates the need for cargo consignors
to complete detailed paper-based air waybills.
Even though a framework may be in place, a willingness on the part of governmental authorities to implement
e-freight for the documentation in scope is also required.
That was the reason for choosing the six pilot locations
in 2007—Canada, Hong Kong, the Netherlands,
Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Customs
authorities in these economies were willing to consider
an IATA e-freight process that could be aligned to meet
their regulatory and operational processes.
A country implementing an e-customs program
should do so in line with WCO standards, so that its
program conforms to the electronic message standards
used in the IATA e-freight project.
Once a location passes the HLA, a DLA is conducted.
This is a set of over 50 questions that diagnose the readiness of a location and its stakeholders to participate in
IATA e-freight from technical, process, and regulatory
points of view.

Benefits to implementing countries
Implementing countries’ entire air cargo supply chain—
and by extension their broader economies—benefit
from the move to paper-free air cargo.
Shippers will benefit from faster processing times
and more convenience.This reduction in time needed

to process is largely driven by more accurate data coming from the electronic exchange of information. If the
original data provided by the exporter are transmitted
electronically through the supply chain, there is reduced
risk of inaccurate data being processed as each member
of the supply chain inputs data into their own systems.
The air cargo supply chain therefore has the inherent
inefficiency of manual data re-entry. In addition, if the
data presented to customs are incorrect, shipments are
delayed.
Customs authorities will benefit because moretargeted screening becomes possible because of the
submission of customs information in advance of goods
arriving.With the increase in global trade, there is
increasing pressure on customs resources to ensure that
the flow of goods is expedited, while at the same time
providing increased security. Having to inspect every
shipment that passes through a border is unnecessary
and would bring the flow of goods to a halt. Providing
electronic export and import data in advance, which is
possible with IATA e-freight, allows authorities to conduct more focused risk management in order to identify
high-risk shipments.
With the electronic exchange of data between
export and import economies, there is less opportunity
for mis-declaration of goods.Therefore customs duties
revenue leakage is reduced, which thus has a direct
financial benefit to the government.
Although the widespread implementation of e-freight
will bring tangible benefits in terms of efficiency and
time savings for shippers and other key stakeholders in
the supply chain, the program will also offer benefits to
the broader economy of implementing countries.
Looking at the global air cargo supply chain as a
whole, it is expected that US$4.9 billion of net benefits
will be realized in 2015 as a result of e-freight implementation.The savings primarily come from a combination
of reduced document-processing costs and reduced
inventory capital requirements that are a consequence
of faster delivery times and increased end-to-end supply
chain reliability.There are additional benefits from
revenues derived from improved market share.
Cost savings from e-freight would represent an
almost 2 percent reduction in the overall cost of moving
goods from shipper to consignee via the air cargo supply
chain. Reduced transportation costs can have an important
stimulation effect on trade between economies, and thus
on economic growth for those economies and prospects
for their respective geographic regions. In the specific
case of intra-Asian trade, econometric analysis indicates
that a 10 percent reduction in tariffs stimulates trade by
2 percent, whereas a similar reduction in transportation
costs led to a 6 percent increase in trade.3 Research
by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) also indicates that a 1 percent
point reduction in trade transaction costs, measured as

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 57

a proportion of the value of world trade, could lead to
an increase in world income of around US$40 billion.4
If the results of the Asian experience were generalized to the rest of the world, the transportation cost
savings driven by e-freight could lead to an increase in
trade of US$2 billion in 2015, given the higher value
shipments typically carried by air.The direct benefits
to shippers and consumers of a faster, more reliable and
efficient supply chain, combined with the wider economic benefits, make a strong case for the widespread
implementation of e-freight. Governments seeking to
capture these benefits need to be aware of the remaining
implementation barriers and move to address them.

participants in the supply chain that do not exchange
electronic messages.Thus, as the project continues to build
the global e-freight network, the focus will shift more
and more to ensuring that there is maximum traffic on
the network built by the air cargo supply chain.
However, supply chains in economies that are
already using paper-free air cargo have begun to realize
the benefits of e-freight:

IATA e-freight in action
Consider an Asian garment manufacturer sending goods
to a US retail store for December holiday sales. In the
case of a paper airfreight shipment, the opportunity for
error arises the first time the goods change hands, from
the shipper to the origin freight forwarder.The freight
forwarder must complete documentation by manually
transferring data that the shipper has provided. Should
the forms not be completed consistently, export customs
authorities may not accept the shipment, causing delays
and lost sales. In an e-freight scenario, the electronic
messages use auto-population, so the data are entered
only one time: by the shipper at the point of origin.
This avoids the manual re-entering of data and any
errors it can cause.
Continuing with the paper-based scenario, the
shipment is then released by export customs to the
carrier and arrives at import customs in the United
States. Because of the holiday season, the customs
authorities at the port of entry are experiencing a
backlog in processing goods, subjecting the shipment
to delays. In an e-freight scenario, all the information
required for customs clearance can be sent ahead of the
shipment’s arrival—allowing import customs authorities
to pre-clear shipments and focus only on potentially
hazardous goods.Thus, the goods can go straight to
the destination freight forwarder for delivery to the
consignee.
However, in the paper world, our goods have still
more hurdles to clear before arriving at the store for
sale. Because of the manual transfer of data, there is
again an opportunity for error between import customs
and destination freight forwarder—an incorrectly entered
address, for example—that can cause yet more delays to
the goods in question.
With IATA e-freight, the Asian goods will arrive
in the United States nearly 24 hours before they would
have using paper-based processes—saving time and
money.
The number of e-freight shipments in the live
locations is not yet significant enough for the whole
industry to declare financial benefits, as there are still

• In Amsterdam, freight forwarders are now able to
bring freight directly to the delivery dock instead of
via the document center.This saves 30–60 minutes
from the usual process, which means that truck
drivers can be engaged for shorter time periods.

• In Korea, Rep., freight forwarders can now transport
freight to the airlines as soon as the electronic Air
Waybill message is created. Printing and manual
pouching of the documents can be done after the
freight departs, saving time and money.

1.4: IATA e-Freight: Taking the Paper Out of Air Cargo

Part 1.r2

• In various locations, airlines now have improved
electronic arrival alert mechanisms.That means that
freight forwarders no longer have to go to the airline
or ground handling agents (GHA) arrival counter
to be notified of freight receipt.
57
What can policymakers do to remove the barriers?
Policymakers can promote conducting business electronically in terms of both commercial customs clearance
and security.The two key elements are the technical and
regulatory environments that must be in place to allow
the implementation of e-freight.
Countries where a technical framework for electronic message exchange for the purposes of customs
clearance does not exist are advised to seek the support
of the WCO through their capacity-building program.
This program helps develop the customs processes
that deliver an electronic environment for the purposes
of customs clearance.The WCO promotes the single
window concept that allows trading partners to lodge
standardized information and documents with a single
point of entry to fulfill import, export, and transit-related
regulatory requirements. It eliminates the need for a
trader to submit the same data to several authorities or
agencies.This framework is supported by IATA and is
an enabler of e-freight. Operating under this concept
provides different governmental organizations with
quality information leading to improved security and a
greater ability to target suspicious consignments while
improving efficiency.
In cases where paper documentation requirements
are in place for either commercial or security purposes,
policymakers should promote the use of electronic data
exchange.The data required are often already provided
within existing electronic messages and therefore prevent

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.4: IATA e-Freight: Taking the Paper Out of Air Cargo

Part 1.r2

58

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 58

duplicate and inefficient data provision. For example, as
economies introduce security declarations, electronic
security declarations should be favored over paper-based
ones. If not, the supply chain and customs authorities
will move in opposite directions: the supply chain will be
trying to remove paper while governments are adding
cost and complexity back into the supply chain by
adopting nonstandard paper-based processes.
The standard regulatory framework for the implementation of the removal of the Airway Bill is the ratification of treaties—that is, the Montreal Convention 99
or the Montreal Protocol 4—that allows the replacement
of this document by electronic messages. However, at
an operational level, customs needs to be aligned with
this international regulation to ensure that there is no
expectation of receiving a paper copy of this document
in addition to an electronic version.
Policymakers can reduce the inefficiencies of global
trading by introducing technology that allows standard
electronic data exchange for the purposes of goods clearance. Introducing unique data requirements rather than
implementing standard processes and technology based
on the WCO framework means increased complexity
and cost. For example, if Country A requires X sets of
data and Country B requires Y sets of data, then an airline
of freight forwarder operating in both of those countries
has to develop its processes and systems to be able to
cope with both scenarios. If this were to be replicated
across many states, there would be a very large increase
in process and messaging complexity and thus cost.
In terms of implementing technology, some
economies have implemented their systems through
in-house production or support from private companies,
while others have looked to the support of the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD) to provide technology solutions. If policymakers are intending to implement the concept of
e-business, then there are many parties to which to
turn for advice, but it is important to ensure that the
recommended solutions are based on common international standards as set by the UN, the WCO, and IATA.
This will not only increase the likelihood of a successful
implementation but also will make certain that trade is
operating to one standard. IATA has a role in ensuring
that an agreed standard is set, and then working with
technology partners that are part of IATA’s Strategic
Partnership Programme to deliver solutions that meet
IATA e-freight requirements.
Specifically, there is still a need for many economies
to allow the use of an electronic version or no original
copy of the Certificate of Origin.This document identifies
the country of origin for each of the goods related to
one shipment. In the majority of economies, this is
required as an original paper document, often stamped
by authorities, to allow the release of goods.With an
electronic document standard that can be transmitted
securely between the supply chain members, why is

there still a requirement for inefficient paper-based
processes? For example, both Hong Kong and Canada,
IATA e-freight pilot locations, allow the supply chain
to provide non-original copies of the Certificate of
Origin.
There are other documents that currently require
paper versions, such as the Letter of Credit.While these
are not yet part of IATA e-freight’s scope, policymakers
should promote and allow for electronic versions of
documents to ensure that the supply chain, and by
extension the broader economy, realizes maximum
benefits from the more efficient e-freight process.

Conclusion
Reliable, efficient, and effective transport is essential to
facilitating international trade and global economic
growth. Given the increasing importance of air cargo,
policymakers should provide an environment that enables
the efficient flow of goods without paper documents
through the electronic exchange of messages.
That environment lies within the framework put
forward by IATA e-freight.The operational standards
and procedures defined by IATA e-freight are aligned
with the WCO and United Nations Centre for Trade
Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT)
standards.Where the project has developed new messaging
standards, they are appropriate for inter-modal shipments:
by air, land, and sea.
IATA e-freight offers economies a common set of
processes and standards for the exchange of electronic
messages. If the air cargo supply chain is to continue
to efficiently meet the needs of the consumer through
reduced costs, reliability, and improved transit times,
economies must adopt a framework based on common
processes and standards rather than proprietary ones that
would only add cost and complexity to the air cargo
supply chain.

Notes
1 De 2008.
2 These percentages come from interviews with shippers,
November–December 2008, IATA e-freight project.
3 De 2008.
4 OECD 2003.

References
De, P. 2008. ”Trade Costs and Infrastructure: Analysis of the Effects of
Trade Impediments in Asia.” Integration and Trade 12 (28):
241–66.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).
2003. Quantitative Assessment of the Benefits of Trade
Facilitation. Paris: OECD.
WCO (World Customs Organization). 1974; revised 1999. International
Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs
Procedures (Kyoto Convention).

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 59

CHAPTER 1.5

A Tour of the Ongoing Work of
the World Trade Organization
on Trade Facilitation: The
Traders’ Perspective
JOHN SIMPSON, Global Express Association (GEA)

Over the last two decades, several things have happened
to force governments to look more closely at the need
to facilitate trade by eliminating procedural barriers to
goods moving across borders. First, as the World Trade
Organization (WTO) has succeeded in removing or
reducing high tariffs and other trade barriers, the
impediments to trade caused by inefficient official
procedures at the border have become more apparent.
Second, new techniques for creating, transmitting, and
processing trade data have enabled private traders and
carriers to eliminate significant delays formerly associated
with moving and processing paper documents, further
illuminating the obsolescence of official procedures that
still rely on paper. Finally, modern logistics systems—
such as those introduced by the express delivery industry—have made the global business community and
attentive governments painfully aware of the growing
efficiency gap between commercial and governmental
processes, and of the profound difference in their views
of the value of time.
As the defects of current official procedures for processing cross-border trade have become more obvious,
other developments have made the need to address them
more pressing. Some manufacturing operations have
become intercontinental, assembling goods in stages in
widely separated facilities; many manufacturing operations
have adopted just-in-time practices for managing inventories of materials and components prior to production;
and consumers are demanding and getting perishable
food and floraculture products from around the world
in all seasons. Moreover, it has become apparent to trade
ministers worldwide that inefficient border procedures
are thwarting the WTO’s accomplishments in bringing
down other trade barriers and—because border
inefficiency is not uniformly distributed—are adding
to trade tensions by aggravating trade imbalances.

Trade facilitation’s manifold nature
Any discussion of trade facilitation must recognize that
what constitutes trade facilitation is highly subjective.
Modernization of customs procedures is considered
by many to be at the heart of trade facilitation, but
inadequate infrastructure is a widespread problem that
impedes the movement of goods. Byzantine health,
safety, and environmental regulations are near the top
of the problem list for those who deal in regulated
products, which include almost everything in some
countries. Restrictions on foreign investment deprive
transportation companies, particularly airlines, of needed
investment, and cabotage laws force inefficient routing.
In the interest of brevity, this chapter will focus on
a single aspect of trade facilitation that is the proverbial
low-hanging fruit: customs reform and modernization.
Customs procedures have long been understood as
directly affecting the speed at which goods can move,
and solutions are well developed, feasible, and affordable.
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.5: A Tour of the Ongoing Work of the World Trade Organization on Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

59

1.5: A Tour of the Ongoing Work of the World Trade Organization on Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

60

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 60

These subjects have already been addressed in the WTO’s
Doha Development Agenda negotiations currently
under way and the World Customs Organization
(WCO)’s revised Kyoto Convention, both of which
provide rational frameworks for dealing with what
can be a somewhat unwieldy topic.1 This chapter lays
out the rationale for streamlining different aspects of
trade facilitation related to customs reform and evaluates the current proposals deliberated under the Doha
Round negotiations on trade facilitation from a traders’
perspective.2
Customs is the primary agency for control of goods
at international borders. Customs agencies collect duties
and other taxes; enforce laws related to protection of
human health and safety, animal and plant health, the
environment, intellectual property, endangered species,
and antiquities; administer trade sanctions under United
Nations or national mandates; and control weapons
and hazardous materials. Because of the wide range of
customs’ responsibilities and the broad powers delegated
to it, the quality of customs’ performance is an important determinant of the efficiency of international trade,
and many kinds of trade transactions are extremely
sensitive to inefficient customs’ performance.
Notwithstanding the central role of customs in
international trade, customs’ performance for many years
escaped high-level policy attention, in part because its
highly technical nature deterred the interest of ministrylevel officials and in part because of the usual tendency
of specialized bureaucracies such as customs to keep
policymakers at arm’s length. However, within the last
decade, customs issues have been drawn into the center
of international trade discussions.This is largely a result
of a decision to include trade facilitation in the WTO’s
Doha Development Agenda, but it is also a consequence
of attention given to customs by multilateral donors,
such as the World Bank, and other inter-governmental
organizations, such as the United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE).
Additionally, a wholesome trend toward self-reform,
orchestrated by the WCO with the support of progressive national customs administrations, has attracted
attention to the very large potential to remove barriers
to trade through customs reform.

Benefits of trade facilitation
Among the benefits of trade facilitation are cost reduction, more effective border controls, enhanced trade
competitiveness, and the creation of new trade.
Cost reduction

Opaque, inefficient, and prolix border procedures create
unnecessary costs for businesses, many of which would
be greatly mitigated by trade facilitation.These costs
arise from:

• collecting and maintaining information that only
government agencies require;
• creating and transmitting original paper documents,
again something that only government agencies
require; and
• inefficient cash management resulting from slower
turnover. Short and predictable customs transit
times enable traders to recover and reinvest their
working capital more quickly. More rapid turnover
is equivalent to a virtual injection of new capital.
Since the 1994 UNCTAD Columbus Symposium,3
surveys aimed at calculating direct costs have consistently
suggested that they may range from 2 percent to 15
percent of the value of traded goods, with variations
largely relating to the country of importation, types of
products, and transport restrictions. Critics of this estimate
correctly observe that it is difficult to verify: none of the
studies contributing to this range can be properly substantiated. Moreover, as noted, costs imposed by official
procedures vary widely around the world and depend on
the character of goods being shipped. However, although
the exact magnitude of these costs may never be determined with a high degree of accuracy, their existence is
not in doubt, their adverse effects on trade are certain,
and there is substantial anecdotal evidence to suggest that
in many countries this estimate is not far off the mark.
More effective border controls

Increasing border inefficiency can not only reduce costs
to traders, but can also help governments more effectively administer border controls in at least two ways:
reducing lost revenue owing to an inability to detect false
customs declarations, outright smuggling, and official
corruption; and increasing ability to ensure compliance with
health and safety rules for humans, animals, and plants.
Enhanced trade competitiveness

Finally, inefficient border procedures are also likely to
lead to poor export competitiveness and to make a
country less attractive to investors. Actions that improve
the efficiency of border procedures have been shown
to produce results remarkably quickly. Countries that
have improved the efficiency of border administrative
procedures have consistently seen increases in foreign
investment and recognize significant increases in customs revenue even while reducing customs duty rates.
Creation of new trade

Trade facilitation has also enabled the creation of entirely
new trade, aided by modern capabilities to move goods
and information rapidly over long distances. Examples
of this new trade can be found in the expansion of the
global express delivery industry. International express
delivery companies carried an estimated US$2.86

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 61

trillion in goods across borders in calendar year 2008.4
Much of this is trade that might otherwise not occur,
since it responds to a demand for a high-quality,
end-to-end type of services. It is therefore reasonable
to conclude that much of the merchandise trade carried
by international express delivery companies occurs
because of the availability of express delivery and the
efficient border procedures that make it possible.

Customs reforms
These benefits can be enhanced through reducing costs
and delays associated with border procedures, which
can be achieved by reforming customs procedures. In
this context, customs reform necessitates the review of
three areas: transparency, the ease with which information
about customs requirements and procedures can be
obtained by traders; efficiency, the reduction of reporting
burdens and streamlining of processes to minimize
delays; and fairness, the removal of arbitrariness and
uncertainty from the customs-trader relationship (the
absence of “fairness” in the process adds to transaction
costs because traders must take precautions against
unforeseeable adverse official actions).These three
areas are captured in the Enabling Trade Index under
the border administration subindex.
Transparency

The first area, transparency, can be enhanced by
addressing several aspects of the publication of rules.
Publication of rules
For a trader contemplating entry into a new market,
the threshold question is whether the landed cost of his
goods, including customs duties and other taxes, will be
competitive with prices for similar goods in that market.
Even a trader experienced in exporting to other foreign
markets will be unable to estimate landed costs or comply
fully with trade laws in a new market unless the government in that market has published a full set of rules for
importing. Publication of importing rules effectively
opens a market to new competitors and enhances consumer choice. In addition, full disclosure is necessary
for ensuring compliance with rules.
Full publication of importing rules has another
advantage: it makes it more difficult for dishonest
officials to extort bribes from carriers and importers
by maintaining that they have failed to meet official
requirements.
It is particularly useful to international traders for
governments to post their customs regulations and some
other rules for importing on the websites of their
national customs administrations. It is important that the
information be complete, and that it include the complete text of the statutes and a full presentation of all
implementing rules. It is also important that information
be easy to find on the website of the national customs

administration, preferably one mouse click away via a
link on the homepage.
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
The WTO members are considering two proposals:
one by the United States and a second by China, Hong
Kong SAR, Japan, Mongolia, Norway, Switzerland,
and Turkey. The requirement in the US proposal for a
“full and precise description” of customs procedures
is superior to the measure in the Hong Kong et al.
proposal requiring only “an outline of . . . border
agency procedures.”

Language of publication
A second accommodation that is sometimes controversial
but immensely helpful is the publication of national
importing rules in one of the official languages of the
WTO.Translating the entire text of customs and other
importing rules into another language is expensive and
sometimes controversial because occasionally thorny linguistic barriers are encountered.Yet it is highly valuable
for the international trade community that each government publishes its rules for importing in languages used
by the WTO.This makes it easier for traders to arrange
further translation into their own languages.
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
The WTO members are considering a proposal submitted by China, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Mongolia,
Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey that provides that
only rules published on websites in an official language
of the WTO fulfill the needs of trade for transparency.

Advance notice of changes to rules and opportunity
to comment
Successful economies are joint ventures between
governments and their business communities. It is
highly important that government agencies and affected
businesses collaborate in the establishment of economic
regulations, and that businesses have an opportunity to
comment in advance on proposed new regulations or
proposed changes to regulations.There will, of course,
be situations in which the exigencies of a matter
addressed by regulations simply do not allow for the
delay necessary to obtain public comments. A general
policy in favor of public comment on new or revised
regulation must give way when circumstances genuinely
require immediate action.
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
The WTO members are considering two proposals,
one by China, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Korea, Rep.,
Mongolia, and Switzerland, and a second by Turkey.
The proposal by Turkey provides for advance notice
but appears to be intended to give traders an opportunity to prepare for implementation of new rules

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.5: A Tour of the Ongoing Work of the World Trade Organization on Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

61

1.5: A Tour of the Ongoing Work of the World Trade Organization on Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

62

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 62

rather than an opportunity to submit comments that
may result in rules being revised. It would be more
meaningful if WTO members opted for a rule that
makes clear that the provision for public comment is
not a mere formality or warning period, but rather a
meaningful exchange of views among government
agencies and traders that may affect the content of
rules or result in their withdrawal.

Publication of agencies’ analysis and response to comments
The value of an opportunity to comment on proposed
rules is greatly diminished if an agency proposing new
rules is not required to make all comments received
available for public examination or to publish an explanation of its response. Even when public parties disagree
with an agency’s disposition of comments on an issue,
public confidence in the regulatory process is greatly
enhanced when government agencies make an effort to
explain their decisions.
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
This point is not currently addressed in the WTO trade
facilitation negotiations and it is a major omission. As
noted, if agencies issuing regulations are under no
obligation to publish a response to reasonable comments from affected public parties, it appears that the
comment process is a mere formality, and confidence
in both the regulatory process and the quality of the
final rules is diminished.

Deferred effective dates for new rules
Once an agency has published a new or significantly
revised regulation, it should defer the effective date for a
period that is adequate to allow affected parties to make
adjustments to their operations to comply with the new
rules. If the notice and comment process is to have significance, the possibility must be left open that the rule
finally adopted may differ in substantial respects from
the original proposal.
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
The WTO members are considering a proposal from
China, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Korea, Rep., Mongolia,
and Switzerland that fully meets the needs of traders.

Advance rulings on technical legal issues
Completion of customs formalities in every country
involves interpretation and application of complex laws
and coding systems, including classification of goods
under the Harmonized Commodity Description and
Coding System (popularly known as “the Harmonized
System”), an internationally standardized system of
names and numbers for classifying traded products
developed and maintained by the WCO; valuation of
goods under the WTO Valuation Code, formally known

as the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
1994; and determination of country of origin.To promote compliance with a national interpretation of laws,
the best practice among customs administrations is to
provide official interpretations of legal issues to parties
who request guidance.
Absent a showing that material facts were misrepresented by a party applying for a ruling, these rulings, once
issued, must be binding on all agencies and at all ports
of entry. If a determination is made that an issued ruling
was erroneous, government must give the recipient (and
the public if the ruling has been published) advance
notice of revocation in order to minimize the adverse
consequences of traders who have acted in reliance on it.5
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
The WTO members are considering a proposal by
Australia, Canada, Turkey, and the United States that
meets the needs of traders; however, other WTO
members have asked that the proposal be limited to
rulings on classification only. Such a limitation would
make the proposal much less useful. Three decades
after adoption of the WTO Valuation Code, valuation
of imported goods remains a wild frontier for trade,
and rulings on valuation are especially needed.

Customs efficiency

Reducing reporting burdens and streamlining processes
to minimize delays is the next area addressed in the
border administration subindex of the Enabling Trade
Index.
Elimination of paper documents / Automation
Few developments of the last 30 years have created
greater benefits for trade than automation of customs’
entry procedures. Such automation has:
• eliminated the need to convert data and documents
created electronically into paper documents;
• expedited transmission of required information
to customs, thus enabling customs to begin entry
processing while goods are still in transit;
• enabled customs administrations to make
meaningful use of information received without
time-consuming re-entry of information from
paper documents into automated systems; and
• improved revenue compliance and the ability
of customs administrations to detect violations.
This is only a partial list; it does not even touch on
the environmental benefits that flow from eliminating
hundreds of millions of paper documents each year.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 63

Notwithstanding its indisputable benefits, the
automation of customs processes faces several hurdles.
It is never a simple information technology project, and
many countries lack the expertise and the funds to create
and maintain automated customs systems. An example
of a tool to automate customs procedures for air freight
that has been developed by IATA is described in
Chapter 1.4.
Serious consideration should be given to creating
an opportunity for customs administrations to outsource
this function to one or more service centers (with appropriate backup sites) operated by contractors under the
supervision of the WCO. Each participating customs
administration could have its own secure account, accessible only by its authorized officers. Automated risk
assessment could either be part of the system, with each
customs administration establishing its own risk criteria,
or risk assessment could be a separate function retained
by customs administrations.
This approach to extending automation to all
customs administrations would greatly reduce the costs
of creating and maintaining systems, and would free
national customs managers to concentrate on their primary missions rather than diverting much of their time
and resources to information technology management.
Immediate release of shipments
The celerity with which goods transit borders is commercially critical, yet time from the arrival of shipments
to their release can range from minutes to days. Many
customs administrations provide quick release for
shipments of correspondence and documents and for
low-value consignments for which no duty or taxes
are collected (the definition of low value varies from
country to country). However, for dutiable consignments,
including even consignments of low-value dutiable
goods, delays can extend to days.There are certain wellunderstood keys to faster release of shipments, listed
below, but the record among customs administrations
for implementing them is spotty.
• Separating release of goods from completion of formalities.
Customs processing at the border has two components. First is the process by which customs determines whether goods are admissible immediately
or admissible only after examination.This process
is often referred to as risk assessment. Second is a
more time-consuming and technically complex
process of classifying goods under the Harmonized
System, calculating the customs value, providing
other information such as country of origin for
statistical purposes, and paying duties and other
taxes. Customs administrations that do not separate
the two processes cause substantial delays, in some
cases up to several days.

Separation of the two processes is made possible by
arrangements under which traders provide financial
guarantees that, in exchange for quick release of their
shipments, they will complete all customs formalities
and pay assessed duties and taxes within a specified
time period (usually 10 to 30 days). Such arrangements include bank guarantees, special customs
bonds guaranteed by sureties, and, in some cases, liens
against assets of importers, although this last option
is generally seen by governments as awkward.
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
The WTO members are considering proposal
TN/TF/W/136/Rev.2 from Canada and Switzerland.
This proposal requires each WTO member to adopt
or maintain procedures authorizing an importer, upon
tender of a guarantee in the form of a surety, a
deposit, or some other appropriate instrument for this
purpose, to remove goods from customs’ control
prior to the final determination and payment of customs duties, taxes, and fees when these are not
determined at or prior to arrival of the goods.
However, the proposal does not recommend a minimum period for deferring payment of duties, taxes,
and fees, and should be amended to set a minimum

1.5: A Tour of the Ongoing Work of the World Trade Organization on Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

of 10 days.

63
• Pre-arrival processing: Using the time while shipments
of goods are in transit to process electronic information
related to the shipments. Customs administrations that
require paper documents, or that insist on delaying
the processing of electronic information until shipments actually arrive in their territories, cause
unnecessary delays that are more harmful than is
realized. At land borders, these delays cause traffic
congestion, deferred delivery schedules, and environmental pollution. For express delivery companies
providing end-to-end services, the loss of time can
cause missed transfers between transport modes and,
if delays are routine, add an extra day to standard
delivery schedules.
Many customs administrations have agreed to
process release information in advance of shipment
arrivals but prefer to wait until actual arrival before
indicating which shipments are released and which
are subject to further examination. For air shipments
and most maritime shipments this precaution is
excessive, but—as long as release messages and
examination directives are communicated promptly
after arrival—there is no loss of efficiency.
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
The WTO is considering a proposal by Hong Kong
SAR, China, Japan, Korea, Rep., Mongolia, and
Switzerland that provides that WTO members shall
maintain or introduce pre-arrival processing, which is

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.5: A Tour of the Ongoing Work of the World Trade Organization on Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 64

defined as administrative procedures of customs and
other relevant border agencies to accept and examine
import documentation and other required information
upon the submission by traders prior to the arrival of
goods, in order to further expedite the clearance of
goods where appropriate. In cases where it is
decided that no further examination is required,
goods should be cleared immediately upon arrival.

Waiver of full formalities for small and low-value
shipments
There is a significant cost to government and business,
in terms of administrative burdens and delays, resulting
from subjecting shipments of minimal value to full customs formalities. All WTO members should adopt the
practice of having de minimis exemptions from full formalities for small shipments. It is common in income
tax regimes to provide for simplified tax returns for
persons having only small incomes. Much of the logic
that lies behind this policy is applicable to collection of
tax information on goods crossing borders.
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
This issue has not been addressed in the WTO
trade facilitation negotiations and it is a significant
omission.

64
Waiver of small amounts of duties and taxes
Related to but separate from the issue of waiving full
customs formalities for small-value shipments is the
more sensitive issue of waiving collection of small
amounts of duties and taxes. Even in a moment such as
the present, when public revenues are reduced, governments that do not already have them should establish
value limits below which shipments will not be subject
to taxation; collecting taxes on such shipments is a procedure that is not cost effective.
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
The WTO members are considering proposal TN/TF/
W/144/Rev.2 by the United States that appropriately
leaves to each WTO member the latitude to set a
national de minimis exemption.6

Automated risk management
Customs administrations use essentially four methods
to determine which shipments will be subjected to
thorough physical examination.
1. All or virtually all shipments are examined. For
some customs administrations, the policy is to
examine, or attempt to examine, all shipments.
The result for trade is significant additional
cost—indirectly in terms of delays and directly
in terms of inspection fees that are usually

required, plus costs of moving containers to
examination stations.There is also a cost for
customs administrations: this policy distributes
scare enforcement resources uniformly over the
entire risk spectrum, giving as much attention to
low-risk shipments as to those that are high risk.
2. Random examinations. Some customs administrations have created systems that randomly select
the containers to be subjected to intensive
physical examination.While this method allows
the examination workload to be contained at a
specified level, it still distributes customs enforcement resources uniformly over the entire risk
spectrum, because random examination techniques are as likely to select low-risk shipments
for examination as those that are truly high risk.
Random examination systems also reduce rewards
for highly compliant traders, as their shipments
are as likely to be delayed for inspection as the
shipments of less compliant parties.
3. Inspector discretion. All customs administrations
leave some discretion to inspectors to examine
shipments that simply do not “look right,” and
many customs inspectors have developed
remarkable instincts for sniffing out suspect
shipments. But reliance on inspector discretion
as the primary basis for examining shipments
has two substantial flaws: first, not all inspectors
are equally gifted with good detection instincts;
and second, handing such broad discretion to
customs inspectors invites abuse. Lord Acton’s
observation that “power tends to corrupt, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely” is usually
amply demonstrated in these circumstances.
4. Automated risk assessment. The clearly superior
method of risk assessment is to use automated
systems that apply both rational risk factors
(objective characteristics of shippers and shipments
likely to violate laws) and empirical risk factors
(the actual experiences of the most successful
customs inspectors in detecting violations). A
well-designed automated risk assessment system
will provide also for a statistically valid random
sampling of goods for intensive examination
simply to validate risk criteria, and, as noted
previously, there must always be some limited
latitude for inspectors to examine shipments that
are suspicious. But primary reliance is on risk
factors programmed into the automated system.
Of course, each customs administration must
create its own list of risk factors, depending on
its unique circumstances, but customs administrations that apply automated risk assessment
are invariably more effective and efficient, and

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 65

demonstrable benefits flow to their national
economies and to the health and safety of their
populations.

Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
WTO members are considering two proposals on
this point, one by Taiwan, China; Korea, Rep.; and
Switzerland and the other by China. Either of these
proposals meets the needs expectations of traders,
although the former is somewhat more
comprehensive.

Periodic filing of complete customs returns and payment
of duties and other taxes
With the exception of Australia, Canada, New Zealand,
the United States, and some members of the European
Union,7 finance ministries and customs administrations
the world over have not moved away from a full tax
return and payment for each importation, despite the
significant administrative burden this method entails.
It is time for customs administrations, certainly in
the most advanced nations, to implement systems for filing customs returns and payments periodically.The transition can be done in a way that is revenue neutral.
Savings to governments resulting from a greatly reduced
volume of tax returns and small payments to be
processed would offset at least some of the cost of
allowing payments to be deferred and made periodically,
and there are other ways of making up any shortfall.
And, of course, traders would be expected to provide
appropriate financial guarantees to ensure completion of
formal obligations and payment of amounts owed.
Provision for periodic filing of full customs returns and
duty payments should be one of the first applications for
an automated customs system.
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
There is no proposal in the WTO trade facilitation
negotiations addressing periodic filing of full customs
returns and payment of duties, even with an extended
implementation period. This is a significant omission
that locks both customs administrations and traders
into an obsolete, costly, and highly inefficient practice.

Fairness

The next issue of concern is fairness. Ensuring that the
process of moving goods across borders is fair and without arbitrary and uncertain consequences is essential to
minimizing transaction costs.
Appeals process for customs decisions
In some countries, decisions of local customs officers
cannot be appealed to a higher administrative official or
to the courts.The absence of an appeals process results
in inconsistent application of national customs laws at

different ports, a higher level of unpredictability for
traders, and greater opportunities for corrupt behavior
by port-level customs officials.
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
WTO members are considering a proposal by Japan
and Mongolia that meets the needs and expectations
of traders.

Time limit on customs’ demands for additional payment
or recall
Currently, in many countries there is no limit on the
time within which customs administrations may demand
additional payments or return of goods released from
customs custody.This exposes traders to indefinite liabilities on goods long ago resold and delivered to other
parties. Absent proof of deception on the part of a trader,
there should be a clear time limit on customs’ demands
for further payments or return of goods. In cases where
an order for return of goods is within a prescribed time
limit but a trader is unable to comply because goods
have passed out of his control, the government’s remedy
should, absent a showing of bad faith on the part of the
trader, be limited to a reasonable penalty or, more convenient for customs, to liquidated damages under the
terms of the trader’s bond or other financial guarantee.
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
There is no proposal in the WTO trade facilitation
negotiations to provide for a time limit on demands
for additional payments or return of goods previously
released. This is a significant omission that introduces a high level of uncertainty for traders and the
potential for abuse of discretion by unscrupulous
customs officers.

Elimination of mandatory use of customs brokers
Customs brokers are professional service providers,
licensed by national customs administrations to provide
advice and services to importers and other parties
engaged in activities subject to the customs laws. Many
private traders, especially those who import a variety
of goods, sometimes on behalf of other parties, choose
to use the services of customs brokers to ensure that
complex decisions about classification and valuation are
made correctly. However, the practice in some countries
of mandating the use of customs brokers in customs laws
or regulations is objectionable and the reasons for doing
it are often suspect because it frequently is an indication
of corruption.
There are two kinds of corruption enabled by laws
mandating the use of brokers. In the first form, customs
brokers “share” the revenues from their mandatory services with legislators who enact and maintain such laws;
in the second form, customs officials who wish to avoid
demanding illegal payments directly from traders use

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.5: A Tour of the Ongoing Work of the World Trade Organization on Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

65

1.5: A Tour of the Ongoing Work of the World Trade Organization on Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

66

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 66

more-or-less willing customs brokers as intermediaries.
These are phenomena observed by all traders in certain
countries, and certainly observed by express delivery
managers.
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
On June 6, 2006, the European Communities;
Mongolia; Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu of Taiwan,
China; and Switzerland introduced a proposal that
would end mandatory patronage of customs brokers.
Subsequently, on July 11, 2008, the same group of
delegations submitted a revised proposal that would
allow requirements for use of customs brokers to
continue in those WTO members that already have
such requirements; only new requirements for use of
brokers would be barred. The revised document created a “grandfather clause” that would have sanctioned the use of a practice that is recognized as
being undesirable. In early 2009, the revision was
withdrawn and the original proposal was restored.

Cross-border customs cooperation: Making trade
transparent
Inadequate cooperation among customs administrations
has for years caused significant inefficiencies in trade
that have deteriorated even further in the past decade
because customs in many countries has acquired a major
counter-terrorism role. Customs administrations are
invariably national law enforcement agencies engaged in
monitoring an activity that is entirely international.This
is a serious mismatch. It has been made worse by general
indifference to improving cross-border cooperation.
To be fair, past limitations on technology have
not made it convenient for customs administrations to
communicate routinely with each other. But the historical root of the problem is that threats faced by customs
officers in importing countries—chiefly revenue violations and contraband smuggling—have not always been
perceived in the same way by customs counterparts in
exporting countries.
Times have changed.The threat faced by customs
today—the possible exploitation of international trade by
terrorists to transport dangerous articles across borders—
gives customs administrations a more urgent need to
work with each other, and modern communications
technologies make it easier for them to do so. But determined leadership is needed to break the old paradigm
in two areas of security that are primarily of concern
to customs administrations.
Physical security

To their great credit, heads of customs around the world
have resisted political attempts to impose so-called 100
percent scanning of cargo containers in international
trade.The effect of such a requirement was described in
detail earlier. Instead, using a variety of increasingly

sophisticated automated risk assessment systems, customs
officers sift through electronic data about each container
to identify factors associated with elevated levels of risk.
This is, theoretically, a sound approach to risk management, but in practice it has a critical flaw: the risk criteria
in the automated systems are based on the knowledge
and experience of the importing country only, while
many of the data being scrutinized relate to parties and
events in an exporting country.
Customs officers, in their quest to remove as much
uncertainty as possible about incoming trade, would be
better off using the information already available by participating in joint risk assessment with customs in the
country of exportation, which is much more likely to
know whether a trader is someone who raises concerns.
The way to enable both exporting and importing
customs to contribute to risk assessment without unnecessary duplication of effort and delays is to allow a standard goods declaration to be filed simultaneously with
both exporting and importing customs. Customs at each
end could perform risk assessment and exchange information on any significant results.
A standard goods declaration, meeting the risk assessment needs of both exporting and importing customs
administrations and submitted simultaneously to both,
would seem to be the solution, but many customs
administrations continue to oppose it as “futuristic.” It
is clear that security interests need to be balanced with
the need for trade facilitation, and governments, even in
the most advanced economies, need to provide stronger
leadership to create a better balance between security
and trade facilitation.
Revenue security

The same logic applies to revenue security. Many governments, in particular in developing countries, still
derive a non-negligible part of their national revenues
from customs duties.Their concern is that imported
goods are undervalued or otherwise misdescribed on
customs import declarations—that is, the goods are
“double-invoiced,” with the actual selling price, quantity,
and/or quality stated on an invoice given to the buyer
and different invoice information given to customs in
the country of importation to reduce ad valorem taxes.8
Customs administrations in importing countries
have attempted repeatedly to obtain assistance from
exporting countries to verify selling prices of goods by
comparing import declarations to export declarations
where they are available. But exporting countries are not
keen to place difficulties in the way of their exporters
by making it harder to avoid higher foreign taxes by
double-invoicing their sales.
In the absence of cooperation from their trading
partners, importing governments take whatever measures
they believe necessary to protect their customs revenues.
Typically this includes time-consuming and physically
intrusive examination of goods to verify statements made

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 67

on import declarations about the nature, quantity, and
value of goods. In many cases, values declared on import
declarations are summarily rejected as not credible and
alternative values from a reference list are substituted. In
some cases, governments engage so-called pre-shipment
inspection companies to verify the value, quantities, and
quality of imported goods, and goods may not be admitted until the pre-shipment company completes its work
and files its report. Of course, these measures seriously
impede trade.
Disposition in the WTO trade facilitation negotiations.
WTO members are considering two proposals: one
by India, South Africa, and Sri Lanka and a second
by Canada. The proposal from India et al. represents
the wishes of those countries that feel they are systematically defrauded and want help from their trading
partners; the proposal from Canada represents a
conscientious effort to be accommodating, within
reason.
Other industrialized countries seem less inclined
to go along, and they are able to make the valid argument that routine exchange of data on individual
transactions is administratively burdensome. But the
same process that improves physical security—a
standard goods declaration submitted simultaneously
to both exporting and importing customs—removes
the administrative burden entirely and reduces transaction costs for traders, who get the benefits of a
standard dataset and a single filing.

In the end, governments and their customs administrations will not tolerate a lot of mystery about freight
containers entering their territories, whether out of
concerns about terrorism or loss of critical revenues.They
will continue to intervene in a heavy-handed manner
until their concerns are resolved. For that reason, greater
trade transparency is in the interest of both governments
and private traders. As sensible as this is, there is a critical
precondition. Exporting nations will not agree to a system
of shared export-import data that reduces opportunities
for double-invoicing until importing countries reduce
their tariffs to levels that are not punitive.

The way forward
Despite a somewhat slow beginning, trade facilitation has
been one of the success stories of the Doha negotiations.
It has benefitted from the care of three excellent negotiating group chairs and a growing recognition on the part
of developing countries that trade facilitation is not a
zero sum proposition. In addition to improving market
access for trading partners (improving market access
for imports is, unfortunately, often seen as a concession
in trade negotiations), it also enhances the abilities of
customs administrations to collect revenues and ensure
compliance with health and safety laws. Because of
this appealing balance of benefits, the trade facilitation

negotiating text was already advanced and robust when
the Doha negotiations stalled in July of 2008.
Some WTO members—at one point including
the European Communities—have expressed interest in
spinning off the Doha trade facilitation package if the
overall Doha negotiations collapse or become indefinitely stalled.WTO members who are interested in
completing an agreement on trade facilitation could
then finish their work in the context of a plurilateral
(sectoral) agreement. However, many other WTO
members, who continue to seek a full multilateral Doha
agreement, appear to believe that trade facilitation has
value as a bargaining chip—not for tradeoffs among
WTO members (as all or virtually all WTO members
see trade facilitation as in their own national interests),
but to provide an incentive for the private sector to
remain engaged in supporting the overall Doha negotiations and to promote acceptance of compromises in
problematic areas of the negotiations.There is little
likelihood of a consensus forming in favor of a separate
plurilateral agreement until it becomes absolutely beyond
reasonable dispute that the Doha negotiations have well
and truly hit a dead end.
A WTO agreement on trade facilitation is critical
and could contribute to reviving global trade, thereby
contributing to a faster recovery from the present recession.While other international organizations, such as the
World Bank, UNCTAD, UNECE, and the WCO have
active and well-managed trade facilitation programs—
and in the case of the World Bank, significant resources—
they tend to see obstacles to trade facilitation as a matter
of insufficient financial and human resources in developing countries and the solution as technical assistance.
Although this view is understandable in light of the tools
they have, it is inconsistent with what is seen in surveys
of customs barriers. For example, looking at three trade
facilitation measures addressed in this chapter, there is
no apparent correlation between resources and progress:
• pre-arrival risk assessment (Ecuador and St. Lucia
have the capability to perform risk assessment in
advance of arrival of goods; larger and richer Brazil
and Indonesia have chosen not to acquire it);
• automated risk assessment (St.Vincent and the
Grenadines do perform automated risk assessment;
larger and richer Algeria and Mexico do not); and
• separation of release from completion of formalities
(Qatar and Lebanon do separate release from completion of formalities; larger Brazil, China, Egypt,
and Japan do not).
This pattern strongly suggests that political will,
rather than availability of financial and human resources,
is the primary determinant of progress on trade facilitation. It also confirms the importance of completing a

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.5: A Tour of the Ongoing Work of the World Trade Organization on Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

67

1.5: A Tour of the Ongoing Work of the World Trade Organization on Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

68

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 68

binding WTO agreement on trade facilitation and then
monitoring its implementation.This agreement should
come soon, as part of a comprehensive Doha package if
that can be done within the next year; otherwise, as a
stand-alone sectoral agreement under WTO auspices.
Recovery of global trade will not make its full contribution to recovery of the global economy unless there is a
binding agreement to facilitate trade.

Notes
1 Eglin 2008 provides an overview of the Doha Round negotiations
on trade facilitation. See also the revised Kyoto Convention, available at http://www.wcoomd.org/kybodycontent.htm.
2 The multiple functions that customs perform are to be kept in
mind when discussing customs reform. Yet there appears to be
much room for improving customs operations and facilitating the
flow of goods across borders while maintaining or even increasing
their effectiveness.
3 United Nations International Symposium on Trade Efficiency held
at Columbus, Ohio, from October 17 to 21, 1994.
4 In comparison, the total world merchandise trade amounted to
US$16.1 trillion in 2008, according to the WTO.
5 Maintenance of a professional staff competent to issue binding
legal rulings is expensive and difficult for some developing countries that may not have a deep reservoir of expertise from which
to draw. The WCO is conducting a test of a program under which
WCO member administrations may forward to the WCO requests
for classification rulings in complex areas of the Harmonized
System. The test should be expanded and customs administrations
needing assistance should be encouraged to use it. Major
economies should be willing to increase their contributions to
the WCO to support this effort. It is clearly more economical
than funding separate legal offices within each national customs
administration, and certainly more likely to result in globally
uniform rulings.
6 Some WTO members that already have de minimis exemptions
have set them at a level that is excessively low (for example,
22 euros per consignment for the 27 members of the European
Union, well below the 430 euro exemption for arriving passengers;
the European Union is said to be considering a substantial increase
in the de minimis level, but there is reportedly a disagreement
between customs and value-added tax (VAT) authorities).
7 These EU members are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain,
Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
8 Undervalued internal transfer prices are also being used to
“move” profits to countries with lower corporate taxes.

References
Eglin, R. 2008. “The Doha Round Negotiations on Trade Facilitation.”
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2008. Geneva: World Economic
Forum. 35–9.
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). The
Report of the United Nations International Symposium on Trade
Efficiency held at Columbus, Ohio, from October 17 to 21, 1994.
Available at http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/SG-Rpt/ch3b-2.htm.
WCO (World Customs Organization). 2006. The International Convention
on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures
(as amended). Available at http://www.wcoomd.org/
kybodycontent.htm.
WTO (World Trade Organization). Doha Development Agenda. Available
at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/dda_e.htm.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 69

CHAPTER 1.6

Obstacles to Trade from the
Perspective of the Business
Sector: A Cross-Country
Comparison
MONDHER MIMOUNI, CAROLIN AVERBECK, and
OLGA SKOROBOGATOVA, International Trade Centre (ITC)

A multitude of multilateral, regional, and bilateral trade
negotiations, as well as several voluntary commitments—
such as unilateral tariff preferences—to improve market
access have contributed to the overall decrease of tariff
rates to a historically low level. In order to foster international trade, trade-related policies have focused primarily
on reducing tariff protection measures. Other factors,
however, have proved to be more burdensome than tariffs
for exporting companies, especially in developing countries.The business sector as well as trade policymakers
are more and more concerned about non-tariff obstacles
to trade, which are less visible and more complex than
tariff protection.
These non-tariff measures (NTMs) refer to a wide
range of measures, including technical regulations and
product standards as well as customs procedures. NTMs
partly reflect the increasing sophistication of markets,
with consumers demanding more information about the
products they buy.
Often it is difficult to distinguish between NTMs
that are applied for legitimate reasons and those used as
instruments of protection, or non-tariff barriers (NTBs).
There is no international consensus on what can be
considered legitimate NTMs and what measures are illegitimate barriers to trade—making it difficult to provide
a clear picture. Moreover, not every exporter, in particular
in developing countries, is able to comply with NTMs.
From the perspective of the business sector, NTMs
increase trade-related costs. If an NTM is used for protectionist reasons, the associated costs are even higher.
The increased costs resulting from NTMs penalize not
only producers in the exporting country but also businesses and final consumers in the importing country.
Technical regulations and product standards, for example, can increase the costs of compliance in two ways.
First, they can impose additional fixed costs on exporters
who have to adapt products to the specific standards and
regulations applied by the importing country. Second,
conformity assessment procedures such as testing to
demonstrate compliance with these technical measures
induce additional costs.
Trade-related costs and non-tariff obstacles to trade
have been the subject of numerous studies. Some of
these studies use country-level data but do not capture
the experiences of exporters in their daily operations.
Others, such as time-release studies, concentrate on very
specific aspects of customs’ efficiency without taking
into consideration the global framework. Studies focusing on the national level often do not allow cross-country
comparison because they employ country-specific
methodologies. Only a few studies center on the understanding of the obstacles to trade that affect products

The authors would like to thank Benjamin Prampart, Helen Lassen, and
Mathieu Loridan for their contributions to this chapter.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.6: Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the Business Sector

Part 1.r2

69

1.6: Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the Business Sector

Part 1.r2

70

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 70

Table 1: Selected groups of non-tariff measures that exporting companies experienced as non-tariff barriers,
percent
Simple
cross-country
average

NTM group1

Chile

Philippines

Thailand

Tunisia

Uganda

Technical measures to trade (e.g., product characteristic
requirement; production process; conformity assessment)

70.3

76.4

93.5

62.7

64.1

73.4

Pre-shipment inspection and other customs formalities

14.0

3.1

2.3

22.6

23.1

13.0

Licences, quotas, and other quantity control measures

6.1

0.4

2.2

0.5

0.3

1.9

Charges, taxes, and other para-tariff measures

1.2

2.7

0.2

4.7

7.4

3.2

Finance measures regulating the access to and cost of
foreign exchange for imports and defining the terms of payment

2.1

0.6

0.1

4.2

0.2

1.4

Other

6.4

16.9

1.6

5.3

4.9

7.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Total
1 See Appendix B for definitions of these groups.

throughout the whole export process, from the origin
country to the destination country—either on one side
of the border or the other—from the perspective of the
business sector. Hence it remains difficult to fully capture
the various obstacles to trade faced by the business sector
or to identify their possible patterns across products and
sectors as well as countries and regions.
The International Trade Centre (ITC) aims to assist
countries to better understand the non-tariff obstacles to
trade experienced by their business sectors and to identify
potential bottlenecks at the national level. In January
2008, the ITC and the United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD) launched a joint
15-month pilot project for the collection and classification
of data on NTMs in seven developing countries. In each
country, among other activities, a company-level survey
with 300 to 400 face-to-face interviews was carried out
in order to identify, at the product level, those measures
that exporting companies perceive as barriers in their daily
business, as well as the reasons why companies experience a measure as burdensome.1 The following analysis
will be based on the survey results for five countries—
Chile, the Philippines,Thailand,Tunisia, and Uganda.2
The applied survey methodology and the questionnaire
used were the same in all countries; the surveys were carried out by trained local partners. Companies reported
their experiences with obstacles to trade by “cases.” Each
case has several parameters, including the exported product, the relevant NTM, and the partner country applying
the NTM as well as a description of the challenges the
exporter faces when complying with the applied NTM.
Table 1 presents the major groups of NTMs reported
by exporting companies as serious obstacles to trade in
five surveyed countries.The numbers are expressed in percentages, capturing a share of reports on a certain type
of measure in the total number of reports.
As is to be expected, the majority of NTMs that
exporters across the five surveyed countries experienced

as NTBs concern technical measures, which account for
an average of about 73 percent of the total measures considered per surveyed country.These measures include regulations related to product characteristics or the associated
production process. Exporters can find it challenging to
comply with these regulations, as they are sometimes very
complex and often vary significantly.
More than 93 percent of all barriers reported by
Thai exporters refer to technical measures to trade—in
comparison with between 62 percent and 64 percent for
Tunisia and Uganda, respectively. For these countries,
however, the share of reports on customs formalities is
significantly higher (around 23 percent) than the average
(13 percent).The share of reports on customs formalities
varies considerably across countries. For the Philippines
and Thailand, less than 4 percent of the reported cases
refer to this category.
Chilean exporters reported three times more than
the cross-country average on quantity control measures
such as licenses or quotas.These types of barriers are very
low for the Philippines,Tunisia, and Uganda. Exporters
in Tunisia and, in particular, Uganda complained more
often about customs surcharges and other additional
charges and taxes (4.7 percent and 7.4 percent, respectively) than exporters in the other surveyed countries.
This first highly aggregated overview of the survey
results already shows some regional patterns. In the two
African countries,Tunisia and Uganda, customs formalities
and pre-shipment inspection are of much more concern
to the private sector than they are in the other surveyed
countries.The share of reports on technical measures is
the highest for the two Asian countries,Thailand and
the Philippines, while the share of licenses, quotas, and
other quantity control measures is more than twice as
high in Chile as it is in other countries.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 71

Figure 1: Types of non-tariff measures that surveyed companies experienced as barriers, by regional destination,
percent

Most
reported
technical
measures

冦 

Africa 
Asia 
Europe

Tolerance limits for residues
and contaminants, or restricted
use of certain substances 

North America 
Oceania 
Latin America & the Caribbean

Labeling, marking,
and packaging requirements

Traceability requirements

Testing requirements

Certification requirements

1.6: Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the Business Sector

Part 1.r2

Pre-shipment inspection and
other customs formalities
Charges, taxes, and
other para-tariff measures

0

5

10

15

20

25

71

Note: See Appendix A, Table A2 for absolute numbers.

Barriers in partner countries
The survey captured those NTMs applied by destination
countries that companies perceive as barriers to trade.
One would expect the reasons exporters experience these
measures as burdensome to be linked with the destination
country.To test this view, the reported cases of all the five
surveyed countries have been grouped according to the
geographic regions of the partner countries and according to the types of reported measures.
Each reported barrier refers to a specific case, which
was reported by one company in relation to a specific
product, partner country, measure and associated problem. Companies might have reported several cases, in
particular if they export a range of products to different
partner countries. As Appendix A Table A1 indicates, the
average number of cases per company varied considerably across the surveyed countries. In order to level off
these differences, for each surveyed country, the share
per total number of reported cases has been calculated.
In a second step, based on these calculations, a simple
average share across all five countries has been used.
Figure 1 illustrates the seven most prevailing types of
measures that exporters experienced as barriers. Most of
these are technical measures.The others are related to the
cross-border transaction process and to para-tariff measures, such as additional charges.

Certification requirements, which refer in particular to
the verification of the conformity of products with technical regulations, are a major concern for the surveyed
exporters, no matter which region is the destination for
their product—with the exception of Africa. For goods
exported to African countries, as well as to Latin America
and the Caribbean, the share of barriers related to customs formalities (22 percent and 15 percent, respectively)
is much higher than it is for goods shipped to other
regions.
At the same time, the shares of obstacles to trade
experienced in relation to traceability requirements and
tolerance limits for residues and contaminants or the
restricted use of certain substances are very low in these
two regions.The share of testing requirements is also
very low when goods are bound for Africa (2 percent
against 6 percent on average).
Asia (with Japan and China as main export destinations), North America, and Oceania (with Australia as
the main export destination) have similar patterns in the
sense that exporters have to comply with similar types of
measures in comparable proportions.The most frequently
reported measures for these regional destinations are
related to technical measures to trade: certification
requirements; labeling, marking, and packaging requirements; and traceability requirements (all these range

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.6: Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the Business Sector

Part 1.r2

72

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 72

from 10 percent to 22 percent).The shares of experienced
obstacles related to pre-shipment inspection and other
customs formalities—as well as to charges, taxes, and
other para-tariff measures—are low (below 4 percent).
For Europe, on the other hand, the picture is slightly different.The share of reports on technical measures has
generally the same proportions as the shares related to Asia,
North America, and Oceania—with the exception of
certification requirements, which are less predominant.
Obstacles to trade related to customs formalities are relatively high in Europe (11 percent) compared with
other developed destinations, but lower than in Africa
(22 percent) and Latin America and the Caribbean (15
percent).
Thus the survey suggests that export to countries in
Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean face more
procedural barriers, including inspections, formalities, and
charges, while exports to other regions—in particular to
developed countries—are subject to technical measures
that focus on the characteristics of the specific product
and production process. Obstacles to trade in relation to
certification requirements are the most frequently reported
cases for all export destinations, with the exception of
Africa, where customs formalities are predominant.
The survey data also reveal that for Chile,Thailand,
and Uganda, and to a lesser extent Tunisia, non-tariff
obstacles are much more widespread when trading
regionally. Chile, for example, mainly exports to the
Asia-Pacific region, but most of the reported cases of
trade obstacles concern Latin American and the
Caribbean countries.3 Almost 38 percent of total
Chilean exports are destined for Asia-Pacific, but only 8
percent of all reported cases are related to this region.
The situation is the opposite in Chile’s home region:
no more than 14 percent of exports are regional, but 43
percent of all obstacles concern Latin American and
Caribbean countries. In the case of Uganda, 44 percent
of exports are bound for African countries. Uganda’s
neighboring countries—the Democratic Republic of
Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, and Sudan—account for more
than 40 percent of all reported trade barriers, despite
existing trade agreements.This can be partly explained
by the fact that Uganda is a landlocked country and
Ugandan exporters have to comply with transit country
requirements as well as the requirements imposed by the
countries that are their final export destinations. It could
be interesting to further analyze the patterns of intraregional barriers and potential correlations between
types of measures, provisions of trade agreements, and a
country’s export structure, but this is beyond the scope
of this chapter.

Domestic roots of the obstacles to trade
The surveyed companies reporting obstacles to trade
were asked to indicate the destinations of their exported
goods.Though the obstacles to trade are mainly related

to measures applied by these destination countries, they
may not necessarily cause the problems and challenges
about which the exporters complain.The causes can be
partly located in the origin countries.
The analysis of reported cases suggests that many
of the problems faced by the surveyed companies range
from weak customs and administrative procedures to a
lack of local facilities and infrastructure and capacity
within their own country.
Reports from Philippine furniture exporters on
certification requirements, for example, applied by the
United States illustrate the findings with regard to weak
customs and administrative procedures within the origin
country. Certification requirements are categorized into
certificates issued by government agencies of the countries of origin and those issued by local agencies in the
destination market—hence it is possible to locate where
exporters face most problems.
The furniture sector is among the Philippines’ top-10
export sectors and the United States is its major destination country, accounting in 2007 for an export value
of US$156 million and for almost 60 percent of total
exported furniture from the Philippines. Also relatively
high is the number of cases reported by Philippine
exporters on this sector: furniture is the Philippines’
second most affected sector and around one-third of all
reports on this sector are related to the United States
(34 cases).This figure is almost five times larger than the
number of reports on any other destination country for
exported furniture from the Philippines. In comparison,
Thai furniture exporters reported fewer barriers related to
the United States although Thailand’s export of furniture
to the United States is much larger (US$335 million).
The number of reported cases on the United States, however, accounts for only 16 percent of the total 44 cases
from Thailand’s furniture sector, similar to the number
of cases reported on Japan, the United Kingdom, and
other countries—so the cases reported by Thai furniture
exporters are much more balanced in terms of the partner
countries than those reported by Philippine exporters,
which are concentrated in the United States.
The reasons that Philippine companies experience
problems when exporting furniture to the United States,
however, partly originate from their own country: 50
percent of all reports on the United States pertain to
the certificates that are requested by the United States
but issued by the different agencies in the Philippines.
Philippine exporters commented on the low efficiency
of these agencies, in particular that of the customs
administration—and associated export delays of their
products.They also reported a significantly high number
of cases of irregular payments.These observations are in
line with Philippines’ assessment by the Enabling Trade
Index 2009 discussed in Chapter 1.1, which ranks the
efficiency of customs administration and of importexport procedures as well as the transparency in border
administration across countries, among other factors.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 73

The burden of customs procedures in the Philippines
is ranked 95th out of 121 countries, in comparison to
Thailand, for which it is 48th.The effectiveness and efficiency of the clearance process by the Philippines’ customs and border controls is ranked better in international comparison—48th out of 121 countries (Thailand
is ranked 11th). In contrast to this is the Philippines’
ranking with regard to irregular payments in exports
and imports: the country ranks 116th out of 121 countries, while Thailand ranks 72nd.
This finding is in line with the total number of
reports by Philippine exporters on exported furniture:
50.5 percent of all reported cases on furniture are related
to the certification procedures within the Philippines.
The global picture across all sectors is different, however:
10 percent of all reported Philippine cases and 22 percent
of those related to the United States concern certificates
that are issued in the Philippines.This might be explained
by the nature of the exported product: some products and
packaging materials—such as wood—require specific or
many certificates (for example, phytosanitary certificates)
from specialized Philippine agencies. Interestingly, a different pattern is found for Thai cases: only 12.5 percent
of all reported cases from Thai exporters on the United
States concern the certification process—less than 17
percent of these are specifically related to the certification process within Thailand. For the furniture sector,
26 percent of reported Thai cases (23 cases) refer to
certification in general; none of these are specific to the
United States or to certificates issued by Thai agencies.
However, these data should be read with caution—
a simple explanation could be that local interviewers
in Thailand categorized answers differently. Globally,
for Thailand, 5.5 percent of all reported cases concern
certification. Of these, only 12 percent are related to
certificates issued in Thailand; 88 percent are related to
certificates issued in the export destination countries.
Most of these reports are related to agricultural products.
One reason for the high percentage related to agricultural products might be that these products require a
comprehensive certification process.
The survey data revealed a similar pattern for the
Philippines’ wood sector.Wood and articles of wood
exported to the United States were mentioned 46 times,
which is the highest number of cases for a single sector
and partner country.These cases affect a significant share
of trade: the Philippines’ export of wood to the United
States amounts to almost US$30 million. Interestingly,
Thai companies, exporting wood worth US$120 million
to the United States, reported only four barriers related
to technical measures. An explanation can be found by
looking at the nature of the problems that Philippine
exporters encounter when exporting wood to the United
States.Though the measures with which Philippine
exporters need to comply are themselves applied by the
United States, the obstacles they face in relation to these
measures seem to be located in their own country.

Out of 46 reported cases, 27 refer to Philippine
agencies that are involved in the export process.
Philippine companies exporting wood in particular
report weak certification and fumigation procedures.4
From the perspective of the Philippine business sector, there is clearly an issue strongly affecting their export
of wood to the United States. Policymakers and trade
support institutions may be interested in identifying the
roots of the problems, especially for those 27 reported
cases associated with Philippine agencies. It could be the
case that US requirements are too demanding to meet.
In this context, it is worth comparing the United
States with other export destinations. Exporting companies reported 12 cases related to wood exported to
Australia, 6 cases on wood exported to China, and 3 each
to Germany and France.These numbers are significantly
lower than the number of cases reported about wood
exported to the United States. However, the value of
the bilateral trade in wood and wood articles is at least
four times higher with the United States than it is with
any of the countries listed above.Thus, at this stage it is
not possible to conclude whether the barriers related to
Philippine agencies have their roots in the United States
or in the Philippines themselves.
Uganda’s situation as a landlocked country is special, and many survey responses refer to high transportation costs in general and challenges encountered for
transit goods. An overwhelming number of exporters’
complaints refer to the high transportation costs (e.g.,
air freight charges, the low quality of roads, high fuel
costs).The Enabling Trade Index 2009 ranks Uganda’s
quality of railroad infrastructure 97th out of 112, and its
quality of roads 101st. Other reported constraints
include the limited number of cooling rooms and warehouses, or power outages in general. Also the lack of
skills and technology are experienced as obstacles to
trade for exporters. A large number of exporters explicitly mention the challenges they face due to the fact that
Uganda is landlocked, referring to two sets of problems.
First, the cost of inland transportation is high. Second,
the barriers arise in transit countries (the Democratic
Republic of Congo, Kenya, Rwanda) rather than in the
destination markets.The comments mostly mention the
security situation in transit countries (e.g., roadblocks),
time delays, and bribes.
These observations suggest that some of the obstacles to trade that exporters face are located in their home
country and involve local or national agencies—as is the
case for the Philippines.The process of exporting goods
involves agencies and infrastructure in both the exporting
and importing country. Although the destination country might apply a specific measure, the challenge that
exporters face with this measure often relates to the lack
of infrastructure or efficiency in their own country, which
thus leads to difficulties with compliance.The positive
side of this conclusion is that such obstacles can be
resolved domestically.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.6: Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the Business Sector

Part 1.r2

73

1.6: Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the Business Sector

Part 1.r2

74

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 74

Conclusion
The elimination of NTBs has been gaining importance
on the international trade agenda. Since the overall level
of tariff protection is quite low, these obstacles are becoming a major determinant of market access conditions.
There is no international consensus on what can be
judged legitimate NTMs and which measures are protectionism in disguise. Countries may have legitimate
reasons to introduce NTMs—for example, consumer
protection, public health, or national security. Some of
these measures however, may be experienced by exporters
as obstacles to trade. First, importing countries may use
NTMs for protectionist goals. Second, even legitimate
measures can have a prohibitive cost of compliance.
Finally, exporting companies may experience difficulties
in meeting the requirements because of an inadequate
domestic business environment, such as obsolete local
facilities and procedures that are lacking in efficiency.
Policymakers as well as the business sector can benefit from a better understanding of non-tariff obstacles
to trade to make better-informed decisions. It is therefore important to identify not only those measures that
the business sector perceives as obstacles to trade, but
also their root causes.
A company-level survey designed to address these
issues is being undertaken in several developing countries across the world.The results from the first set of
countries have provided data inputs for this chapter.
Although capturing information on only five countries,
this analysis sheds light on variations that exist in the incidences and types of NTBs experienced by the business
sector across products, countries, and regions.The analysis of the reported barriers suggests that the prevailing
types of barriers are linked to the destination regions
of exports.
However, the causes that lead an exporting company
to qualify an applied measure as problematic are not necessarily associated with the country that applies the
measure.The obstacles may be caused by factors linked
to the home country of exporters—for example, a lack
of infrastructure or a lack of efficient procedures.
A more global analysis would facilitate a better
understanding about NTMs and the challenges exporting
companies face when complying with these measures,
either because they are used for protectionist purposes or
because of an inadequate domestic business environment.
This understanding could facilitate the identification of
policy options at the national and international level.

Notes
1 See Appendix A for the number of interviewed companies per
country.
2 The goal of the pilot survey was to test and validate a representative cross-country and cross-sector methodology for the collection
and classification of barriers experienced by the business sector
in developing countries; the sample size per surveyed country
was determined accordingly. The seven countries selected to test
the methodology were therefore diverse in terms of geographical
location as well as level of development. The cross-country analysis in this chapter is based on the data for five of the seven countries; a larger data analysis is planned for the future.
A number of specific and unique differences were identified in
each country owing to the nature of the topic itself, to different
levels of local expertise and activities on the topic, and to local
language requirements and cultural differences.
Across the seven surveyed countries, interviewed companies
reported the barriers they faced based on a global questionnaire.
The local interviewers categorized these obstacles to trade
according to a new classification on NTMs, which has been prepared by a number of international organizations within the framework of UNCTAD’s multi-agency initiative on NTMs. It might be
possible that, in this process, reported NTMs have not been consistently matched against the corresponding measures.
Furthermore, the way interviews were conducted could vary
slightly across countries—also, the way interviewed companies
responded to the survey might vary across countries. For example, in one country, interviewed companies only reluctantly shared
their experiences on non-tariff obstacles to trade, as they considered these experiences already as a comparative advantage
against their local competitors. Consequently, the results, as presented, can only show tendencies across countries.
3 The analysis of the regional distribution of trade obstacles reported by Chilean exporters is based on top-20 export destinations,
representing 88 percent of the total Chilean export value. All trade
statistics referred to in this article are sourced from United
Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database, 2007 data. These
export destinations have been categorized into geographic
regions, namely Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the
Caribbean, North America, and Oceania. Similar calculations were
performed for each surveyed country.
4 Fumigation refers to a method of pest control that completely fills
an area with gaseous pesticides, or fumigants, to suffocate or poison the pests within. Fumigation can be requested before crossborder transaction of goods to control pests and to prevent transfer of exotic organisms. In the survey, exporting companies in the
Philippines often commented on the high cost of fumigation.

References
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development).
2009. Classification of Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs), prepared by
UNCTAD’s multi-agency initiative on NTMs.
UNSD (United Nations Statistics Division). Commodity Trade Statistics
Database, 2007 data. Available at http://comtrade.un.org/.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 75

Appendix A: Scope of the survey
Table A1: Number of surveyed companies and reported cases, per country
Number of surveyed
exporting companies

Number of
reported cases

Chile

251

673

Philippines

303

851

Thailand

430

1,803

Tunisia

279

810

Uganda

210

593

Surveyed country

Table A2: Absolute number of reported cases by selected measures, per country
Measure group

Chile

Selected technical measures
Tolerance limits for residues and contaminants or restricted use of certain substances

Philippines

Thailand

Tunisia

Uganda

18

47

165

9

1

132

72

169

72

64

Traceability requirements

29

34

253

92

32

Testing requirements

17

40

140

40

69

119

244

305

86

22

Pre-shipment inspection and other customs formalities

7

44

58

16

55

Charges, taxes, and other para-tariff measures

8

23

4

38

44

Other

343

347

709

457

306

TOTAL

673

851

1,803

810

593

Labeling, marking, and packaging requirements

Certification requirements

1.6: Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the Business Sector

Part 1.r2

75

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.6: Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the Business Sector

Part 1.r2

76

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 76

Appendix B: Definitions of non-tariff measures
This appendix refers to a selected group of non-tariff
measures that exporters in the surveyed countries have
experienced as obstacles to trade.These non-tariff
measures have been categorized as follows, based on
a new NTM classification prepared in a multi-agency
framework.
Technical measures to trade refers to product characteristics or their related process and production methods.
These measures include packaging, marking, and labeling
requirements as well as conformity assessment procedures.
Within the multilateral context, these measures are
categorized into technical barriers to trade (TBT) and
sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS), depending on
the purpose of the measures. SPS measures are designed
to protect human, animal, and plant life or health from
risks caused by pests, diseases, and disease-carrying or
disease-causing organisms; and risks arising from additives,
contaminants, toxins, or disease-causing organisms in
foods, beverages, or feedstuffs.TBT measures are applied
for the purpose of national security, protection of human
safety, protection of the environment, and prevention of
deceptive practices. See the WTO Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade and the WTO Agreement on Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) for further information.
For the purpose of the cross-country analysis, the
following selected technical measures have been covered:

purpose is to verify the conformity of products
with certain conditions.
Pre-shipment inspection and other customs formalities include all the measures related to inspection of the
products in the country of export before shipment as
well as special customs formalities not related to TBT or
SPS—for example, the requirement that a particular
shipment pass through a specified port of customs.
Licenses, quotas, and other quantity control measures
include the requirements on different forms of licensing,
quotas, and prohibitions.
Charges, taxes, and other para-tariff measures
include all the measures related to charges; taxes on
imports that are not tariffs, such as internal taxes on
imports; general sales taxes; excise taxes and charges; and
decreed customs valuations.
Finance measures regulate the access to and cost of
foreign exchange for imports, and define the terms of
payment—for example, advance payment requirement,
multiple exchange rates, restrictive official foreign exchange allocation, regulations related to terms of payment
for imports, transfer delays, and surrender requirement.

• Tolerance limits for residues and contaminants, or restricted
use of certain substances determine the maximum
limit for residues, contaminants, microorganisms, or
certain substances that can be present in products.
• Traceability requirements relate to the measures on the
disclosure of information concerning different
stages of production process and distribution of a
certain product, such as origin of materials used,
processing history, and so on.
• Labeling, marking, and packaging requirements: Labeling
is a requirement to provide certain information on
products, or their production process, while marking
is providing information that the product should
carry for transport and customs purposes. Packaging
requirements relate to the way products can be
packed and to the packaging materials.
• Testing requirements are conformity assessment procedures, required by the importing country, that
envisage verifying the conformity of the products
to certain SPS or TBT regulations by testing or
sampling.
• Certification requirements concern certification that is
required by the importing country and is issued by
either the importing or the exporting country; its
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 77

CHAPTER 1.7

Enabling Trade: Relationship to
Clusters and Setting an
Openness Agenda
SAM SIDIQI and FOUAD ALAME, Agility

The Enabling Trade Index (ETI) is a tool that informs
countries how they compare with other countries in
terms of enabling cross-border trade and that gives insight
into the specific elements that support their overall performance. For governments that would like to be more
effective in enabling trade, the ETI can help identify the
important issues for each country and provide valuable
guidance on where to focus their efforts.The idea
underlying this ranking is that trade has a positive effect
on countries’ growth and development, and that countries
should aspire to remove existing trade barriers and further
enable trade so that they will be positioned better to
achieve higher prosperity for their people.While this is an
obvious conclusion for economists and some businessmen,
it is not always a priority for important constituents
who drive the political decision-making process.
Someone needs to do the hard work of implementing
policy changes in support of trade enablement in the
face of budget constraints and a noisy political climate.

Research to action: Next steps after reading The
Global Enabling Trade Report
How can the ETI be used by government and business
actors to facilitate the hard work of implementation
more effectively? Governments have limitations in terms
of both monetary and political capital, which requires
them to choose which reforms and advances they can
feasibly make given their constraints. An important area
to be explored is how government can make the most
appropriate strategic decisions to enable trade most
effectively.This chapter puts forward two frameworks
linked to the ETI that can allow an official to make
more informed decisions about where and how to
focus implementation efforts. First, it looks at theories
of cluster development and explores the relationship
between the ETI and cluster development.With this
link and a closer look at the pillars of the Index, one
can derive recommendations about where to prioritize
focus based on the performance across different elements of an economy’s ETI results. Next, the chapter
puts forward a simple framework that could help an
official to decide what would be the best strategy when
driving the enabling trade agenda in his or her country.

Implications of comparing cluster formation to the ETI
The options available in drawing up an economic
policy are broad. Legislation can be passed that will adjust
minimum wages, provide subsidies, increase or decrease
taxes, invest in education, sign free trade agreements—
the list is practically endless. Many of the alternatives on
that list are supported by active lobbying efforts. Amid
the din of discussion of all the potential options, it is
important that those pursuing an agenda of enabling
trade treat the problem strategically.What information
does an ETI ranking provide to policymakers that assists
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.7: Enabling Trade: Relationship to Clusters and Setting an Openness Agenda

Part 1.r2

77

1.7: Enabling Trade: Relationship to Clusters and Setting an Openness Agenda

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 78

Box 1: Why clusters matter
Michael Porter’s studies show that clusters have a crucial
role in defining countries’ economic success because of the
following factors:
Clusters increase productivity and efficiency by promoting
• efficient access to specialized inputs, services,
employees, information, institutions, and public goods
(e.g., training programs);
• ease of coordination and transactions across firms;
• rapid diffusion of best practices; and
• ongoing, visible performance comparisons and strong
incentives to improve over local rivals.
Clusters stimulate and enable innovations by encouraging
• an enhanced ability to perceive innovation opportunities,
• the presence of multiple suppliers and institutions to
assist in knowledge creation, and
• ease of experimentation given locally available
resources.
Clusters facilitate commercialization by providing
• opportunities for new companies, and making new lines
of established businesses more apparent; and
• assistance in making new products commercially viable
and facilitating an easier start for new companies
because of available skills, suppliers, and so on.

78

in deciding what to do next? If using cluster formation
can improve a country’s economy, what additional information can be gained from the ETI? Specifically, how
do analyses of clusters interact with the ETI to help
policymakers decide on a target and scope of policies
that will be the most effective in further enabling trade?
Michael Porter, a leading researcher and writer in
the field of business and economics, finds that one of
the drivers of competitiveness is the presence of clusters,
which are groupings of businesses, trade associations,
and educational institutions that drive innovation and
improvement for the set of linked industries on which
the cluster is focused.1 Porter argues that competitiveness
is the key driver of productivity, and that productivity,
along with endowments, ultimately drives the prosperity
of a country.2 He thus sees the creation of vibrant clusters
that increase competitiveness and productivity as a sustainable approach to improving the living standards of a
country’s populace (see Box 1).
The first link between cluster theory and the ETI
is that the ultimate goal of both is to help economies
increase productivity and, consequently, prosperity.
Further exploring the relationship between the ETI and
Porter’s cluster theory, Figure 1 divides the countries
covered by the ETI into three approximately equal
groups of about 40 each. It then cross-references each of

those groups of countries with analyses of clusters based
on data collected about clusters around the world.3
The figure shows that the number of clusters in the
group of countries scoring in the top 40 of the ETI is
many times higher than it is in the second group, and
higher by an even wider margin than in the trailing
group.
This progression illustrates the close relationship
between enabling trade and the number of clusters active
in a country.While the formation of internationally
competitive clusters is certainly related to a number
of other factors besides the country’s openness of trade,
it is undoubtedly significant. Porter argues that it is
important for countries to build their “basic national
infrastructure”;4 he goes on to assert that “government
policy should pursue open market access in every foreign nation.”5 Although a country certainly needs more
than policies conducive to trade, as reflected in good
performance on the pillars of the ETI, to have competitive international clusters, it will struggle to get there
without key reforms in this area.
This approach could certainly be questioned on
the grounds of the different size of countries, a better
understanding of how openness drives cluster development (is the driver openness, or is it something else
correlated with openness?),6 and selection bias in terms
of which countries have been analyzed for clusters. On
the first point, Figure 1 should be looked at directionally.
Although the size of countries could affect the result,
there are larger and smaller countries in all three groups,
and the scale of the difference in cluster formation
seems to outweigh the difference in average country size
between groups. Second, it is clear that clusters have a
number of building blocks. Factors that enable trade are
only part of the story, and correlation does not imply
causality. However, the relationship between clusters and
openness is striking in this figure.
An analysis of data from the Forum’s Executive
Opinion Survey (Survey), which is used to capture the
development of clusters in the Global Competitiveness
Index, confirms these results: the related variables are
highly correlated with the ETI results.7

Extending the analysis: Where to focus
A key take-away from the above analysis is that what
actions a government should take to strengthen clusters
depends heavily on where the country stands in terms of
enabling trade. A country that is in the top 40 already has
strong foundations in this respect.While this government
can and should continue to drive trade enablers generally,
the majority of its work should be concerned with
general cluster upgrading, which “involves recognizing
the presence of a cluster and then removing obstacles,
relaxing constraints, and eliminating inefficiencies that
impede cluster productivity and innovation.”8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

12:40 PM

Page 79

Figure 1: The number of clusters per ETI ranking groups

700

662

600

500

400

300

200

137
100

17

0
Top 40

41–80

81–118

ETI country ranking groups

More challenging are possible prescriptions for
countries in the second and third groups. If you do not
have globally competitive clusters in your country today,
how do you get there? One could argue that a country
in the third group should actually not distract itself by
trying too hard to develop internationally competitive
clusters. However, because of the potential importance
of clusters for long-term development, giving up on the
pursuit of international clusters would mean that an
important tool was never developed.To understand how
to achieve internationally competitive clusters, it would
be good to first understand more about how clusters
start and evolve. In fact, a deep, globally competitive
cluster evolves from local to national to regional cluster
and, finally, international cluster.
The problem for new entrants to cluster formation
is that clusters are self-reinforcing, so it is difficult to
start a fresh one in the face of competition from those
that are already deeply developed.The impediments to
the development of internationally competitive clusters
are so large that government leaders need to think carefully about where to focus their efforts, otherwise they
risk investing in something that ultimately will not be
successful.While new cluster creation is difficult and
requires a long-term effort that could take decades to
bear fruit, the development of existing clusters can be
managed and influenced.
To support the development and upgrade of
clusters, governments need first to focus on domestic
transport infrastructure, transport providers, and the
overall business environment; they should clear the way

for input goods to be easily imported. Once clusters
become more sophisticated, governments can support
the process by creating regional markets.This involves
coordination with neighboring countries to improve
infrastructure that enables regional trade, and pursuing
agreements that ease trade within the region. Finally, as
clusters begin to reach a globally competitive level,
governments will need to continue driving steps that
enable trade to allow for a proliferation of participants
and competitors that are interlinked in reinforcing and
uninhibited ways.This is a summary review of actions
that will support cluster development at different stages.
A more nuanced exploration of specific pillars of the
ETI within the context of a specific country should
yield more specific prescriptions.

Framework to choose tactics
Once a country knows its strategic priorities related to
enabling trade from a cluster development perspective, as
discussed in the previous section, work has to be done
on a tangible level to implement reforms. In this regard,
one needs to think explicitly about what actions are easier to accomplish based on the current budgetary and
political environment in a specific country.
Any economics student learns early a basic orthodoxy of the field—that trade increases wealth because
specialization and comparative advantage allow for an
increase in total output, which is then traded among
market participants to improve everyone’s level of
consumption, or gains from trade. Although this idea is a

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.7: Enabling Trade: Relationship to Clusters and Setting an Openness Agenda

6/19/09

Number of clusters

Part 1.r2

79

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 80

Budgetary capital

Expensive

Figure 2: Budgetary and political tradeoffs to enabling trade

Improve highways

Decrease
export tax

Improve port
infrastructure

Decrease
import tariffs

Improve communications
infrastructure

Decrease border
admininistrative costs

Cheap

1.7: Enabling Trade: Relationship to Clusters and Setting an Openness Agenda

Part 1.r2

Cheap

Decrease protective
barriers for industry X

Political capital

Expensive

80

winner in the classroom, it has a long way to go before
it will convince protesting farmers or people who have
been pushed out of work because their sector is no
longer competitive in their home country.While an
economist can coolly argue that the overall benefit to
society of productivity gains is greater than the onetime loss to individuals in transition, the benefits to the
economy often come as very small, almost imperceptible
positives across a very large number of individuals,
while the losses come in big painful chunks to specific
individuals who have a high motivation to avert this
outcome. In many cases, the moves that can be made
to enable trade are very expensive politically. In other
cases, instead of costing political dollars, a move to enable
trade will cost real dollars, which presents another set of
hurdles. It is important to think through these hurdles
and make tradeoffs when choosing the specific tactics
of an enabling trade program.
One approach that might be useful is to put together
a simple heuristic method to visualize what choices a
country has before it (Figure 2). By plotting on one axis
the political capital involved and on the other axis the
budgetary capital involved, a government official can
start to see the tradeoffs involved in developing an overall enabling trade agenda.This chart should be a way
to visualize and compare efficiency of improving a
country’s score on the Index.To read the chart, imagine
that each step taken creates an equivalent unit of

improvement in terms of enabling trade, reflected in the
ETI score—for example, a port infrastructure project
may be more expensive than a highway infrastructure
project, but in a specific country, the port infrastructure
will create a better improvement per dollar spent. Because
it is more efficient in enabling trade, it appears cheaper
on the budgetary axis even if it is more expensive overall.
While it would be a fallacy to think that these measures
can be plotted perfectly, a policymaker can use such an
exercise to make a rough estimate about how to address
a particular country’s weaknesses that could lead to
quick improvements.
To improve the ease of getting goods across borders
as captured by the ETI, specific actions for a notional country
have the budgetary and political tradeoff illustrated in
Figure 2. Although improving the ETI score is not the
final goal, it can provide guidance on the degree to
which a country enables trade.
The example chart is only a thought exercise. Specific
moves will have different budgetary and political capital
costs depending on each country’s specific situation.
What is important is that, by putting things down in a
framework like this, an official can also start thinking
through the tactical moves that could decrease the
investment needed to get a particular improvement done.
For example, although improving the highway infrastructure faces huge budgetary hurdles, in a developing
country that has access to development grants or loans

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 81

for infrastructure development, the hurdle is no longer a
budgetary one.
Another way to enhance trade is to address the
political side. By building coalitions, one can make a
specific move less politically costly. Here a benefit of the
ETI is that it encompasses a lot of details. Instead of
imagining a broad abstract trade score, an official can look
into specific tangible pillars.While it might be difficult
to get people excited about broad topics, it may be easier
to get political groups motivated to take steps around
actions focused on specific parts of a pillar that will affect
them. One example would be to decrease an export tax
while at the same time reducing import tariffs on other
products.While farmers might be against a reduction of
tariffs for a product they produce, they would support a
decrease of an export tax that would increase the profit
from their harvest. By bundling these two measures,
officials could gain support for the unpopular move,
thereby building a coalition supporting that specific
move. One place worth looking for potential coalitions is
in clusters themselves (see Box 2).
Another way to look at the diagram of Figure 2 is
to use it to think through potential baskets of reforms
that could build a larger coalition.This is the stereotype
of what politicians are supposed to be able to do—find
ways of getting groups to agree on legislation by horse
trading.While in the United States this often leads to
“pork barrel” bills, where the bill is overloaded with
benefits for different localities, a smartly crafted piece of
legislation can meet different constituents’ needs and
push through some politically difficult measures. For
example, one could garner a lot of political good will
for a legislative measure by putting in some expensive
infrastructure that helps a specific community but that is
also an enabler to trade, and use that goodwill to get a
basket of initiatives passed that includes politically more
difficult measures, like a decrease in trade barriers.The
actual approach to this negotiating should be left to the
professionals, but the above framework could help in
the planning phase.
There are probably other models that would be
helpful in navigating the creation of the right steps in
an enabling trade agenda. However, what is important
is to bring the agenda back to tangible steps that can
be executed as real projects or policy changes.

Box 2: More than beneficiaries: Can clusters help
the political process?
Beyond taking quotes from important academic studies and
notable academics, what else can an official use to support
an agenda that enables trade? This chapter has looked in
detail at how clusters benefit from government policies that
enable trade. It is worth evaluating what happens when the
responsibility for change is shifted to the clusters rather than
resting on policies. One prospect worth further investigation
is to consider activating clusters themselves as political constituencies that can proactively support the agenda.
By creating clusters, business leaders who belong to
local and national clusters create associations that bring
their industry together. It is here that an official can potentially build a constituency that will help drive the enabling
trade agenda. Although clusters may not be large in terms of
numbers of voters, they should be able to make up for that
politically in organizational ability and financial clout. Each
cluster will have its own forums for meeting, and it is up to
local officials to pick the groups that can be most effective in
driving their particular cause.
Interestingly, by using the ETI analysis a productive dialogue could be started with cluster leaders to identify the
specific pillars that are most important to them according to
their ETI ranking group, as discussed above. The push for
enabling trade could thus be made much more specific and
actionable, rather than being lost in vague discussion.

framework to help a policymaker strategically decide on
tactics by visualizing the tradeoffs between budgetary and
political capital. However, while helpful for planning,
this study does not diminish the need for continued hard
work by policymakers who will advance the enabling
trade agenda with real actions and policies.The details
of any particular program cannot be generalized; they
must be made for a specific country at a specific point
in time. It is up to the doers to take the information
available in the ETI and work with their peers and constituents to come up with the right agenda to effectively
move forward in their country.

Notes
Conclusion
It is hoped that the points raised in this chapter and
elsewhere in The Global Enabling Trade Report will help
initiate good discussions among policymakers and their
constituents.The chapter began by focusing on the connection between the ETI and Michael Porter’s cluster
theory, both of which share the same objective—
increasing national competitiveness and prosperity. It
then developed some prescriptions for focus that come
from the joint analysis. Finally, the chapter proposed a

1 Porter 1998, pp. 199, 213.
2 Porter et al. 2008, p. 44.
3 These data were collected by the Cluster Meta-Study, a multi-year
research project conducted by the Harvard Institute for Strategy
and Competitiveness that gathered data from existing publications
worldwide about clusters.
4 Porter 1998, p. 186.
5 Porter 1998, p. 190.
6 Both the number of clusters and ETI scores are highly correlated
with the level of development.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.7: Enabling Trade: Relationship to Clusters and Setting an Openness Agenda

Part 1.r2

81

1.7: Enabling Trade: Relationship to Clusters and Setting an Openness Agenda

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 82

7 This result is confirmed when correlating the ETI scores with the
scores of indicators assessing the state of cluster development
from The Global Competitiveness Report. ETI scores are highly
correlated with the variable obtained from the Executive Opinion
Survey “State of cluster development” and also with the category
“Clusters and supporting Industries” from the Global
Competitiveness Index. For details about the variables, see Sala-iMartin et al. 2008.
8 Porter 1998, p. 247.

References
Porter, M. E. 1998. On Competition. Boston: The Harvard Business
School Press.
Porter, M. E., Delgado, M., C. Ketels, and S. Stern. 2008. “Moving to a
New Global Competitiveness Index.” The Global Competitiveness
Report 2008–2009. Geneva: World Economic Forum. 43–63.
Sala-i-Martin, X., J. Blanke, M. Drzeniek Hanouz, T. Geiger, and F. Paua.
2008. “The Global Competitiveness Index: Prioritizing the
Economic Policy Agenda.” The Global Competitiveness Report
2008–2009. Geneva: World Economic Forum. 3–41.

82

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Implementing Trade Facilitation
JEAN-FRANÇOIS ARVIS, GERARD MCLINDEN, and
MONICA ALINA MUSTRA, The World Bank
LAURI OJALA, Turku School of Economics, Finland

Trade facilitation can play an important role in achieving
national development objectives because it enhances
countries’ competitiveness, and allows them to trade
goods and services on time and with low transaction
costs. Many developing countries may not be able to
take advantage of opportunities presented by international trade unless they can make investments in the
areas where binding constraints to trade development
are most pronounced.

1.8: Implementing Trade Facilitation

CHAPTER 1.8

Trade facilitation, development, and trade
competitiveness
This facilitation may involve reform of border management institutions; policy changes in the area of transport
regulation; and, in some cases, significant investment in
trade-related infrastructure, among other elements.The
key issue is that a trade supply chain is only as strong as
its weakest link. Determining where the weaknesses are
and addressing them through targeted development
interventions has therefore become a major element of
the new trade facilitation and logistics agenda.
A practical focus

Surprisingly, there is no universally accepted definition
of exactly what trade facilitation is. A narrow, yet
consistent, approach focuses on the simplification and
streamlining of trade-related procedures (red-tape
obstacles to the movement of goods across borders),
and defines it as simplification, standardization, and
harmonization of procedures and associated information flows
to move goods from seller to buyer and to make payment. This
definition is the one followed by many facilitation bodies
in developed economies and is the focus of the current
trade facilitation negotiation at the World Trade
Organization (WTO).
In recent years, however, trade facilitation practitioners are tending to adopt a wider total supply chain
perspective and to look not just at trade procedures, but
rather at the export and import supply chains of developing countries and the associated physical movements of
goods. Hence, in practice, a more comprehensive definition might describe trade facilitation as the process of
identifying and addressing bottlenecks affecting the cost-effective
and timely movement of goods imposed by weaknesses in traderelated logistics. This wider definition implies that trade
facilitation covers issues such as logistics, trade-related
infrastructure, and transport facilitation together, along with
the simplification, rationalization of procedures, and, where
possible, the elimination of red tape.
This wider supply chain focus is logical from the
perspective of firm competitiveness, since the ability
of firms to connect effectively to international markets
depends in part on the performance of the entire supply
chain in terms of cost, time, and—above all—reliability
and predictability.The performance of trade supply
chains—especially their reliability—is determined by a
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

83

1.8: Implementing Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 84

A growing awareness

Box 1: The Logistics Performance Index and
Doing Business indicators
The Logistics Performance Index (LPI), the first of its
kind and published in the 2007 edition of the World Bank’s
report Connecting to Compete: Trade Logistics in the Global
Economy,1 is a comprehensive index created to help countries identify the challenges and opportunities they face in
their performance on trade logistics. It presents disaggregated data in seven different categories, allowing countries to
know exactly what areas need to be strengthened. The
LPI is the first comprehensive cross-country assessment of
logistics performance in 150 countries, based on a world
survey of international freight forwarders and express
carriers completed by more than 800 logistics professionals.
The International Finance Corporation and the World
Bank jointly maintain the Doing Business database. This
major initiative provides objective measures of business regulations and enforcement (http://www.doingbusiness.org).
Doing Business 2008 presents quantitative indicators on
business regulations and the protection of property rights
that can be compared across 175 economies and over time.
This dataset includes indicators of trade regulations.

Note
1 Arvis et al., 2007.

84

complex set of factors in three broad and interdependent
categories discussed in more detail in the next section of
this chapter.These categories are (1) the quality of traderelated infrastructure, (2) trade procedures and regulations,
and (3) the availability and quality of private-sector
services.
The supply chain perspective is also reflected in the
operational focus of trade facilitation as supported by the
World Bank and other development partners.The main
operational areas of focus include:
• infrastructure investment;
• customs modernization and improvement
of the border-crossing environment;
• the streamlining of documentary requirements
and information flows;
• the efficiency of gateways such as ports
and airports;
• the regulation and competitiveness of logistics
and transport services;
• corridor facilitation and transit trade facilitation,
especially in the context of landlocked countries;
• multimodal freight transport (i.e., rail-road); and
• transport security.

Achieving practical trade facilitation reform has become
a key development priority in recent years. Several factors
have contributed to the growing importance of this
agenda and to the awareness and motivation of policymakers and development agencies.
First, the economic benefits from trade facilitation
are now widely acknowledged, especially as the reduction
of logistics costs may be of an even higher order of
magnitude in their impact on trade than that of tariffs.
Recently, empirical literature has provided evidence on
the cost of inefficiencies and the large returns from
investments and reforms in facilitation.1 For example,
Francois et al. simulate the impact on income of a
reduction of 3.0 percent in trade transaction costs for
goods, which is probably a conservative estimate of the
reduction in transactions costs.2 Such research suggests
that world annual income could increase by US$151
billion with a 3.0 percent cut in trade transaction costs.
In proportion to national income, the authors estimate
that most of these gains would benefit developing countries. Evidence from the Logistics Performance Index
(LPI) survey (see Box 1) indicates that, at the same level
of development per capita, the countries with the best
logistics performance experience additional growth of
1 percent for GDP and 2 percent for trade.
Second, there is evidence from the last four years of
cross-country comparable sets of performance indicators,
which were previously only partially available in this area.
The main indicators have been the LPI at the World
Bank, the “Trading across Borders” chapter in Doing
Business by the International Finance Corporation
(World Bank Group) (Box 1), and the Enabling Trade
Index by the World Economic Forum.The publication
and wide dissemination of this information have been a
wakeup call for many countries. All of this evidence has
pointed out the wide gap of performance between
developing and high-income countries, but has also
indicated significant differences for countries at similar
levels of development (Table 1).
Finally, this awareness of the importance of trade
facilitation is reflected in the numerous trade facilitation
–related provisions that have been incorporated in various
bilateral and regional trading agreements.This trend also
led to the decision to launch negotiations to overhaul and
modernize the WTO trade facilitation rules that are now
over 50 years old as part of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations.3 The WTO negotiations in this
area have been productive beyond their initial mandate.
Logistics and trade competitiveness

An effective connection with international markets
depends to a large extent on the efficiency and, especially,
the reliability of the supply chain for firms and for
countries. A key insight from the LPI survey of logistics
professionals is that, although costs and timeliness are of
great importance, traders are primarily concerned with

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 85

Table 1: Wide gap of performance among regions
Customs
clearance
(days)

Physical
inspection
(percent of
shipments)

Time
export
(days)

Time
import
(days)

Documents
for export
(number)

Documents
for import
(number)

East Asia & Pacific

2.1

18.0

2.5

5.7

6.7

7.1

Europe & Central Asia

1.2

8.0

1.7

4.5

7.1

8.3

Latin America & Caribbean

2.0

14.0

2.7

5.7

6.9

7.4

Middle East & North Africa

2.2

14.0

2.1

7.2

6.5

7.6

South Asia

2.0

27.0

4.4

7.2

8.5

9.0

Sub-Saharan Africa

3.3

29.0

4.8

13.3

7.8

8.8

High income: OECD

0.9

3.0

1.8

4.6

4.5

5.1

Region

1.8: Implementing Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

Source: LPI, 2007; Doing Business, 2008.

the overall reliability of the supply chain. A firm’s competitiveness is influenced by the cost and performance
of its supply chain, and thus it depends on the overall
logistics environment—but the main impact on the
trade environment occurs less through transportation
costs than through the predictability of delivery.
Excessively bureaucratic border processing systems
and procedures, poor infrastructure, or inadequate services
result in long delays and unpredictability in the clearance
of goods. Excessive bureaucracy is often accompanied by
high levels of corruption. Hence, on top of direct costs
associated with moving goods—such as freight costs and
port charges—firms have to absorb the induced costs
associated with hedging for the lack of predictability and
reliability of the supply chain (Figure 1).4 They must
either carry higher inventories of supplies or finished
products, or switch to more expensive modes of transportation to be sure to meet delivery schedules.5 These
costs are inversely related to predictability, and they tend
to rise steeply with declining logistics performance
(Figure 2).
The high costs of unpredictability in the international supply chain are a major constraint for companies
and countries trying to diversify into higher-value
production. In global production chains, countries face
the double challenge of maintaining efficiency in the
supply chain not only for exports but also for imported
inputs and components. Suppliers to the same automobile
manufacturer will carry inventory for 7 days in Italy but
for 35 days in Morocco. Importers of spare parts for
electrical and mechanical equipment in, for example,
Albania and Ukraine typically carry three to four times
larger inventories than similar firms in neighboring
European Union (EU) countries.This is an even higher
burden for least-developed countries, where inputs often
cannot be sourced regionally, so firms must store even
larger amounts of inventory in case supplies are delayed.
Some least-developed countries also have to contend
with the fact that ports that are geographically closer to
them may be more unreliable. Garment exporters from

Malawi, for example, prefer to haul their containers 2,500
kilometers to the port of Durban in South Africa instead
of going through the much less reliable Mozambican
port, although the port in Mozambique is only onethird of the distance.

Emerging issues and developments in trade facilitation
The focus of trade facilitation has been evolving in the
last few years, and it is becoming clear that to address it
thoroughly, one has to look at many elements of the
international supply chain.
The first generation of implementation projects:
Infrastructure and customs

As mentioned above, at the practical level, trade facilitation requires a commitment to investment and reform
in three main areas: trade-related infrastructure, border
processing and clearance systems and procedures, and
logistics services. Unlike multilateral trade liberalization,
which requires coordination at the international level,
many trade facilitation initiatives are implemented primarily at the country level. In some cases—such as land
border trade and transit trade for landlocked countries—
the solutions need to be comprehensive and include
bilateral and/or regional cooperation for trade facilitation reform to be effective.
Over the last two decades, trade facilitation projects
in developing countries have concentrated primarily on
the first two areas, notably focusing on port, road, and rail
infrastructure, and on customs processing and clearance
systems and procedures.This focus has been an attempt to
make the flow of trade cheaper, faster, and more reliable.
These efforts are important and still need to be pursued, but much progress has been achieved. For example,
in port management, the separation of commercial and
services activities from the port authority is now the
norm in developing countries, and there are many
examples of the successful participation of the private
sector in container terminal operations. Automation

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

85

1.8: Implementing Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 86

Figure 1: Structure of logistics costs supported by
traders

Direct costs
Freight and other
costs associated
with shipment

Induced costs
Cost of non-delivery,
storage

+

Source: Arvis et al., 2007b.

Priorities and needs are shifting to new issues: Border
management, transit, and services

With the shift in emphasis away from first-generation
investments in port and road infrastructure and customs
reform to new areas not previously addressed, the binding
constraints are not only more institutionally complex
but also of a cross-cutting nature.

Figure 2: Reliability matters

100

Predictability of deliveries (percent)

86

of customs procedures has now been generalized, and
there are few countries without some form of automated customs system in place.
As a result, some level of information technology
for customs is usually available; thus it is among the
mildest of the constraints to trade facilitation faced,
even by the least-developed countries.Yet, in many
cases, there is a huge scope for upgrading and making
better use of automation processes, notably when it
comes to the exchange of information with the trading
communities (e.g., freight forwarders) or with other
trade-related agencies. In many developing countries
it is rare for non-customs border management agencies
to be automated (Table 2).
The ports and corridors in Central and Eastern
Africa face the most severe trade facilitation challenges.
Anecdotal evidence points to the fact that, thanks to

various trade facilitation initiatives, the time to import
containers has been systematically reduced in the ports
of some of the poorer countries. For example, the port
communities in Douala and Mombasa have taken serious
steps to improve the processing of imports with schemes
such as the single window in Douala and a similar port
community initiative in Mombasa. As a result, dwell
times of containers in Douala and Mombasa have been
halved over the last decade, although the average is still
over 10 days.6
The state of trade corridor infrastructure—a key
area especially for landlocked developing countries—
rehabilitation needs, and, above all, sustainable resources
for maintenance are high priorities for development
agencies.Thanks to efforts by donors to upgrade and
expand the network, most road corridors in Africa are
today in reasonably good or at least passable condition,
and the state of the road infrastructure is no longer a
major source of costs or delays.7 Moreover, all capital
cities of landlocked developing countries are now connected by all-weather routes.

80

60

40

20

0
1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Logistics Performance Index score

Source: LPI, 2007.
Note: Percent refers to respondents of the LPI survey who say that import shipments are not cleared and delivered on time.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

4.5

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 87

Table 2: Trade logistics constraints worldwide
Top quintile
Q1 (percent)

Q2 (percent)

Q3 (percent)

Q4 (percent)

Bottom quintile
Q5 (percent)

Usage of information technology in customs administration

78

50

50

58

35

Quality of logistics services

47

34

17

19

8

Competence in customs

55

32

19

18

11

Non-customs agencies

38

13

10

9

18

Issue

Source: LPI, 2007.
Note: The percentages indicate the prevalence of the issue as reported by international freight forwarders. Q1= top quintile, highest performance in the LPI; Q2 =
second quintile, high performance in the LPI; Q3 = third quintile, average performance in the LPI; Q4 = fourth quintile, low performance in the LPI; Q5 = bottom
quintile, lowest performance in the LPI.

The constraints experienced by operators are
increasingly found in these new areas (Table 2).The new
agenda will need to address issues such as improving
coordination among agencies involved in border processing; transport policies and regulation designed to improve
market structure; and competition in trade-related services
such as trucking, forwarding, and railways. In addition,
more attention will need to be given to problems that
can be adequately addressed only at the level of regional
economic groupings.
This expansion of the traditional scope of trade
facilitation and logistics reform is visible not only in the
content of various development projects but also in the
trade facilitation negotiations taking place in the WTO,
where the content of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT) Articles VIII and X address issues not
previously covered comprehensively in the first generation of reforms described above. Another example is the
complex question of facilitating trade on transit corridors
for the benefit of landlocked developing countries.This
issue is the focus of another international initiative, the
Almaty Programme of Action launched in 2003 under
the auspices of the United Nations.8
The imperative to better integrate border management for imports and exports is the most widely
acknowledged element of the new agenda. It addresses
coordination among border control agencies such as
standards, sanitary, phytosanitary, and veterinary agencies.
Although goods are finally cleared by customs, this occurs
only after clearances from other border agencies have
been obtained, which often significantly delays release.
Figure 3 illustrates the gains on clearance that have
been achieved in the context of a trade facilitation project,
supported by the World Bank, that focuses on border
management in the port of Radès,Tunisia.The project
focuses on integrating the clearance procedures of different agencies: clearance operations (the middle band
in the figure) accounted for one-third of the dwell time,
and further gains are expected to come upstream (the
bottom band) from automated transmission of the manifest by the port operators and investment in handling
to customs and downstream (the top band) by making
e-payment possible and by changes in port rate structure
to make the rates predictable.

Movement of goods and vehicles across borders
and overland over long distances relies on putting in
place a seamless transit system at the regional level or
at least bilaterally in order to be able to allow efficiency.
The single and most important practical constraint is
the arrangement, or the transit regime, by which goods can
move efficiently in the country of transit, although the
duties are to be collected in the country of destination—
a landlocked country for imports, or its final commercial
partner for exports.To facilitate trade, transit is founded
on a delayed clearance regime based on authorized transit
operators, bonds, secure cargo, and proper information
systems in customs.
A recent global review of transit systems shows that
on most corridors crossing the territory of developing
countries, transit systems are far from effective.There are
some exceptions: very efficient regional transit systems—
such as Transports Internationaux Routiers (International
Road Transport, or TIR) and Common Transit9—were
developed in Europe after World War II, allowing for
seamless door-to-door operation over several borders.
But in many parts of the world, overregulation and
lengthy chain control prevail and the movement of
goods can take weeks.10 Many regional treaties have a
provision for regional systems similar to that in Europe
(this is the case in most of Africa, for instance). But implementation has been jeopardized by lack of implementing
mechanisms and poor cross-country cooperation. It is
now accepted by the international trade community that
improving the transit system is a high priority, especially
for landlocked developing countries. On most trade corridors, existing or projected investment in infrastructure
will not deliver benefits without parallel changes in the
transit system.
Awareness of the importance of improving the
quality of logistics and trade-supporting services is fairly
recent, but this quality is becoming increasingly central
to trade and transport facilitation and related regulatory
reform packages. Recent trucking surveys indicate that
differences among countries in freight costs are largely
due to the market structure for transport providers, to
regulatory barriers, and to the degree of competition.11
The trucking market structure and environment in West
and Central African corridors are characterized by strict
market regulation, which leads to low transport quality

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.8: Implementing Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

87

1.8: Implementing Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 88

Figure 3: Structure of clearance time for containers at the port of Radès, 2006–08

12 

Post-clearance 
Clearance operations 
Pre-clearance

10

Days

8

6

4

2

0
2006 S1

2006 S2

2007 S1

2007 S2

2008 S1

2008 S2

Source: World Bank project data.
Note: S = semester.

88
and limited vehicle usage (a truck may run as little as
2,000 kilometers a month, compared with a long-haul
truck in the United States that can run almost 10 times
as far).This results in excessive fixed costs (gross margin)
and costs of transportation up to three times higher than
those observed in corridors in Southern Africa, where
competition allows for moderate rates and good quality
of services.
There is only limited experience with reforms that
address private logistics services. It is essential that trade
facilitation improvements provide incentives for highquality and reliable services, notably through regulation
of entry. For instance, improvements in regional transit
systems are dependent upon the quality of trucking
services: implementation of the international TIR system
imposes strict technical and financial requirements in
exchange for facilitated transit. However, the political
economy of the “soft” and “hard” trade infrastructure
may not favor changes that depart from current business
practices and limit historical rents. In many developing
countries, for example, broker licenses are a de facto privilege for retired customs officers, or fragmented informal
trucking regimes are maintained to meet social goals.

the benefits of progress in one area may not be reaped
until progress is achieved in other areas as well.12
The impediments observed in logistics performance
show similar patterns in countries, depending on how
advanced their reform program is. Following the typology
of developing countries proposed in the LPI 2007 report,
we classify countries as follows: (1) severely logistically
constrained countries (LDCs), (2) partial reformers in
the low-income and middle-income groups of countries,
and (3) consistent reformers (those countries achieving
better logistics performance than their income group).
Based on these categories, a rough intuitive typology
of typical constraints faced by these three groups of
countries is presented in Table 3.

Stepping up implementation
Although the priorities may be set and the initiatives
are in place, implementation must still be emphasized
if serious progress is to be made. Some of the ways to
ensure progress is to focus on the collective aspects of
the efforts at reform, to consider a large portfolio of
development assistance programs, and to obtain technical
assistance.

Countries and constraints

Priorities for trade facilitation are essentially set at the
country or regional level.What adds to the complexity
of the issue is that the areas of reforms are often greatly
entangled in development concerns, and because the
robustness of a supply chain depends on its weakest link,

Promoting trade facilitation is a collective effort

Many entities are active in the area of trade facilitation
to help developing-country policymakers and stakeholders
better implement the most appropriate roadmap to
reform and modernization (see Table 4).These activities

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 89

Table 3: Typology of countries according to impediments to logistics performance
Logistics Performance Impediments

Severely constrained countries (LDCs)

Partial reformers

Consistent reformers

Trade-related infrastructure

Not the major constraint, but a
serious maintenance issue for
road or rail network soft reforms

Capacity issues can be
addressed by soft reforms

Capacity bottlenecks to
support trade expansion

Core customs modernization

Potentially a major constraint

Potentially a major constraint

No longer a constraint

Integration of border management

Comparatively a lesser problem

Serious problem

Typically the key remaining
facilitation problem

Regional facilitation and transit

The main issue for landlocked
LDCs

Systematic problem with few
exceptions (e.g. countries
where TIR is implemented)1

Systematic problem with few
exceptions (TIR developing
countries)

Quality and supply
of logistics services

Serious constraint at various
degrees depending on regions

Serious constraint at various
degrees depending on regions

Still a problem when restrictions
on the entry of international
logistics providers are applied

1.8: Implementing Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

1 TIR stands for Transports Internationaux Routiers (International Road Transport). For more information on the TIR,
please visit http://www.iru.org/index/en_iru_about_tir.

include not only promoting projects on the ground, but
also promoting the international standards and practices
that guide reform.The main participants in this effort
at the global level include the World Bank, the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD), the United Nations Economic Commission
for Europe (UNECE), the World Customs Organization
(WCO), the WTO, the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF). Private global groups
are also very active in promoting this agenda and can
help setting the priorities, including the International
Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the International Federation
of Freight Forwarders Associations (FIATA), the Global
Express Association (GEA), the International Air Transport
Association (IATA), and the International Road
Transport Union (IRU), among others. Some of these
entities are also involved in implementation activities.
Regional organizations such as UN commissions or
regional development banks are also making decisive
contributions to the implementation in their respective
areas. Bilateral agencies are playing a key role as well,
and in fact are the main donors of technical assistance.13
The Global Facilitation Partnership for Transportation
and Trade (GFP) was launched in 1999.The GFP is a
network of 250 public and private partners and is the
reference forum in trade and transport facilitation where
participants work together to design and undertake
specific programs, create knowledge, or support trade
facilitation training opportunities.
Several ongoing initiatives have put these partnerships into effect and stimulated implementation in
developing countries. Launched in 2005, the Trade
Facilitation Negotiations Support Project (TFNSP)
responds to demands by developing countries engaged

in negotiating a new trade facilitation agreement in the
WTO and helps them understand their potential capacity
gap with regard to the measures under negotiation.
A growing portfolio of development assistance:
The example of the World Bank

Over the last five years, the World Bank and other
agencies have increased the share of projects related to
facilitation of trade and transportation. In the case of
the World Bank, the portfolio of projects in this area has
been growing and diversifying according to the change
in demand and the shift of priorities. Investments and
reforms are complemented by technical assistance and
knowledge sharing.
The World Bank’s projects in support of trade facilitation total about US$1.4 billion in projected commitments for the fiscal year 2009 (Figure 4).This represents
approximately 40 percent of the World Bank’s total
trade-related lending.The most significant projects fall
into the following categories: modernizing customs,
improving gateway infrastructure such as ports and
airports, modernizing trade corridors, improving export
promotion, improving trade facilitation and logistics, and
modernizing multimodal transport.
Customs modernization projects have been and
remain a major part of the portfolio worldwide.The
World Bank has financed over 120 customs-related
projects over the past two decades.The current portfolio
totals US$409 million, with another US$94 million in the
pipeline. Improving the performance of customs administrations remains a high priority for many countries,
but increasingly these projects support the modernization of agencies with border responsibilities such as
those concerned with health, agriculture, quarantine,
police, immigration, product standards, and so on.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

89

1.8: Implementing Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 90

T
Table
4: Supporters of trade facilitation activities in developing countries
International organization

• World Trade Organization (WTO)
• World Customs Organization (WCO)
• UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
• United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT)
• UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
• International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
• International Maritime Organization (IMO)
• World Bank
• International Monetary Fund (IMF)
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
• Regional international financial institutions (IFIs)

Global business,
nongovernmental organizations
and institutions, and forums

• International Road Transport Union (IRU)
• International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
• International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations (FIATA)
• International Air Transport Association (IATA)
• World Economic Forum
• Global Express Association (GEA)
• Global Facilitation Partnership for Transportation and Trade (GFP)

Regional and bilateral entities
and agreements

• Regional and subregional economic unions
— Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
— Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)
— East African Community (EAC)
— Southern African Development Community (SADC)
— Mercado Común del Sur, or Southern Common Market and so on (MERCOSUR) (there were
185 regional agreements registered by the WTO in force at the end of 2005)
• Corridor authorities

90

• Regional UN agencies
• Regional IFIs
• Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
National entities

• Trade and transport facilitation and coordination committees and task forces, trade procedures
committees (UNECE currently has 48 registered)
• Customs and other border agencies
• Transport agencies and operators
• Private-sector associations (forwarders, shippers, truckers, and so on)

Corridor projects are an increasingly important part
both of the Bank’s trade facilitation work program and
of client demand across the regions.These projects cover
several countries on the same trade corridors and address
issues such as gaps in infrastructure, border management,
and trade transit systems (Box 2). Recent examples
include projects in Central America; Central, Eastern,
and Western Africa; and Pakistan-Afghanistan.
The Bank continues its support of trade-related
infrastructure projects, emphasizing ports and airports.
The area of multimodal transport (railway systems) has
proved the most difficult in which to make headway.
Despite the potential of railroads to reduce freight costs
and carbon footprints, the state of the sector makes it a
marginal player for logistics in less-developed countries
and in many middle-income countries as well.

Further increasing impact: Technical assistance

In addition to investment or reform projects, there is a
growing demand from developing-country governments
for technical assistance, advice, and transfer of knowledge.
Technical assistance and lending are increasingly linked.
Indeed, most of the gains in terms of supply chain reliability or reducing the cost of logistics are likely to come
from the implementation of measures that do not cost
much, such as organizational changes and regulatory
reform. However, in many client countries and especially
in least-developed countries, trade facilitation measures
are easier to implement as part of bigger financial packages than as standalone activities.
The World Bank and other organizations are assisting developing countries in many different ways.These
include (1) making reform toolkits available;14 (2) providing data on trade facilitation (such as the LPI and

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

12:40 PM

Page 91

1.8: Implementing Trade Facilitation

6/19/09

Figure 4: World Bank trade facilitation funding by projects type and region
4a: Trade facilitation lending: Commitments, 2002–09 (US$ millions)

1,500

1429 

Trade facilitation

1,200

US$ millions

Part 1.r2 

Development policy lending

900

616

600

595

547

475
381
300

357

226
169

124
0

24

2

2002

2003

2004

2005

135

37

29

13

2006

2007

2008

2009

Source: World Bank projects.

91
4b: Trade facilitation lending: Regional breakdown, fiscal years 2004–09

6%

4%
18% 
Africa 

East Asia & Pacific

20%
16% 

Eastern & Central Europe 
Latin America & Caribbean 
Middle East & North Africa 
South Asia

36%

Source: World Bank projects.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

1.8: Implementing Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

92

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 92

Box 2: Re-engineering transit regimes:
The case of Central Africa

Box 3: The Trade Facilitation Facility will boost
implementation of new projects

The notion that regional transit trade arrangements in Africa
or Asia should be reengineered along the principles
of the systems already available in Europe, such as the TIR,1
has now gained acceptance worldwide. For instance, Chad
and the Central African Republic are primarily served by a
road-rail corridor through the port of Douala in Cameroon.
The transit of goods used to take up to six weeks or more,
with seven documents required, all to be cleared by three
separate offices. There were also multiple checkpoints and
controls on the roads to the landlocked countries.
Thanks mainly to strong leadership from Cameroonian
customs, agreement was eventually reached on a substantially revised transit system as part of a World Bank regional
corridor project. The main elements of the agreement are
the introduction of a one common transit document (based
on the model of the EU Single Administrative Document), the
removal of intermediate checkpoints, the use of information
technology based on UNCTAD’s Automated System for
Customs Data (ASYCUDA) system, the addition of a bar code
to the transit document and container with optical reading at
borders, and a new bonds system.

The World Bank Trade Facilitation Facility (TFF) program
assists in the implementation of practical initiatives in the
following key areas: border management improvement,
institutional development, transit and regional facilitation,
logistics services markets, and gateway infrastructure. TFF
assistance will be delivered through technical advisory
services and capacity-building activities. Examples of TFF
activities include:

Note
1 TIR stands for Transports Internationaux Routiers (International
Road Transport). For more information on the TIR, please visit
http://www.iru.org/index/en_iru_about_tir.

The TFF is currently supported by the governments of
Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.

Doing Business indicators); (3) diagnosing weaknesses,
for example through trade and transport facilitation
audits, which are especially important for project
preparation in least-developed countries; and (4) assisting domestic or regional institutions in the design and
implementation of reforms.The recently launched
Trade Facilitation Facility (TFF) (Box 3) will further
scale up technical assistance in this area.15

Conclusions
Trade facilitation is a dynamic field and is high priority
for governments in developing countries and for international organizations.The current economic downturn
has made it even more relevant. As international shipping
costs have dropped dramatically, the cost of domestic
inefficiencies in trade facilitation is more important than
it used to be and comprises a higher share of total trade
costs.The changes in demand and cost structures are also
influencing the way international buyers are organizing
their supply chains, favoring leaner, shorter, and more
reliable supply chains.16 In times of crisis, those countries with lower logistics performance or that depend

• long-term technical advisers to support the
implementation of regulatory and policy reforms
related to trade and transport facilitation;
• short-term advisory services in the design and
improvement of regional trade facilitation and
transit regimes;
• technical support for the improvement of border
management, clearance, technical controls, and
standards systems; and
• capacity building to promote better design,
investment, and management of critical tradesupporting infrastructure.

primarily on land transportation for their exports are at
an even bigger disadvantage than before.
The current crisis is also an opportunity to rethink
priorities. It is leading to the first decline in international
trade in 25 years, pushing millions of people in the developing world back into crippling poverty. Governments
are increasing public investments so as to counter falling
demand and ought to be targeting those projects with
large economic payoffs, such as those associated with
trade facilitation. Development agencies could counter
the impact of the global crisis with a proactive strategy
to support reforms that reduce the trade costs facing
traders around the globe.The payoff to developing
countries that depend heavily on trade could be particularly significant, capitalizing on the growing consensus
that trade facilitation is a good new agenda for all.

Notes
1 Wilson et al. 2004.
2 Francois et al. 2003.
3 See Eglin 2008 for more details.
4 Arvis et al. 2007a.
5 Guasch and Kogan 2003.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 93

6 LPI survey.
7 Arvis 2007b; World Bank 2008b.
8 See http://www.un.org/specialrep/ohrlls/lldc/default.htm#ALMATY.
9 TIR is a 60-year-old arrangement that was instrumental in the
development of trade across borders in Europe. It remains
essential to overland trade beyond the EU borders.
10 World Bank 2008a.
11 Raballand and Teravaninthorn 2008.

1.8: Implementing Trade Facilitation

Part 1.r2

12 This is especially true for investments in information technology,
which are unlikely to deliver results if they are limited to customs
and do not involve other agencies. Investments in corridor infrastructure will not reduce trade costs if they are not complemented
by measures to improve the transit systems and the quality of
services delivered by truck or multimodal transportation. Likewise,
the adoption of modern approaches to risk management by customs simply will not deliver rapid clearance if standards and
quarantine agencies continue to require the physical inspection
of all imports that fall into any of a large range of tariff headings.
13 Statistics are available from the Doha Development Agenda (DDA)
Database (http://tcbdb.wto.org), established jointly by the WTO
and the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee in
November 2002.
14 Examples of toolkits are customs modernization handbooks and
port reforms.
15 The TFF was launched in April 2009.
16 McKinsey 2008a, b.

References
Arvis, J., M. 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.
Arvis, J., G. Raballand, and J. Marteau. 2007b. “The Cost of Being
Landlocked: Logistics Costs and Supply Chain Reliability.” Policy
Research Working Paper 4258. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Eglin, R. 2008. “The Doha Round Negotiations on Trade Facilitation.”
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2008. Geneva: World Economic
Forum. 35–9.
Francois, J., H. van Meil, and F. van Tongeren. 2003. “Economic
Benefits of the Doha Round for the Netherlands.” Project Report.
Agricultural Economics Research Institute, The Hague.
Guasch, J. and J. L. Kogan. 2003. “Just in Case Inventories: A Cross
Country Analysis.” Policy Research Working Paper 3012. World
Bank, Washington, DC: World Bank.
McKinsey & Company, Inc. 2008a. “How Companies Act on Global
Trends: A McKinsey Global Survey.” The McKinsey Quarterly.
April. Available at http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com.
———. 2008b. “Managing Global Supply Chains: A McKinsey Global
Survey.” The McKinsey Quarterly. June. Available at
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com.
Raballand, G. and S. Teravaninthorn. 2008. “Transport Prices and Costs
in Africa: A Review of the International Corridors.” Directions in
Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.
United Nations. Almaty Programme of Action. Available at
http://www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/lldc/default.htm#ALMATY.
Wilson, J. S., C. L. Mann, and T. Otsuki. 2004. “Assessing the Potential
Benefit of Trade Facilitation : A Global Perspective.” World Bank
Policy Research Paper 3224. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. 2008a. Doing Business 2008. Washington, DC: World
Bank.
———. 2008b. “Improving Trade and Transport for Landlocked
Developing Countries: World Bank Contributions to Implementing
the Almaty Programme of Action: A Report for the Mid-Term
Review.” October. Washington, DC: World Bank.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

93

Part 1.r2

6/19/09

12:40 PM

Page 94

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Part 2

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 95

Part 2
Country/Economy Profiles

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Part 2

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 96

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Part 2

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 97

2.1
Country/Economy Profiles

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

Part 2

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 98

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

12:50 PM

Page 99

How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles

6/19/09

How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles
EVA TRUJILLO HERRERA, World Economic Forum

Albania
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)

Population (millions), 2008 .............................................3.2
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)........................28.8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................13.0
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ............4,073.9
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................70
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................6.8

Country trade

World average trade

80

8

60

6

40

4

20

FDI inflows

The Country/Economy Profiles section presents a twopage profile for each of the 121 economies covered by
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009.

Trade

Part 2

2

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank

Page 1

0

0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

Key indicators

The first section presents a selection of key indicators:
• Population figures are from the United Nations
Population Fund (UNFPA)’s State of World
Population 2008 and surface area data are from the
World Bank’s World Development Indicators 2008.

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ........................................–13.5
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ...........................................1,072.0
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .........................................1,398.9
Total exports (rank out of 121).....................................................................100
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ............................................4,196.0
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .........................................1,391.2
Total imports (rank out of 121) ......................................................................93

WTO accession year ..................................................................................2000
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................63.4
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................3
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .............7.0; 5.4
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008 ............1.9
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.......................................0.0
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008 ...............................0.0

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
EU27
Serbia
Others

Imports origin
83.1
6.7
10.2

EU27
Turkey
China
Switzerland
Russian Federation
Others

100

59.9
7.3
6.6
4.9
4.1
17.2

■ Manufactures

80

■ Fuels and mining
products

65.1

71.7

60

■ Agricultural
products

40
16.9

20

19.5

0

Source: WTO

17.9

7.3

Exports

Imports

Source: WTO

• GDP figures are from the International Monetary
Fund (IMF)’s World Economic Outlook Online
Database (April 2009).
The chart on the upper right-hand side displays the
evolution of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and trade
volume as a percentage of GDP from 1995 through
2007 (or over the subperiod for which data were available) for the economy under review (blue line).The
black line represents the evolution of trade as percentage
of GDP for the world as a whole, for comparison. Data
used to calculate total trade volumes are from the World
Trade Organization (WTO)’s Statistics Database,Time
series on merchandise and commercial services, representing
the sum of total imports and exports of both merchandise and commercial services.These trade values were
then divided by each country’s GDP. GDP data come
from the IMF’s World Economic Outlook Online Database
(April 2009).The gray bars in the background represent
the evolution of FDI inflows as a percentage of GDP.
FDI flows with a negative sign indicate reverse investment or disinvestment, as data on FDI flows are presented on a net basis (capital transactions’ credits less debits
between direct investors and their foreign affiliates). FDI
data are from the United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development’s foreign direct investment database
FDIstat (May 2009).
Main trade data and trade policy data

The second section presents main trade and policy data
that aim to provide an overview of trade patterns and
main trends in each economy.This section is split into
three parts:

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

2009 Index..............................................................................63
Market access ...................................................................................................30
Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................30

Score
(1–7 scale)

3.8
4.6

99

4.6

Border administration.......................................................................................60

3.9

Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................60
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................64
Transparency of border administration...........................................................66

3.6
4.7
3.4

Transport and communications infrastructure ............................................94

2.8

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .......................................97
Availability and quality of transport services.................................................85
Availability and use of ICTs................................................................................82

2.9
3.1
2.5

Business environment ......................................................................................83

3.9

Regulatory environment ...................................................................................105
Physical security .................................................................................................74

3.2
4.6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The first part presents main trade-related indicators.
Current account balance data are from the IMF’s World
Economic Outlook Online Database (April 2009).
Merchandise and commercial services data come from
the WTO’s Statistics Database. Data used to calculate
total exports and imports ranks represent the sum of
merchandise and commercial services exports and
imports, respectively.The values for total imports and
total exports were then ranked (out of the 121 countries
included in this Report).
The second part presents selected trade
policy–related indicators.WTO accession year, regional
trade agreements, and simple tariff average data come
from the WTO’s Statistics Database. Multilateral agreements and domestic agricultural and domestic nonagricultural tariff peaks data come from the
International Trade Centre. Applied tariff escalation data
come from the World Bank’s World Trade Indicators 2008.
The third part displays the main trading partners for
each country and a bar chart summarizing imports and
exports by sector.The tables on the left-hand side show

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

100

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 100

the share in the total volume of merchandise trade by
origin and destination country. Note that data for Chad
and Tajikistan are mirror data (obtained from partner
countries’ trade data).The chart on the right-hand side
shows the share of total volume of merchandise imports
and exports for each of the three main merchandise
sectors of each economy: manufactures, fuels and mining
products, and agricultural products. Note that no sector
data are available for Mauritania, and data for Lesotho
and Chad are mirror data. According to the WTO
International Trade Statistics (ITS), the breakdown by
main commodity group is as follows: Agricultural products
refers to food (SITC Rev. 3 sections 0, 1, 4, and division
22) and raw materials (SITC Rev. 3 divisions 21, 23, 24,
25, and 26). Fuels and mining products includes ores and
other minerals, as well as fuels and non-ferrous metals.
Manufactures refers to iron and steel, chemicals, other
semi-manufactures, machinery and transport equipment,
textiles, clothing, and other consumer goods. Please note
that the sum of shares may not add up to 100 because
the world total merchandise trade includes other commodities and transactions that are not part of the three
main groups.These commodities are gold, arms and
ammunition, and commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere (SITC Rev. 3, section 9).

Albania
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers.................................................................................43 .....■ .........4.0
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ..................................48 .....■ .........3.6
Tariff barriers for agricultural products ...........................................7 .....■ .........6.3
Non-tariff barriers .........................................................................15 .....■ .........5.5
Complexity of tariffs .......................................................................7 .....■ .........6.9
Variance of tariffs ...........................................................................9 .....■ .........5.6
Domestic tariff peaks .....................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Specific tariffs.................................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................20 .....■ ............6
Share of duty-free imports ...........................................................89 .....■ ..........29
Tariffs faced ................................................................................113 .....■ .........6.0
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................17 .....■ .......55.1

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures....................................................93 .....■ .........3.1
Customs services index ...............................................................45 .....■ .........7.2

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance..................................106 .....■ .........2.0
Time for import.............................................................................63 .....■ ..........22
Documents for import ..................................................................85 .....■ ............9
Cost to import ..............................................................................19 .....■ ........775
Time for export .............................................................................70 .....■ ..........21
Documents for export ..................................................................67 .....■ ............7
Cost to export ..............................................................................28 .....■ ........770

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ..................................69 .....■ .........3.8
Corruption Perceptions Index.......................................................67 .....■ .........3.4

5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ..............................................................................90 .....■ .........0.3
Transshipment connectivity index ................................................91 .....■ .......51.9
Paved roads..................................................................................66 .....■ .......39.0
Road congestion...........................................................................25 .....■ ..........15
Quality of air transport infrastructure ...........................................69 .....■ .........4.4
Quality of railroad infrastructure.................................................102 .....■ .........1.3
Quality of roads ..........................................................................104 .....■ .........2.4
Quality of port infrastructure ......................................................112 .....■ .........2.4

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index................................................95 .....■ .........2.0
Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................98 .....■ .........2.3
Competence of the logistics industry ........................................108 .....■ .........2.0
Ability and ease of tracking ........................................................120 .....■ .........1.7
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .......................119 .....■ .........2.1
Postal service efficiency...............................................................71 .....■ .........4.2
GATS commitments in the transport sector ..................................6 .....■ .......53.0

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption ...............................................100 .....■ .........4.1
Mobile telephone subscribers ......................................................68 .....■ .......72.1
Broadband Internet subscribers ...................................................82 .....■ .........0.3
Internet users ...............................................................................73 .....■ .......15.0
Telephone lines ............................................................................83 .....■ .........9.0

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights............................................................................115 .....■ .........2.9
Ethics and corruption ...................................................................87 .....■ .........2.6
Undue influence .........................................................................107 .....■ .........2.4
Government inefficiency ..............................................................95 .....■ .........3.1
Domestic competition ................................................................111 .....■ .........3.6
Openness to foreign participation ................................................83 .....■ .........4.6
Ease of hiring foreign labor ............................................................2 .....■ .........6.0
Prevalence of foreign ownership ...............................................101 .....■ .........4.3
Business impact of rules on FDI ................................................105 .....■ .........4.3
Capital controls.............................................................................93 .....■ .........3.9

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .........................................................71 .....■ .........4.0
Business costs of crime and violence..........................................69 .....■ .........4.6
Business costs of terrorism .........................................................77 .....■ .........5.3

Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Enabling Trade Index

The bottom section of the left-hand side presents the
economy’s performance on the Enabling Trade Index
(ETI) and its various components. Data Tables made
available on the Report’s website (www.weforum.org/getr)
provide detailed rankings and scores for each of the
variables included in the ETI.

Page 2
The Enabling Trade Index in detail

This page presents the rank achieved by an economy on
each of the indicators entering the composition of the
ETI. Indicators are organized by pillar. Please refer to
the Appendix A of Chapter 1.1 for the detailed structure
of the ETI.
Next to the rank, a colored square indicates
whether the indicator constitutes an advantage (the blue
square) or a disadvantage (black square) for the country.
In order to identify variables as an advantage or disadvantage, the following rules apply:
• For the top 10 economies in the overall ETI, any
variables on which the economy is ranked 10th or
higher are considered to be advantages. Any variables
ranked below 10 are considered to be disadvantages.
For example, in the case of Canada, which is ranked
6th overall, its 7th rank in the variable “share of
duty-free imports” makes this variable a competitive
advantage, whereas “non-tariff barriers,” on which it

ranks 21st, constitutes a competitive disadvantage
for the country.
• For those economies ranked from 11th to 50th on
the overall ETI, any variables with a 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 Malaysia, ranked 28th
overall, its rank of 2nd for the “cost to import”
makes this variable a competitive advantage. On the
other hand, “tariff barriers,” in which the Malaysia
ranks 59th, 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 Peru, ranked 65th overall,
the “tariffs faced” constitutes a competitive advantage
(32nd), whereas the relatively high “quality of roads”
constitutes a competitive disadvantage (89th).
For comparison, the last two columns on the page
show the best performer in each indicator, accompanied
by the score achieved. A list of countries/economies is
provided below for those indicators where the best performer is indicated as “multiple economies”:

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 101

• Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products (2 economies):
Hong Kong SAR and Singapore.
• Domestic tariff peaks (23 economies): Albania, Algeria,
Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso,
Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, Côte
d’Ivoire, Ethiopia,The Gambia, Ghana, Hong Kong
SAR, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania,
Mozambique, Paraguay, and Senegal.
• Specific tariffs (30 economies): Albania, Algeria,
Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia,
Cameroon, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire,
Ecuador, Ethiopia, Hong Kong SAR, Madagascar,
Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique,
Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines,
Senegal,Tunisia, Uruguay,Venezuela, and Vietnam.

How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

• Time for export (3 economies): Denmark, Estonia,
and Singapore.
• Corruption Perceptions Index (3 economies):
Denmark, New Zealand, and Sweden.
• Paved roads (18 economies): Austria, Czech
Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hong Kong
SAR, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Latvia,
Luxembourg, Mauritius, Singapore, Slovenia,
Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the
United Kingdom.

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

101

Part 2

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 102

102

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 103

List of Countries/Economies

Part 2

List of Countries/Economies

Country/Economy

Page

Country/Economy

Page

Country/Economy

Page

Albania

104

Guyana

190

Paraguay

276

Algeria

106

Honduras

192

Peru

278

Argentina

108

Hong Kong SAR

194

Philippines

280

Armenia

110

Hungary

196

Poland

282

Australia

112

India

198

Portugal

284

Austria

114

Indonesia

200

Qatar

286

Azerbaijan

116

Ireland

202

Romania

288

Bahrain

118

Israel

204

Russian Federation

290

Bangladesh

120

Italy

206

Saudi Arabia

292

Belgium

122

Jamaica

208

Senegal

294

Benin

124

Japan

210

Singapore

296

Bolivia

126

Jordan

212

Slovak Republic

298

Bosnia and Herzegovina

128

Kazakhstan

214

Slovenia

300

Brazil

130

Kenya

216

South Africa

302

Bulgaria

132

Korea, Rep.

218

Spain

304

Burkina Faso

134

Kuwait

220

Sri Lanka

306

Burundi

136

Kyrgyz Republic

222

Sweden

308

Cambodia

138

Latvia

224

Switzerland

310

Cameroon

140

Lesotho

226

Syria

312

Canada

142

Lithuania

228

Taiwan, China

314

Chad

144

Luxembourg

230

Tajikistan

316

Chile

146

Macedonia, FYR

232

Tanzania

318

China

148

Madagascar

234

Thailand

320

Colombia

150

Malawi236

236

Tunisia

322

Costa Rica

152

Malaysia

238

Turkey

324

Côte d’Ivoire

154

Mali

240

Uganda

326

Croatia

156

Mauritania

242

Ukraine

328

Cyprus

158

Mauritius

244

United Arab Emirates

330

Czech Republic

160

Mexico

246

United Kingdom

332

Denmark

162

Moldova

248

United States

334

Dominican Republic

164

Mongolia

250

Uruguay

336

Ecuador

166

Morocco

252

Venezuela

338

Egypt

168

Mozambique

254

Vietnam

340

El Salvador

170

Namibia

256

Zambia

342

Estonia

172

Nepal

258

Zimbabwe

344

Ethiopia

174

Netherlands

260

Finland

176

New Zealand

262

France

178

Nicaragua

264

Gambia, The

180

Nigeria

266

Germany

182

Norway

268

Ghana

184

Oman

270

Greece

186

Pakistan

272

Guatemala

188

Panama

274

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

103

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 104

Albania
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

World average trade

80

8

60

6

40

4

20

2

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 .............................................3.2
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)........................28.8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................13.0
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ............4,073.9
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................70
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................6.8

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank
0

0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

104

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ........................................–13.5
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ...........................................1,072.0
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .........................................1,398.9
Total exports (rank out of 121).....................................................................100
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ............................................4,196.0
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .........................................1,391.2
Total imports (rank out of 121) ......................................................................93

WTO accession year ..................................................................................2000
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................63.4
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................3
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .............7.0; 5.4
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008 ............1.9
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.......................................0.0
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008 ...............................0.0

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
EU27
Serbia
Others

Imports origin
83.1
6.7
10.2

EU27
Turkey
China
Switzerland
Russian Federation
Others

100

59.9
7.3
6.6
4.9
4.1
17.2

■ Manufactures

80

■ Fuels and mining
products

65.1

71.7

60

■ Agricultural
products

40
16.9

20

19.5
17.9

7.3

0

Source: WTO

Exports

Imports

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index..............................................................................63

3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................30

4.6

Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................30

4.6

Border administration.......................................................................................60

3.9

Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................60
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................64
Transparency of border administration...........................................................66

3.6
4.7
3.4

Transport and communications infrastructure ............................................94

2.8

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .......................................97
Availability and quality of transport services.................................................85
Availability and use of ICTs................................................................................82

2.9
3.1
2.5

Business environment ......................................................................................83

3.9

Regulatory environment ...................................................................................105
Physical security .................................................................................................74

3.2
4.6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 105

Albania
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers.................................................................................43 .....■ .........4.0
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ..................................48 .....■ .........3.6
Tariff barriers for agricultural products ...........................................7 .....■ .........6.3
Non-tariff barriers .........................................................................15 .....■ .........5.5
Complexity of tariffs .......................................................................7 .....■ .........6.9
Variance of tariffs ...........................................................................9 .....■ .........5.6
Domestic tariff peaks .....................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Specific tariffs.................................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................20 .....■ ............6
Share of duty-free imports ...........................................................89 .....■ ..........29
Tariffs faced ................................................................................113 .....■ .........6.0
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................17 .....■ .......55.1

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures....................................................93 .....■ .........3.1
Customs services index ...............................................................45 .....■ .........7.2

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance..................................106 .....■ .........2.0
Time for import.............................................................................63 .....■ ..........22
Documents for import ..................................................................85 .....■ ............9
Cost to import ..............................................................................19 .....■ ........775
Time for export .............................................................................70 .....■ ..........21
Documents for export ..................................................................67 .....■ ............7
Cost to export ..............................................................................28 .....■ ........770

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ..................................69 .....■ .........3.8
Corruption Perceptions Index.......................................................67 .....■ .........3.4

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

105
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ..............................................................................90 .....■ .........0.3
Transshipment connectivity index ................................................91 .....■ .......51.9
Paved roads..................................................................................66 .....■ .......39.0
Road congestion...........................................................................25 .....■ ..........15
Quality of air transport infrastructure ...........................................69 .....■ .........4.4
Quality of railroad infrastructure.................................................102 .....■ .........1.3
Quality of roads ..........................................................................104 .....■ .........2.4
Quality of port infrastructure ......................................................112 .....■ .........2.4

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index................................................95 .....■ .........2.0
Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................98 .....■ .........2.3
Competence of the logistics industry ........................................108 .....■ .........2.0
Ability and ease of tracking ........................................................120 .....■ .........1.7
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .......................119 .....■ .........2.1
Postal service efficiency...............................................................71 .....■ .........4.2
GATS commitments in the transport sector ..................................6 .....■ .......53.0

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption ...............................................100 .....■ .........4.1
Mobile telephone subscribers ......................................................68 .....■ .......72.1
Broadband Internet subscribers ...................................................82 .....■ .........0.3
Internet users ...............................................................................73 .....■ .......15.0
Telephone lines ............................................................................83 .....■ .........9.0

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights............................................................................115 .....■ .........2.9
Ethics and corruption ...................................................................87 .....■ .........2.6
Undue influence .........................................................................107 .....■ .........2.4
Government inefficiency ..............................................................95 .....■ .........3.1
Domestic competition ................................................................111 .....■ .........3.6
Openness to foreign participation ................................................83 .....■ .........4.6
Ease of hiring foreign labor ............................................................2 .....■ .........6.0
Prevalence of foreign ownership ...............................................101 .....■ .........4.3
Business impact of rules on FDI ................................................105 .....■ .........4.3
Capital controls.............................................................................93 .....■ .........3.9

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .........................................................71 .....■ .........4.0
Business costs of crime and violence..........................................69 .....■ .........4.6
Business costs of terrorism .........................................................77 .....■ .........5.3

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 106

Algeria
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

World average trade

80

4

60

3

40

2

20

1

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 ...........................................34.4
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)...................2,381.7
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................159.7
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ............4,588.2
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................66
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................3.0

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank
0

0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

106

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ..........................................23.2
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) .........................................60,163.2
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .........................................2,474.1
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................48
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ..........................................27,631.0
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .........................................4,540.2
Total imports (rank out of 121) ......................................................................58

WTO accession year............................................................................Observer
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................59.4
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................2
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 ............—; 18.6
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2007 ............3.1
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.......................................0.0
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008 ...............................0.0

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
EU27
United States
Canada
Others

Imports origin
43.6
30.1
7.8
18.6

EU27
China
United States
Others

100

51.9
8.6
7.7
31.7

0.9

■ Manufactures

80

■ Fuels and mining
products

74.9

60
98.9

■ Agricultural
products

40
3.0

20
22.1
0.2

0

Source: WTO

Exports

Imports

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index............................................................................112

3.2

Market access .................................................................................................118

2.8

Domestic and foreign market access............................................................118

2.8

Border administration.......................................................................................88

3.2

Efficiency of customs administration.............................................................105
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................88
Transparency of border administration...........................................................74

2.4
4.1
3.2

Transport and communications infrastructure ............................................90

2.9

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .......................................68
Availability and quality of transport services...............................................111
Availability and use of ICTs................................................................................85

3.6
2.7
2.4

Business environment ......................................................................................92

3.8

Regulatory environment ...................................................................................101
Physical security .................................................................................................87

3.3
4.3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 107

Algeria
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers...............................................................................117 .....■ .......15.6
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ................................117 .....■ .......14.4
Tariff barriers for agricultural products .........................................98 .....■ .......22.3
Non-tariff barriers .........................................................................89 .....■ .......78.4
Complexity of tariffs .....................................................................26 .....■ .........6.7
Variance of tariffs .........................................................................52 .....■ .......10.1
Domestic tariff peaks .....................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Specific tariffs.................................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Number of distinct tariffs ...............................................................4 .....■ ............4
Share of duty-free imports ...........................................................68 .....■ ..........48
Tariffs faced ................................................................................116 .....■ .........6.1
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................71 .....■ .......22.7

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures..................................................115 .....■ .........2.6
Customs services index ...............................................................83 .....■ .........4.0

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance..................................121 .....■ .........1.6
Time for import.............................................................................67 .....■ ..........23
Documents for import ..................................................................85 .....■ ............9
Cost to import ..............................................................................80 .....■ .....1,428
Time for export .............................................................................46 .....■ ..........17
Documents for export ..................................................................83 .....■ ............8
Cost to export ..............................................................................75 .....■ .....1,248

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ..................................80 .....■ .........3.5
Corruption Perceptions Index.......................................................72 .....■ .........3.2

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

107
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ..............................................................................45 .....■ .........0.8
Transshipment connectivity index ................................................59 .....■ .......67.0
Paved roads..................................................................................45 .....■ .......70.2
Road congestion...........................................................................43 .....■ ..........27
Quality of air transport infrastructure ...........................................96 .....■ .........3.5
Quality of railroad infrastructure...................................................61 .....■ .........2.6
Quality of roads ............................................................................69 .....■ .........3.3
Quality of port infrastructure ........................................................93 .....■ .........3.1

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index................................................80 .....■ .........7.8
Ease and affordability of shipment.............................................115 .....■ .........2.0
Competence of the logistics industry ........................................113 .....■ .........1.9
Ability and ease of tracking ..........................................................98 .....■ .........2.3
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .........................93 .....■ .........2.8
Postal service efficiency.............................................................104 .....■ .........3.2
GATS commitments in the transport sector ...............................n/a ..................n/a

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption ...............................................116 .....■ .........3.6
Mobile telephone subscribers ......................................................59 .....■ .......81.4
Broadband Internet subscribers ...................................................73 .....■ .........0.8
Internet users ...............................................................................84 .....■ .......10.3
Telephone lines ............................................................................82 .....■ .........9.1

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights............................................................................104 .....■ .........3.2
Ethics and corruption ...................................................................66 .....■ .........2.8
Undue influence ...........................................................................70 .....■ .........3.2
Government inefficiency ..............................................................85 .....■ .........3.2
Domestic competition ................................................................107 .....■ .........3.7
Openness to foreign participation ..............................................118 .....■ .........3.5
Ease of hiring foreign labor ........................................................112 .....■ .........3.7
Prevalence of foreign ownership ...............................................118 .....■ .........3.4
Business impact of rules on FDI ................................................104 .....■ .........4.3
Capital controls...........................................................................118 .....■ .........2.8

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .........................................................62 .....■ .........4.2
Business costs of crime and violence..........................................76 .....■ .........4.4
Business costs of terrorism .......................................................111 .....■ .........4.3

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 108

Argentina
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank

World average trade

100

10

80

8

60

6

40

4

20

2

0

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 ...........................................39.9
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)...................2,780.4
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................326.5
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ............8,214.1
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................52
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................7.0

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

108

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ............................................1.4
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) .........................................55,778.8
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .......................................10,175.5
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................45
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ..........................................44,706.8
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .......................................10,521.7
Total imports (rank out of 121) ......................................................................47

WTO accession year ..................................................................................1995
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................66.5
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................3
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .........31.9; 12.0
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008 ............6.6
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.......................................0.0
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008 ...............................1.7

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
Brazil
EU27
China
United States
Chile
Others

Imports origin
18.8
17.6
9.3
7.8
7.5
39.0

Brazil
EU27
United States
China
Others

100

32.8
16.7
11.9
11.4
27.2

80

30.8

60

14.7

■ Manufactures
■ Fuels and mining
products

85.0

■ Agricultural
products

40
51.5

20
9.3

0

Source: WTO

Exports

5.0

Imports

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index..............................................................................97

3.5

Market access ...................................................................................................95

3.7

Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................95

3.7

Border administration.......................................................................................84

3.4

Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................83
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................77
Transparency of border administration...........................................................96

2.9
4.3
2.8

Transport and communications infrastructure ............................................67

3.3

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .......................................91
Availability and quality of transport services.................................................66
Availability and use of ICTs................................................................................47

3.0
3.4
3.6

Business environment ....................................................................................111

3.4

Regulatory environment ...................................................................................117
Physical security .................................................................................................92

2.8
4.0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 109

Argentina
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers.................................................................................74 .....■ .........7.9
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ..................................82 .....■ .........7.7
Tariff barriers for agricultural products .........................................44 .....■ .........9.9
Non-tariff barriers .........................................................................87 .....■ .......65.1
Complexity of tariffs .....................................................................75 .....■ .........4.7
Variance of tariffs .........................................................................84 .....■ .......10.9
Domestic tariff peaks ...................................................................54 .....■ .........1.5
Specific tariffs...............................................................................85 .....■ .........7.1
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................84 .....■ ........700
Share of duty-free imports ...........................................................61 .....■ ..........58
Tariffs faced ..................................................................................40 .....■ .........5.3
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................40 .....■ .......42.4

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures..................................................106 .....■ .........2.8
Customs services index ...............................................................64 .....■ .........5.5

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance....................................50 .....■ .........2.7
Time for import.............................................................................46 .....■ ..........18
Documents for import ..................................................................44 .....■ ............7
Cost to import ..............................................................................96 .....■ .....1,810
Time for export .............................................................................29 .....■ ..........13
Documents for export ..................................................................98 .....■ ............9
Cost to export ..............................................................................90 .....■ .....1,480

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ................................104 .....■ .........2.9
Corruption Perceptions Index.......................................................84 .....■ .........2.9

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

109
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ..............................................................................28 .....■ .........1.3
Transshipment connectivity index ................................................44 .....■ .......70.6
Paved roads..................................................................................75 .....■ .......30.0
Road congestion..........................................................................n/a ..................n/a
Quality of air transport infrastructure .........................................113 .....■ .........3.1
Quality of railroad infrastructure...................................................74 .....■ .........2.1
Quality of roads ............................................................................79 .....■ .........2.9
Quality of port infrastructure ........................................................82 .....■ .........3.3

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index................................................37 .....■ .......25.7
Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................51 .....■ .........3.0
Competence of the logistics industry ..........................................39 .....■ .........3.0
Ability and ease of tracking ..........................................................44 .....■ .........3.0
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .........................45 .....■ .........3.5
Postal service efficiency...............................................................91 .....■ .........3.7
GATS commitments in the transport sector ................................68 .....■ .........0.0

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption .................................................76 .....■ .........4.5
Mobile telephone subscribers ......................................................39 .....■ .....102.2
Broadband Internet subscribers ...................................................43 .....■ .........6.6
Internet users ...............................................................................54 .....■ .......25.9
Telephone lines ............................................................................49 .....■ .......24.0

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights............................................................................112 .....■ .........3.0
Ethics and corruption .................................................................115 .....■ .........1.8
Undue influence .........................................................................113 .....■ .........2.1
Government inefficiency ............................................................119 .....■ .........2.4
Domestic competition ................................................................116 .....■ .........3.4
Openness to foreign participation ..............................................107 .....■ .........4.1
Ease of hiring foreign labor ..........................................................45 .....■ .........5.0
Prevalence of foreign ownership .................................................89 .....■ .........4.7
Business impact of rules on FDI ................................................114 .....■ .........3.7
Capital controls...........................................................................114 .....■ .........3.1

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .......................................................117 .....■ .........2.3
Business costs of crime and violence........................................100 .....■ .........3.7
Business costs of terrorism .........................................................32 .....■ .........6.1

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 110

Armenia
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

World average trade

120

12
10

90

8

60

6
4

30

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 .............................................3.0
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)........................29.8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................11.9
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ............3,360.5
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................76
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................6.8

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank
0

0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

110

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ........................................–12.6
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ...........................................1,152.3
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) ............................................570.9
Total exports (rank out of 121).....................................................................108
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ............................................3,267.8
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) ............................................772.0
Total imports (rank out of 121) ....................................................................103

WTO accession year ..................................................................................2003
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................62.9
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................8
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2006 .............8.5; 2.9
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2006 ............0.2
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.......................................3.5
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008 ...............................0.0

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
EU27
Russian Federation
Georgia
Switzerland
United States
Others

Imports origin
50.0
17.7
6.2
4.4
4.4
17.4

EU27
Russian Federation
Ukraine
Kazakhstan
China
Others

100

33.2
15.8
8.2
7.9
6.3
28.6

■ Manufactures

80

■ Fuels and mining
products

54.0
54.9

60

■ Agricultural
products

40
24.9

17.7

17.0

16.9

Exports

Imports

20
0

Source: WTO

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index..............................................................................64

3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................42

4.2

Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................42

4.2

Border administration.......................................................................................87

3.2

Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................64
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................99
Transparency of border administration.........................................................106

3.5
3.6
2.7

Transport and communications infrastructure ............................................61

3.4

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .......................................69
Availability and quality of transport services.................................................50
Availability and use of ICTs................................................................................70

3.6
3.8
2.9

Business environment ......................................................................................64

4.3

Regulatory environment .....................................................................................91
Physical security .................................................................................................46

3.5
5.2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 111

Armenia
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers...............................................................................109 .....■ .......13.6
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ..................................37 .....■ .........2.1
Tariff barriers for agricultural products .......................................121 .....■ .......83.4
Non-tariff barriers.........................................................................n/a ..................n/a
Complexity of tariffs .....................................................................69 .....■ .........5.4
Variance of tariffs .......................................................................119 .....■ .......59.4
Domestic tariff peaks ...................................................................33 .....■ .........0.4
Specific tariffs...............................................................................54 .....■ .........0.5
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................57 .....■ ..........32
Share of duty-free imports ...........................................................21 .....■ ..........74
Tariffs faced ..................................................................................88 .....■ .........5.6
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................10 .....■ .......70.3

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures..................................................111 .....■ .........2.7
Customs services index ...............................................................38 .....■ .........7.5

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance..................................101 .....■ .........2.1
Time for import.............................................................................74 .....■ ..........24
Documents for import ..................................................................85 .....■ ............9
Cost to import ............................................................................101 .....■ .....1,981
Time for export .............................................................................95 .....■ ..........30
Documents for export ..................................................................67 .....■ ............7
Cost to export ............................................................................100 .....■ .....1,746

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ................................115 .....■ .........2.6
Corruption Perceptions Index.......................................................84 .....■ .........2.9

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

111
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ..............................................................................60 .....■ .........0.7
Transshipment connectivity index ...............................................n/a ..................n/a
Paved roads..................................................................................27 .....■ .......90.0
Road congestion..........................................................................n/a ..................n/a
Quality of air transport infrastructure ...........................................78 .....■ .........4.2
Quality of railroad infrastructure...................................................79 .....■ .........1.8
Quality of roads ............................................................................71 .....■ .........3.2
Quality of port infrastructure ......................................................103 .....■ .........2.7

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index ...............................................n/a ..................n/a
Ease and affordability of shipment.............................................115 .....■ .........2.0
Competence of the logistics industry ........................................104 .....■ .........2.1
Ability and ease of tracking ........................................................102 .....■ .........2.2
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .......................106 .....■ .........2.6
Postal service efficiency...............................................................63 .....■ .........4.6
GATS commitments in the transport sector ..................................2 .....■ .......59.9

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption .................................................99 .....■ .........4.1
Mobile telephone subscribers ......................................................71 .....■ .......62.5
Broadband Internet subscribers ..................................................n/a ..................n/a
Internet users ...............................................................................97 .....■ .........5.7
Telephone lines............................................................................n/a ..................n/a

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights..............................................................................70 .....■ .........4.0
Ethics and corruption ...................................................................99 .....■ .........2.4
Undue influence .........................................................................104 .....■ .........2.5
Government inefficiency ..............................................................81 .....■ .........3.2
Domestic competition ................................................................104 .....■ .........3.8
Openness to foreign participation ................................................48 .....■ .........5.2
Ease of hiring foreign labor ............................................................7 .....■ .........5.8
Prevalence of foreign ownership .................................................77 .....■ .........4.9
Business impact of rules on FDI ..................................................79 .....■ .........4.8
Capital controls.............................................................................53 .....■ .........5.0

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .........................................................84 .....■ .........3.6
Business costs of crime and violence..........................................28 .....■ .........5.7
Business costs of terrorism .........................................................28 .....■ .........6.2

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 112

Australia
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

World average trade

80

6

60

3

40

0

20

-3

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 ...........................................21.0
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)...................7,741.2
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 .........................................1,010.7
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ..........47,400.4
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................12
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................2.1

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank
0

-6
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

112

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ..........................................–4.2
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) .......................................141,358.4
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .......................................39,726.8
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................28
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ........................................165,336.0
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .......................................38,540.5
Total imports (rank out of 121) ......................................................................19

WTO accession year ..................................................................................1995
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................83.8
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................7
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .............9.9; 3.5
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2007 ............3.9
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2007.......................................2.2
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2007 ...............................4.5

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
Japan
China
EU27
Korea, Rep.
United States
Others

Imports origin
19.0
14.0
11.4
8.0
6.0
41.6

EU27
China
United States
Japan
Singapore
Others

100

21.9
15.5
12.9
9.6
5.6
34.6

■ Manufactures

80

18.5

60

■ Fuels and mining
products

75.8

■ Agricultural
products

50.9

40
20

14.4

15.8

5.7

0

Source: WTO

Exports

Imports

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index..............................................................................14

5.1

Market access ...................................................................................................97

3.7

Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................97

3.7

Border administration.......................................................................................17

5.5

Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................24
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................32
Transparency of border administration.............................................................8

5.1
5.3
6.2

Transport and communications infrastructure ............................................14

5.4

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .......................................17
Availability and quality of transport services...................................................9
Availability and use of ICTs................................................................................17

5.1
5.4
5.7

Business environment ......................................................................................14

5.6

Regulatory environment .....................................................................................11
Physical security .................................................................................................23

5.5
5.8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 113

Australia
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers.................................................................................86 .....■ .........9.3
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ..................................96 .....■ .........9.8
Tariff barriers for agricultural products ...........................................3 .....■ .........1.2
Non-tariff barriers .........................................................................30 .....■ .......20.2
Complexity of tariffs .....................................................................52 .....■ .........6.4
Variance of tariffs ...........................................................................8 .....■ .........4.5
Domestic tariff peaks ...................................................................66 .....■ .........4.2
Specific tariffs...............................................................................53 .....■ .........0.5
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................53 .....■ ..........23
Share of duty-free imports ...........................................................62 .....■ ..........57
Tariffs faced ................................................................................112 .....■ .........6.0
Margin of preference in target markets .....................................119 .....■ .........2.6

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures....................................................21 .....■ .........4.9
Customs services index ...............................................................23 .....■ .........9.3

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance....................................17 .....■ .........3.6
Time for import.............................................................................25 .....■ ..........12
Documents for import ..................................................................30 .....■ ............6
Cost to import ..............................................................................60 .....■ .....1,239
Time for export .............................................................................18 .....■ ............9
Documents for export ..................................................................42 .....■ ............6
Cost to export ..............................................................................70 .....■ .....1,200

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ....................................9 .....■ .........6.2
Corruption Perceptions Index.........................................................8 .....■ .........8.7

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

113
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ................................................................................3 .....■ .........7.3
Transshipment connectivity index ................................................29 .....■ .......74.1
Paved roads..................................................................................67 .....■ .......38.7
Road congestion...........................................................................31 .....■ ..........17
Quality of air transport infrastructure ...........................................16 .....■ .........6.0
Quality of railroad infrastructure...................................................26 .....■ .........4.2
Quality of roads ............................................................................29 .....■ .........5.1
Quality of port infrastructure ........................................................36 .....■ .........4.8

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index................................................21 .....■ .......38.2
Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................12 .....■ .........3.7
Competence of the logistics industry ..........................................18 .....■ .........3.8
Ability and ease of tracking ..........................................................12 .....■ .........4.0
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .........................20 .....■ .........4.1
Postal service efficiency...............................................................14 .....■ .........6.4
GATS commitments in the transport sector ..................................4 .....■ .......58.1

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption .................................................16 .....■ .........5.8
Mobile telephone subscribers ......................................................38 .....■ .....102.5
Broadband Internet subscribers ...................................................16 .....■ .......23.3
Internet users ...............................................................................14 .....■ .......69.0
Telephone lines ............................................................................14 .....■ .......47.1

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights................................................................................8 .....■ .........6.2
Ethics and corruption ...................................................................12 .....■ .........5.6
Undue influence .............................................................................8 .....■ .........5.8
Government inefficiency ..............................................................16 .....■ .........4.7
Domestic competition ....................................................................3 .....■ .........5.5
Openness to foreign participation ................................................45 .....■ .........5.2
Ease of hiring foreign labor ..........................................................79 .....■ .........4.5
Prevalence of foreign ownership .................................................35 .....■ .........5.7
Business impact of rules on FDI ..................................................53 .....■ .........5.3
Capital controls.............................................................................46 .....■ .........5.2

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .........................................................13 .....■ .........6.1
Business costs of crime and violence..........................................34 .....■ .........5.6
Business costs of terrorism .........................................................65 .....■ .........5.6

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 114

Austria
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

World average trade

120

12

90

9

60

6

30

3

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 .............................................8.4
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)........................83.9
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................415.3
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ..........50,098.4
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................11
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................1.8

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank
0

0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

114

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ............................................2.9
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) .......................................163,804.0
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .......................................55,210.5
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................22
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ........................................163,246.6
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .......................................38,908.6
Total imports (rank out of 121) ......................................................................20

WTO accession year ..................................................................................1995
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................77.2
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ................................................27
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .............5.4; 5.2
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008 ............1.0
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.....................................41.9
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008 ...............................1.3

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
EU27
United States
Switzerland
Others

Imports origin
72.3
5.1
4.4
18.2

EU27
Switzerland
China
Others

100

74.5
4.2
4.0
17.3

■ Manufactures

80
60

■ Fuels and mining
products

76.3

84.6

■ Agricultural
products

40
20

14.5

6.0
8.9

0

Source: WTO

8.7

Exports

Imports

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index................................................................................9

5.3

Market access ...................................................................................................84

3.8

Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................84

3.8

Border administration.........................................................................................6

5.9

Efficiency of customs administration.................................................................3
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................18
Transparency of border administration...........................................................11

6.0
5.7
6.0

Transport and communications infrastructure ..............................................6

5.6

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .........................................9
Availability and quality of transport services...................................................5
Availability and use of ICTs................................................................................15

5.2
5.8
5.7

Business environment ........................................................................................8

5.9

Regulatory environment .....................................................................................13
Physical security ...................................................................................................5

5.4
6.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 115

Austria
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers...................................................................................3 .....■ .........1.1
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ....................................5 .....■ .........0.5
Tariff barriers for agricultural products .........................................14 .....■ .........9.3
Non-tariff barriers .........................................................................70 .....■ .......46.2
Complexity of tariffs .....................................................................92 .....■ .........3.1
Variance of tariffs .........................................................................58 .....■ .......10.8
Domestic tariff peaks ...................................................................87 .....■ .........9.8
Specific tariffs...............................................................................90 .....■ .......10.5
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................92 .....■ .....1,491
Share of duty-free imports ...........................................................22 .....■ ..........68
Tariffs faced ..................................................................................60 .....■ .........5.6
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................84 .....■ .......10.4

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures....................................................10 .....■ .........5.4
Customs services index .................................................................4 .....■ .......11.5

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance......................................8 .....■ .........3.8
Time for import.............................................................................11 .....■ ............8
Documents for import ..................................................................15 .....■ ............5
Cost to import ..............................................................................51 .....■ .....1,125
Time for export ...............................................................................8 .....■ ............7
Documents for export ....................................................................5 .....■ ............4
Cost to export ..............................................................................64 .....■ .....1,125

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ..................................10 .....■ .........6.1
Corruption Perceptions Index.......................................................11 .....■ .........8.1

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

115
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ..............................................................................53 .....■ .........0.7
Transshipment connectivity index ...............................................n/a ..................n/a
Paved roads....................................................................................1 .....■ .....100.0
Road congestion...........................................................................58 .....■ ..........36
Quality of air transport infrastructure ...........................................12 .....■ .........6.2
Quality of railroad infrastructure...................................................12 .....■ .........5.5
Quality of roads ..............................................................................6 .....■ .........6.4
Quality of port infrastructure ........................................................30 .....■ .........5.0

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index ...............................................n/a ..................n/a
Ease and affordability of shipment.................................................3 .....■ .........4.0
Competence of the logistics industry ............................................4 .....■ .........4.1
Ability and ease of tracking ..........................................................12 .....■ .........4.0
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination ...........................3 .....■ .........4.4
Postal service efficiency...............................................................24 .....■ .........6.1
GATS commitments in the transport sector ................................11 .....■ .......47.9

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption ...................................................6 .....■ .........6.2
Mobile telephone subscribers ......................................................16 .....■ .....118.6
Broadband Internet subscribers ...................................................23 .....■ .......19.4
Internet users ...............................................................................17 .....■ .......67.0
Telephone lines ............................................................................26 .....■ .......40.7

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights................................................................................3 .....■ .........6.5
Ethics and corruption ...................................................................15 .....■ .........5.2
Undue influence ...........................................................................13 .....■ .........5.4
Government inefficiency ..............................................................17 .....■ .........4.7
Domestic competition ..................................................................10 .....■ .........5.3
Openness to foreign participation ................................................37 .....■ .........5.3
Ease of hiring foreign labor ........................................................110 .....■ .........3.8
Prevalence of foreign ownership .................................................18 .....■ .........5.9
Business impact of rules on FDI ..................................................27 .....■ .........5.6
Capital controls.............................................................................16 .....■ .........5.9

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .........................................................12 .....■ .........6.2
Business costs of crime and violence............................................9 .....■ .........6.3
Business costs of terrorism ...........................................................7 .....■ .........6.6

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 116

Azerbaijan
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

World average trade

120

60

90

40

60

20

30

0

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 .............................................8.5
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)........................86.6
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................46.4
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ............5,349.4
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................60
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ................................11.6

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank
0

-20
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

116

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ..........................................35.5
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) .........................................21,269.3
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .........................................1,172.0
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................63
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ............................................6,045.0
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .........................................3,324.5
Total imports (rank out of 121) ......................................................................83

WTO accession year............................................................................Observer
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009...........................73
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................4
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 ..............—; 9.2
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008 ............1.3
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.......................................7.5
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008 ...............................0.1

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
EU27
Turkey
Russian Federation
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Indonesia
Others

Imports origin
27.6
17.4
8.7
7.2
6.4
32.6

EU27
Russian Federation
Turkey
Ukraine
Japan
Others

100

29.3
17.6
10.9
8.2
5.2
28.9

3.7

■ Manufactures

80

■ Fuels and mining
products

77.6

60
90.5

■ Agricultural
products

40
20
0

Source: WTO

14.43
16.8

5.2

Exports

4.5

Imports

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index..............................................................................70

3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................52

4.1

Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................52

4.1

Border administration.....................................................................................103

2.9

Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................36
Efficiency of import-export procedures ........................................................118
Transparency of border administration.........................................................112

4.3
1.8
2.6

Transport and communications infrastructure ............................................62

3.4

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .......................................45
Availability and quality of transport services.................................................62
Availability and use of ICTs................................................................................80

4.1
3.5
2.6

Business environment ......................................................................................46

4.7

Regulatory environment .....................................................................................59
Physical security .................................................................................................38

3.9
5.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 117

Azerbaijan
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers.................................................................................61 .....■ .........6.0
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ..................................67 .....■ .........5.7
Tariff barriers for agricultural products .........................................52 .....■ .......10.7
Non-tariff barriers.........................................................................n/a ..................n/a
Complexity of tariffs .....................................................................63 .....■ .........5.9
Variance of tariffs .........................................................................45 .....■ .........9.4
Domestic tariff peaks ...................................................................56 .....■ .........1.6
Specific tariffs...............................................................................73 .....■ .........2.5
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................76 .....■ ........274
Share of duty-free imports ...........................................................81 .....■ ..........34
Tariffs faced ..................................................................................94 .....■ .........5.6
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................45 .....■ .......39.3

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures....................................................58 .....■ .........3.8
Customs services index ...............................................................26 .....■ .........8.5

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance....................................83 .....■ .........2.2
Time for import...........................................................................112 .....■ ..........56
Documents for import ................................................................120 .....■ ..........14
Cost to import ............................................................................115 .....■ .....3,420
Time for export ...........................................................................112 .....■ ..........48
Documents for export ..................................................................98 .....■ ............9
Cost to export ............................................................................117 .....■ .....3,075

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ..................................97 .....■ .........3.0
Corruption Perceptions Index.....................................................114 .....■ .........1.9

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

117
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ..............................................................................84 .....■ .........0.4
Transshipment connectivity index ...............................................n/a ..................n/a
Paved roads..................................................................................61 .....■ .......49.4
Road congestion...........................................................................16 .....■ ..........10
Quality of air transport infrastructure ...........................................43 .....■ .........5.2
Quality of railroad infrastructure...................................................33 .....■ .........4.0
Quality of roads ............................................................................54 .....■ .........3.7
Quality of port infrastructure ........................................................53 .....■ .........4.2

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index ...............................................n/a ..................n/a
Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................80 .....■ .........2.5
Competence of the logistics industry ........................................108 .....■ .........2.0
Ability and ease of tracking ..........................................................86 .....■ .........2.4
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .......................106 .....■ .........2.6
Postal service efficiency...............................................................47 .....■ .........5.3
GATS commitments in the transport sector ...............................n/a ..................n/a

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption .................................................48 .....■ .........5.1
Mobile telephone subscribers ......................................................79 .....■ .......53.4
Broadband Internet subscribers ...................................................90 .....■ .........0.1
Internet users ...............................................................................81 .....■ .......10.9
Telephone lines ............................................................................68 .....■ .......14.8

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights..............................................................................69 .....■ .........4.0
Ethics and corruption ...................................................................48 .....■ .........3.4
Undue influence ...........................................................................62 .....■ .........3.4
Government inefficiency ..............................................................46 .....■ .........3.8
Domestic competition ..................................................................95 .....■ .........3.9
Openness to foreign participation ................................................61 .....■ .........4.9
Ease of hiring foreign labor ..........................................................39 .....■ .........5.1
Prevalence of foreign ownership .................................................46 .....■ .........5.5
Business impact of rules on FDI ..................................................71 .....■ .........5.0
Capital controls.............................................................................90 .....■ .........3.9

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .........................................................50 .....■ .........4.5
Business costs of crime and violence..........................................20 .....■ .........5.8
Business costs of terrorism .........................................................37 .....■ .........6.1

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 118

Bahrain
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

World average trade

200

40

150
30
100

20

50

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 .............................................0.8
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)..........................0.7
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................21.2
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ..........27,247.8
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................29
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................6.1

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

10

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank
0

0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

118

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ..........................................10.6
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) .........................................13,634.0
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .........................................3,524.2
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................67
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ..........................................11,488.0
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .........................................1,700.9
Total imports (rank out of 121) ......................................................................76

WTO accession year ..................................................................................1995
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................58.3
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................3
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 ...........34.4; 5.0
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008 ............0.8
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.......................................3.3
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008 ...............................0.0

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
Saudi Arabia
Others

Imports origin
5.3
94.7

EU27
Australia
Japan
Saudi Arabia
China
Others

100

11.4
6.3
5.2
4.8
4.2
68.1

9.8

■ Manufactures

35.2

80

■ Fuels and mining
products

60
89.7

40

■ Agricultural
products

59.1

20
0.5

0

Source: WTO

Exports

5.6

Imports

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index..............................................................................24

4.8

Market access ...................................................................................................26

4.7

Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................26

4.7

Border administration.......................................................................................25

5.2

Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................16
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................23
Transparency of border administration...........................................................35

5.3
5.5
4.7

Transport and communications infrastructure ............................................41

4.1

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .......................................36
Availability and quality of transport services.................................................63
Availability and use of ICTs................................................................................36

4.3
3.5
4.4

Business environment ......................................................................................27

5.1

Regulatory environment .....................................................................................28
Physical security .................................................................................................34

4.8
5.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 119

Bahrain
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers.................................................................................54 .....■ .........5.0
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ..................................51 .....■ .........3.8
Tariff barriers for agricultural products .........................................95 .....■ .......21.5
Non-tariff barriers ...........................................................................8 .....■ .........2.1
Complexity of tariffs .....................................................................42 .....■ .........6.5
Variance of tariffs .........................................................................88 .....■ .......11.5
Domestic tariff peaks ...................................................................38 .....■ .........0.5
Specific tariffs...............................................................................61 .....■ .........0.7
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................53 .....■ ..........23
Share of duty-free imports ...........................................................86 .....■ ..........31
Tariffs faced ..................................................................................95 .....■ .........5.6
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................51 .....■ .......36.8

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures....................................................16 .....■ .........5.1
Customs services index ...............................................................16 .....■ .........9.5

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance....................................22 .....■ .........3.4
Time for import.............................................................................35 .....■ ..........15
Documents for import ..................................................................30 .....■ ............6
Cost to import ..............................................................................25 .....■ ........845
Time for export .............................................................................33 .....■ ..........14
Documents for export ..................................................................24 .....■ ............5
Cost to export ..............................................................................30 .....■ ........805

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ..................................33 .....■ .........5.1
Corruption Perceptions Index.......................................................35 .....■ .........5.4

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

119
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ..............................................................................27 .....■ .........1.3
Transshipment connectivity index ................................................94 .....■ .......48.6
Paved roads..................................................................................38 .....■ .......79.1
Road congestion...........................................................................77 .....■ ..........77
Quality of air transport infrastructure ...........................................18 .....■ .........6.0
Quality of railroad infrastructure ..................................................n/a ..................n/a
Quality of roads ............................................................................26 .....■ .........5.2
Quality of port infrastructure ........................................................20 .....■ .........5.4

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index................................................85 .....■ .........5.8
Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................26 .....■ .........3.3
Competence of the logistics industry ..........................................57 .....■ .........2.8
Ability and ease of tracking ..........................................................44 .....■ .........3.0
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .........................73 .....■ .........3.0
Postal service efficiency...............................................................26 .....■ .........6.1
GATS commitments in the transport sector ................................68 .....■ .........0.0

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption .................................................34 .....■ .........5.4
Mobile telephone subscribers ........................................................6 .....■ .....148.3
Broadband Internet subscribers ...................................................35 .....■ .........9.1
Internet users ...............................................................................42 .....■ .......33.2
Telephone lines ............................................................................47 .....■ .......26.3

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights..............................................................................32 .....■ .........5.3
Ethics and corruption ...................................................................29 .....■ .........4.2
Undue influence ...........................................................................38 .....■ .........4.3
Government inefficiency ..............................................................24 .....■ .........4.4
Domestic competition ..................................................................35 .....■ .........4.8
Openness to foreign participation ................................................13 .....■ .........5.7
Ease of hiring foreign labor ..........................................................69 .....■ .........4.6
Prevalence of foreign ownership .................................................14 .....■ .........6.0
Business impact of rules on FDI ....................................................6 .....■ .........6.1
Capital controls...............................................................................9 .....■ .........6.1

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .........................................................30 .....■ .........5.2
Business costs of crime and violence..........................................24 .....■ .........5.7
Business costs of terrorism .........................................................66 .....■ .........5.6

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 120

Bangladesh
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

World average trade

80

2.0

60

1.5

40

1.0

20

0.5

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 .........................................161.3
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)......................144.0
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................81.9
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ...............506.1
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008.........................112
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................5.6

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank
0

0.0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

120

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ............................................0.9
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) .........................................12,453.2
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) ............................................685.4
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................71
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ..........................................18,596.0
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .........................................2,673.4
Total imports (rank out of 121) ......................................................................65

WTO accession year ..................................................................................1995
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009...........................47
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................5
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .......169.2; 14.6
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2007 ............3.4
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2007.......................................0.0
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2007 ...............................0.0

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
EU27
United States
China
Others

Imports origin
49.3
26.7
6.6
17.3

China
India
EU27
Kuwait
Japan
Others

100

16.4
12.0
11.0
9.3
5.7
45.7

■ Manufactures

56.0

80

■ Fuels and mining
products

60
93.0

■ Agricultural
products

40
13.1

20
1.1

0

Source: WTO

Exports

24.7

5.7

Imports

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index............................................................................111

3.2

Market access ...................................................................................................57

4.0

Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................57

4.0

Border administration.....................................................................................104

2.9

Efficiency of customs administration.............................................................115
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................82
Transparency of border administration.........................................................119

2.2
4.2
2.2

Transport and communications infrastructure ..........................................108

2.5

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .....................................102
Availability and quality of transport services...............................................105
Availability and use of ICTs..............................................................................102

2.8
2.8
1.9

Business environment ....................................................................................110

3.4

Regulatory environment ...................................................................................110
Physical security ...............................................................................................104

3.1
3.7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 121

Bangladesh
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers...............................................................................108 .....■ .......13.0
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ................................110 .....■ .......13.2
Tariff barriers for agricultural products .........................................58 .....■ .......12.6
Non-tariff barriers .........................................................................76 .....■ .......48.0
Complexity of tariffs .....................................................................27 .....■ .........6.7
Variance of tariffs .........................................................................40 .....■ .........9.0
Domestic tariff peaks .....................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Specific tariffs...............................................................................44 .....■ .........0.2
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................35 .....■ ..........15
Share of duty-free imports .........................................................114 .....■ ............3
Tariffs faced ....................................................................................9 .....■ .........4.8
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................11 .....■ .......67.8

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures..................................................119 .....■ .........2.4
Customs services index ...............................................................88 .....■ .........3.8

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance..................................106 .....■ .........2.0
Time for import.............................................................................91 .....■ ..........32
Documents for import ..................................................................66 .....■ ............8
Cost to import ..............................................................................75 .....■ .....1,375
Time for export .............................................................................91 .....■ ..........28
Documents for export ..................................................................42 .....■ ............6
Cost to export ..............................................................................47 .....■ ........970

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ................................120 .....■ .........2.1
Corruption Perceptions Index.....................................................107 .....■ .........2.1

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

121
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ............................................................................120 .....■ .........0.1
Transshipment connectivity index ................................................93 .....■ .......51.0
Paved roads................................................................................109 .....■ .........9.5
Road congestion.............................................................................1 .....■ ............1
Quality of air transport infrastructure .........................................108 .....■ .........3.4
Quality of railroad infrastructure...................................................65 .....■ .........2.3
Quality of roads ............................................................................83 .....■ .........2.8
Quality of port infrastructure ......................................................109 .....■ .........2.6

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index................................................83 .....■ .........6.4
Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................89 .....■ .........2.5
Competence of the logistics industry ..........................................92 .....■ .........2.3
Ability and ease of tracking ..........................................................81 .....■ .........2.5
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .........................53 .....■ .........3.3
Postal service efficiency.............................................................101 .....■ .........3.3
GATS commitments in the transport sector ................................68 .....■ .........0.0

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption ...............................................101 .....■ .........4.0
Mobile telephone subscribers ....................................................105 .....■ .......21.7
Broadband Internet subscribers ..................................................n/a ..................n/a
Internet users .............................................................................121 .....■ .........0.3
Telephone lines ..........................................................................109 .....■ .........0.7

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights............................................................................111 .....■ .........3.1
Ethics and corruption .................................................................109 .....■ .........2.0
Undue influence .........................................................................103 .....■ .........2.6
Government inefficiency ............................................................105 .....■ .........2.9
Domestic competition ..................................................................96 .....■ .........3.9
Openness to foreign participation ..............................................103 .....■ .........4.2
Ease of hiring foreign labor ........................................................113 .....■ .........3.7
Prevalence of foreign ownership .................................................86 .....■ .........4.8
Business impact of rules on FDI ..................................................50 .....■ .........5.4
Capital controls...........................................................................112 .....■ .........3.2

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .......................................................110 .....■ .........2.7
Business costs of crime and violence..........................................93 .....■ .........3.9
Business costs of terrorism .......................................................102 .....■ .........4.6

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 122

Belgium
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

World average trade

200

20

150

15

100

10

50

5

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 ...........................................10.5
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)........................30.5
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ............................................506.4
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ..........47,107.8
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................13
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................1.1

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank
0

0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

122

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ..........................................–2.5
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) .......................................432,271.7
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .......................................76,874.9
Total exports (rank out of 121).........................................................................9
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ........................................413,582.3
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .......................................72,383.4
Total imports (rank out of 121) ......................................................................10

WTO accession year ..................................................................................1995
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................80.9
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ................................................27
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .............5.4; 5.2
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008 ............1.0
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.....................................41.9
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008 ...............................1.3

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
EU27
United States
Others

Imports origin
76.7
5.6
17.7

EU27
United States
China
Others

100

71.3
5.3
4.1
19.3

■ Manufactures

80

■ Fuels and mining
products

73.9

60
79.4

■ Agricultural
products

40
20

10.7
9.5

16.9

Exports

Imports

0

Source: WTO

9.1

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index..............................................................................21

4.9

Market access ...................................................................................................80

3.8

Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................80

3.8

Border administration.......................................................................................29

5.0

Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................33
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................34
Transparency of border administration...........................................................19

4.4
5.2
5.4

Transport and communications infrastructure ............................................12

5.5

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .........................................7
Availability and quality of transport services...................................................8
Availability and use of ICTs................................................................................19

5.3
5.5
5.6

Business environment ......................................................................................20

5.4

Regulatory environment .....................................................................................20
Physical security .................................................................................................20

5.0
5.8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 123

Belgium
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers...................................................................................3 .....■ .........1.1
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ....................................5 .....■ .........0.5
Tariff barriers for agricultural products .........................................14 .....■ .........9.3
Non-tariff barriers .........................................................................67 .....■ .......45.5
Complexity of tariffs .....................................................................92 .....■ .........3.1
Variance of tariffs .........................................................................58 .....■ .......10.8
Domestic tariff peaks ...................................................................87 .....■ .........9.8
Specific tariffs...............................................................................90 .....■ .......10.5
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................92 .....■ .....1,491
Share of duty-free imports ...........................................................22 .....■ ..........68
Tariffs faced ..................................................................................60 .....■ .........5.6
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................84 .....■ .......10.4

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures....................................................27 .....■ .........4.8
Customs services index ...............................................................48 .....■ .........7.0

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance....................................16 .....■ .........3.6
Time for import.............................................................................14 .....■ ............9
Documents for import ..................................................................15 .....■ ............5
Cost to import ..............................................................................86 .....■ .....1,600
Time for export .............................................................................13 .....■ ............8
Documents for export ....................................................................5 .....■ ............4
Cost to export ..............................................................................94 .....■ .....1,619

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ..................................23 .....■ .........5.5
Corruption Perceptions Index.......................................................17 .....■ .........7.3

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

123
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ..............................................................................73 .....■ .........0.5
Transshipment connectivity index ..................................................3 .....■ .......96.3
Paved roads..................................................................................40 .....■ .......78.0
Road congestion...........................................................................60 .....■ ..........37
Quality of air transport infrastructure ...........................................13 .....■ .........6.1
Quality of railroad infrastructure.....................................................8 .....■ .........5.7
Quality of roads ............................................................................11 .....■ .........5.9
Quality of port infrastructure ..........................................................7 .....■ .........6.3

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index..................................................8 .....■ .......78.0
Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................16 .....■ .........3.7
Competence of the logistics industry ..........................................10 .....■ .........4.0
Ability and ease of tracking ..........................................................14 .....■ .........4.0
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .........................10 .....■ .........4.3
Postal service efficiency...............................................................31 .....■ .........5.7
GATS commitments in the transport sector ................................20 .....■ .......36.5

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption .................................................23 .....■ .........5.5
Mobile telephone subscribers ......................................................37 .....■ .....102.7
Broadband Internet subscribers ...................................................11 .....■ .......26.0
Internet users ...............................................................................18 .....■ .......67.0
Telephone lines ............................................................................20 .....■ .......44.6

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights..............................................................................18 .....■ .........5.9
Ethics and corruption ...................................................................24 .....■ .........4.6
Undue influence ...........................................................................20 .....■ .........5.0
Government inefficiency ..............................................................43 .....■ .........3.9
Domestic competition ..................................................................17 .....■ .........5.1
Openness to foreign participation ................................................22 .....■ .........5.5
Ease of hiring foreign labor ..........................................................72 .....■ .........4.6
Prevalence of foreign ownership .................................................12 .....■ .........6.0
Business impact of rules on FDI ..................................................20 .....■ .........5.8
Capital controls.............................................................................23 .....■ .........5.6

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .........................................................26 .....■ .........5.7
Business costs of crime and violence..........................................23 .....■ .........5.7
Business costs of terrorism .........................................................39 .....■ .........6.0

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 124

Benin
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

World average trade

80

4

70

3

60

2

50

1

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 .............................................9.3
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)......................112.6
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................6.9
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ...............856.0
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008.........................104
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................5.0

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank
40

0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

124

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ..........................................–8.3
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ..............................................875.0
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) ............................................428.4
Total exports (rank out of 121).....................................................................112
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ............................................1,600.0
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) ............................................516.9
Total imports (rank out of 121) ....................................................................112

WTO accession year ..................................................................................1996
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009...........................52
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................3
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .........28.3; 11.9
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008 ............3.4
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.......................................0.0
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008 ...............................0.0

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
China
EU27
India
Nigeria
Niger
Others

Imports origin
36.2
10.1
6.9
5.8
5.3
35.9

EU27
China
Ghana
Côte d’Ivoire
Thailand
Others

100

38.5
8.8
7.2
6.9
6.7
32.0

80

■ Manufactures

44.1

■ Fuels and mining
products

60
6.2

40
20

34.2
41.7

0

Source: WTO

■ Agricultural
products

21.4

0.6

Exports

Imports

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index..............................................................................96

3.5

Market access ...................................................................................................47

4.2

Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................47

4.2

Border administration.....................................................................................101

3.0

Efficiency of customs administration.............................................................118
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................93
Transparency of border administration...........................................................86

2.0
3.9
3.0

Transport and communications infrastructure ............................................99

2.6

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .....................................114
Availability and quality of transport services.................................................61
Availability and use of ICTs..............................................................................111

2.4
3.5
1.9

Business environment ......................................................................................74

4.2

Regulatory environment .....................................................................................82
Physical security .................................................................................................71

3.6
4.7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 125

Benin
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers.................................................................................73 .....■ .........7.8
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ..................................80 .....■ .........7.5
Tariff barriers for agricultural products .........................................55 .....■ .......11.9
Non-tariff barriers.........................................................................n/a ..................n/a
Complexity of tariffs .......................................................................9 .....■ .........6.8
Variance of tariffs .........................................................................20 .....■ .........6.8
Domestic tariff peaks .....................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Specific tariffs.................................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Number of distinct tariffs ...............................................................4 .....■ ............4
Share of duty-free imports .........................................................103 .....■ ..........12
Tariffs faced ..................................................................................12 .....■ .........4.9
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................72 .....■ .......21.7

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures..................................................109 .....■ .........2.7
Customs services index .............................................................108 .....■ .........2.5

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance..................................120 .....■ .........1.8
Time for import...........................................................................102 .....■ ..........40
Documents for import ..................................................................44 .....■ ............7
Cost to import ..............................................................................76 .....■ .....1,393
Time for export .............................................................................99 .....■ ..........32
Documents for export ..................................................................67 .....■ ............7
Cost to export ..............................................................................73 .....■ .....1,237

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ..................................92 .....■ .........3.1
Corruption Perceptions Index.......................................................76 .....■ .........3.1

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

125
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ............................................................................114 .....■ .........0.1
Transshipment connectivity index ................................................57 .....■ .......67.4
Paved roads................................................................................109 .....■ .........9.5
Road congestion..........................................................................n/a ..................n/a
Quality of air transport infrastructure ...........................................90 .....■ .........3.7
Quality of railroad infrastructure...................................................83 .....■ .........1.8
Quality of roads ............................................................................87 .....■ .........2.7
Quality of port infrastructure ........................................................86 .....■ .........3.2

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index................................................64 .....■ .......12.0
Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................62 .....■ .........2.8
Competence of the logistics industry ..........................................69 .....■ .........2.6
Ability and ease of tracking ..........................................................52 .....■ .........2.9
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .........................96 .....■ .........2.8
Postal service efficiency...............................................................72 .....■ .........4.1
GATS commitments in the transport sector ................................43 .....■ .......31.8

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption .................................................81 .....■ .........4.4
Mobile telephone subscribers ....................................................106 .....■ .......21.1
Broadband Internet subscribers ...................................................99 .....■ .........0.0
Internet users .............................................................................107 .....■ .........1.7
Telephone lines ..........................................................................104 .....■ .........1.2

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights..............................................................................94 .....■ .........3.4
Ethics and corruption ...................................................................82 .....■ .........2.6
Undue influence ...........................................................................57 .....■ .........3.4
Government inefficiency ..............................................................62 .....■ .........3.6
Domestic competition ..................................................................88 .....■ .........4.0
Openness to foreign participation ................................................82 .....■ .........4.6
Ease of hiring foreign labor ..........................................................26 .....■ .........5.3
Prevalence of foreign ownership .................................................83 .....■ .........4.8
Business impact of rules on FDI ..................................................96 .....■ .........4.5
Capital controls.............................................................................92 .....■ .........3.9

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .........................................................38 .....■ .........4.8
Business costs of crime and violence..........................................86 .....■ .........4.1
Business costs of terrorism .........................................................84 .....■ .........5.2

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 126

Bolivia
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

World average trade

80

16

60

11

40

6

20

1

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 .............................................9.7
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)...................1,098.6
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................17.4
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ............1,736.5
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................89
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................5.9

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank
0

-4
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

126

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ..........................................11.5
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ...........................................4,458.3
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) ............................................452.8
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................88
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ............................................3,457.0
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) ............................................809.7
Total imports (rank out of 121) ....................................................................100

WTO accession year ..................................................................................1995
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................41.8
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................3
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 ...........40.0; 8.3
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008..........–1.3
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.......................................0.0
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008 ...............................0.0

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
Brazil
Argentina
United States
Japan
EU27
Others

Imports origin
36.7
8.7
8.6
8.5
7.9
29.7

Brazil
Argentina
United States
Japan
EU27
Others

100

20.2
16.9
11.7
9.4
9.1
32.7

7.3

■ Manufactures

80

■ Fuels and mining
products

79.2

60

75.0

■ Agricultural
products

40
20

9.0
17.6

11.8

Exports

Imports

0

Source: WTO

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index..............................................................................88

3.6

Market access ...................................................................................................11

5.0

Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................11

5.0

Border administration.......................................................................................75

3.5

Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................63
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................89
Transparency of border administration...........................................................85

3.5
4.1
3.0

Transport and communications infrastructure ..........................................106

2.5

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .......................................88
Availability and quality of transport services...............................................116
Availability and use of ICTs..............................................................................106

3.1
2.6
1.9

Business environment ....................................................................................118

3.2

Regulatory environment ...................................................................................118
Physical security ...............................................................................................107

2.6
3.7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 127

Bolivia
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers.................................................................................79 .....■ .........8.3
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ..................................85 .....■ .........8.2
Tariff barriers for agricultural products .........................................41 .....■ .........9.6
Non-tariff barriers .........................................................................42 .....■ .......30.8
Complexity of tariffs .......................................................................5 .....■ .........6.9
Variance of tariffs ...........................................................................5 .....■ .........2.8
Domestic tariff peaks .....................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Specific tariffs.................................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Number of distinct tariffs ...............................................................2 .....■ ............3
Share of duty-free imports ...........................................................59 .....■ ..........59
Tariffs faced ..................................................................................14 .....■ .........4.9
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................24 .....■ .......53.3

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures..................................................103 .....■ .........2.8
Customs services index ...............................................................38 .....■ .........7.5

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance..................................106 .....■ .........2.0
Time for import.............................................................................67 .....■ ..........23
Documents for import ..................................................................44 .....■ ............7
Cost to import ..............................................................................93 .....■ .....1,747
Time for export .............................................................................58 .....■ ..........19
Documents for export ..................................................................83 .....■ ............8
Cost to export ..............................................................................86 .....■ .....1,425

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ..................................90 .....■ .........3.2
Corruption Perceptions Index.......................................................80 .....■ .........3.0

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

127
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ..............................................................................25 .....■ .........1.4
Transshipment connectivity index ...............................................n/a ..................n/a
Paved roads................................................................................114 .....■ .........7.0
Road congestion.............................................................................9 .....■ ............7
Quality of air transport infrastructure .........................................112 .....■ .........3.1
Quality of railroad infrastructure...................................................90 .....■ .........1.6
Quality of roads ..........................................................................116 .....■ .........1.9
Quality of port infrastructure ........................................................88 .....■ .........3.2

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index ...............................................n/a ..................n/a
Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................91 .....■ .........2.4
Competence of the logistics industry ........................................102 .....■ .........2.2
Ability and ease of tracking ..........................................................86 .....■ .........2.4
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .........................94 .....■ .........2.8
Postal service efficiency.............................................................120 .....■ .........1.9
GATS commitments in the transport sector ................................68 .....■ .........0.0

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption ...............................................121 .....■ .........3.0
Mobile telephone subscribers ......................................................93 .....■ .......34.2
Broadband Internet subscribers ...................................................79 .....■ .........0.4
Internet users ...............................................................................83 .....■ .......10.5
Telephone lines ............................................................................86 .....■ .........7.1

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights............................................................................120 .....■ .........2.4
Ethics and corruption .................................................................116 .....■ .........1.8
Undue influence .........................................................................115 .....■ .........2.1
Government inefficiency ............................................................120 .....■ .........2.3
Domestic competition ................................................................118 .....■ .........3.3
Openness to foreign participation ..............................................111 .....■ .........4.0
Ease of hiring foreign labor ..........................................................66 .....■ .........4.7
Prevalence of foreign ownership ...............................................113 .....■ .........3.7
Business impact of rules on FDI ................................................119 .....■ .........2.5
Capital controls.............................................................................51 .....■ .........5.1

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .......................................................119 .....■ .........1.9
Business costs of crime and violence..........................................90 .....■ .........3.9
Business costs of terrorism .........................................................83 .....■ .........5.2

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 128

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

World average trade

150

20

120

15

90

10

60

5

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 .............................................3.9
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)........................51.2
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................18.5
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ............4,625.4
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................65
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................5.5

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank
30

0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

128

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ........................................–15.0
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ...........................................4,166.0
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .........................................1,361.1
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................86
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ............................................9,772.0
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) ............................................550.3
Total imports (rank out of 121) ......................................................................79

WTO accession year............................................................................Observer
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................65.6
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................3
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 ..............—; 7.0
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2007 ............6.4
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.....................................34.0
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008 ...............................0.1

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
EU27
Croatia
Serbia
Others

Imports origin
57.3
18.4
13.7
10.6

EU27
Croatia
Serbia
Turkey
China
Others

100

47.9
17.6
10.2
5.8
4.3
14.2

■ Manufactures

80
60.0

■ Fuels and mining
products

63.6

60

■ Agricultural
products

40
25.4

18.3

13.5

17.0

Exports

Imports

20
0

Source: WTO

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index............................................................................102

3.4

Market access .................................................................................................107

3.4

Domestic and foreign market access............................................................107

3.4

Border administration.......................................................................................81

3.4

Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................96
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................50
Transparency of border administration...........................................................97

2.6
4.9
2.8

Transport and communications infrastructure ............................................85

3.0

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .....................................113
Availability and quality of transport services.................................................57
Availability and use of ICTs................................................................................69

2.4
3.6
2.9

Business environment ......................................................................................86

3.9

Regulatory environment ...................................................................................113
Physical security .................................................................................................67

3.0
4.7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 129

Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers.................................................................................83 .....■ .........8.5
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ..................................65 .....■ .........5.6
Tariff barriers for agricultural products .......................................103 .....■ .......25.3
Non-tariff barriers.........................................................................n/a ..................n/a
Complexity of tariffs .....................................................................84 .....■ .........4.1
Variance of tariffs .........................................................................55 .....■ .......10.2
Domestic tariff peaks ...................................................................75 .....■ .........6.8
Specific tariffs...............................................................................86 .....■ .........7.5
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................86 .....■ ........747
Share of duty-free imports ...........................................................75 .....■ ..........39
Tariffs faced ................................................................................120 .....■ .........6.2
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................14 .....■ .......61.4

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures....................................................84 .....■ .........3.3
Customs services index ...............................................................92 .....■ .........3.5

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance....................................75 .....■ .........2.3
Time for import.............................................................................40 .....■ ..........16
Documents for import ..................................................................44 .....■ ............7
Cost to import ..............................................................................42 .....■ .....1,035
Time for export .............................................................................43 .....■ ..........16
Documents for export ..................................................................42 .....■ ............6
Cost to export ..............................................................................57 .....■ .....1,070

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ................................109 .....■ .........2.7
Corruption Perceptions Index.......................................................72 .....■ .........3.2

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

129
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ..............................................................................49 .....■ .........0.8
Transshipment connectivity index ...............................................n/a ..................n/a
Paved roads..................................................................................58 .....■ .......52.3
Road congestion..........................................................................n/a ..................n/a
Quality of air transport infrastructure .........................................119 .....■ .........2.6
Quality of railroad infrastructure...................................................98 .....■ .........1.4
Quality of roads ..........................................................................118 .....■ .........1.6
Quality of port infrastructure ......................................................121 .....■ .........1.5

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index ...............................................n/a ..................n/a
Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................80 .....■ .........2.5
Competence of the logistics industry ..........................................89 .....■ .........2.4
Ability and ease of tracking ..........................................................96 .....■ .........2.3
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .........................73 .....■ .........3.0
Postal service efficiency...............................................................55 .....■ .........4.9
GATS commitments in the transport sector ...............................n/a ..................n/a

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption ...............................................120 .....■ .........3.3
Mobile telephone subscribers ......................................................73 .....■ .......62.3
Broadband Internet subscribers ...................................................61 .....■ .........2.2
Internet users ...............................................................................52 .....■ .......26.8
Telephone lines ............................................................................46 .....■ .......27.1

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights............................................................................114 .....■ .........3.0
Ethics and corruption ...................................................................93 .....■ .........2.5
Undue influence .........................................................................111 .....■ .........2.4
Government inefficiency ............................................................118 .....■ .........2.4
Domestic competition ................................................................112 .....■ .........3.5
Openness to foreign participation ..............................................102 .....■ .........4.3
Ease of hiring foreign labor ..........................................................70 .....■ .........4.6
Prevalence of foreign ownership .................................................93 .....■ .........4.5
Business impact of rules on FDI ................................................115 .....■ .........3.7
Capital controls.............................................................................77 .....■ .........4.3

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .........................................................99 .....■ .........3.1
Business costs of crime and violence..........................................62 .....■ .........4.8
Business costs of terrorism .........................................................18 .....■ .........6.4

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 130

Brazil
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

World average trade

80

8

60

6

40

4

20

2

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 .........................................194.2
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)...................8,514.9
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 .........................................1,572.8
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ............8,197.4
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................53
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................5.1

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank
0

0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

130

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ..........................................–1.8
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) .......................................160,649.0
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .......................................22,614.8
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................26
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ........................................126,568.0
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .......................................34,699.6
Total imports (rank out of 121) ......................................................................29

WTO accession year ..................................................................................1995
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................50.8
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................4
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .........31.4; 12.2
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008 ............9.5
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.......................................0.0
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008 ...............................0.0

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
EU27
United States
Argentina
China
Others

Imports origin
25.2
15.8
9.0
6.7
43.4

EU27
United States
China
Argentina
Nigeria
Others

100

22.2
15.7
10.5
8.6
4.4
38.7

■ Manufactures

80
47.2

■ Fuels and mining
products

70.6

60

■ Agricultural
products

20.0

40
20

23.3
30.0

6.0

Exports

Imports

0

Source: WTO

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index..............................................................................87

3.6

Market access .................................................................................................100

3.7

Domestic and foreign market access............................................................100

3.7

Border administration.......................................................................................77

3.5

Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................98
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................67
Transparency of border administration...........................................................65

2.6
4.6
3.4

Transport and communications infrastructure ............................................68

3.3

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .......................................93
Availability and quality of transport services.................................................56
Availability and use of ICTs................................................................................54

3.0
3.7
3.4

Business environment ......................................................................................93

3.8

Regulatory environment .....................................................................................95
Physical security .................................................................................................90

3.4
4.1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 131

Brazil
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers.................................................................................84 .....■ .........8.6
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ..................................87 .....■ .........8.5
Tariff barriers for agricultural products .........................................49 .....■ .......10.1
Non-tariff barriers .........................................................................82 .....■ .......54.9
Complexity of tariffs .....................................................................18 .....■ .........6.8
Variance of tariffs .........................................................................37 .....■ .........8.0
Domestic tariff peaks .....................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Specific tariffs.................................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................39 .....■ ..........16
Share of duty-free imports ...........................................................82 .....■ ..........34
Tariffs faced ..................................................................................49 .....■ .........5.5
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................68 .....■ .......23.9

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures..................................................116 .....■ .........2.5
Customs services index ...............................................................74 .....■ .........4.8

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance....................................67 .....■ .........2.4
Time for import.............................................................................53 .....■ ..........19
Documents for import ..................................................................44 .....■ ............7
Cost to import ..............................................................................65 .....■ .....1,275
Time for export .............................................................................33 .....■ ..........14
Documents for export ..................................................................83 .....■ ............8
Cost to export ..............................................................................74 .....■ .....1,240

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ..................................70 .....■ .........3.8
Corruption Perceptions Index.......................................................62 .....■ .........3.5

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

131
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ..............................................................................67 .....■ .........0.6
Transshipment connectivity index ................................................24 .....■ .......76.4
Paved roads................................................................................116 .....■ .........5.5
Road congestion...........................................................................34 .....■ ..........18
Quality of air transport infrastructure ...........................................91 .....■ .........3.7
Quality of railroad infrastructure...................................................82 .....■ .........1.8
Quality of roads ..........................................................................100 .....■ .........2.5
Quality of port infrastructure ......................................................111 .....■ .........2.5

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index................................................27 .....■ .......30.9
Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................73 .....■ .........2.6
Competence of the logistics industry ..........................................47 .....■ .........2.9
Ability and ease of tracking ..........................................................62 .....■ .........2.8
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .........................68 .....■ .........3.1
Postal service efficiency...............................................................25 .....■ .........6.1
GATS commitments in the transport sector ................................66 .....■ .........3.5

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption .................................................40 .....■ .........5.3
Mobile telephone subscribers ......................................................70 .....■ .......63.1
Broadband Internet subscribers ...................................................53 .....■ .........3.5
Internet users ...............................................................................40 .....■ .......35.2
Telephone lines ............................................................................56 .....■ .......20.5

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights..............................................................................63 .....■ .........4.1
Ethics and corruption .................................................................108 .....■ .........2.0
Undue influence ...........................................................................55 .....■ .........3.5
Government inefficiency ............................................................111 .....■ .........2.7
Domestic competition ................................................................105 .....■ .........3.8
Openness to foreign participation ................................................90 .....■ .........4.5
Ease of hiring foreign labor ..........................................................58 .....■ .........4.7
Prevalence of foreign ownership .................................................73 .....■ .........4.9
Business impact of rules on FDI ..................................................74 .....■ .........5.0
Capital controls...........................................................................108 .....■ .........3.3

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .......................................................105 .....■ .........2.8
Business costs of crime and violence........................................111 .....■ .........3.1
Business costs of terrorism .........................................................10 .....■ .........6.5

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 132

Bulgaria
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

World average trade

160

32

120

24

80

16

40

8

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 .............................................7.6
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)......................111.0
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................52.0
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ............6,856.9
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................56
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................6.0

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank
0

0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

132

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ........................................–24.4
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) .........................................18,575.3
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .........................................6,333.0
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................61
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ..........................................30,086.9
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .........................................4,812.3
Total imports (rank out of 121) ......................................................................57

WTO accession year ..................................................................................1996
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................83.8
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ................................................27
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .............5.4; 5.2
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008 ............1.0
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2005.....................................30.3
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2005 ...............................0.0

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
EU27
Turkey
Serbia
Others

Imports origin
60.8
11.4
4.7
23.1

EU27
Russian Federation
Ukraine
Turkey
Others

100

58.5
12.5
7.2
6.8
15.1

■ Manufactures

80
56.0

■ Fuels and mining
products

63.4

60

■ Agricultural
products

40
32.6

20

7.0

Exports

Imports

0

Source: WTO

28.7

10.4

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index..............................................................................72

3.8

Market access ...................................................................................................55

4.0

Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................55

4.0

Border administration.......................................................................................69

3.6

Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................61
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................79
Transparency of border administration...........................................................82

3.6
4.3
3.1

Transport and communications infrastructure ............................................48

3.7

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .......................................77
Availability and quality of transport services.................................................53
Availability and use of ICTs................................................................................41

3.3
3.8
3.9

Business environment ......................................................................................97

3.7

Regulatory environment .....................................................................................99
Physical security .................................................................................................91

3.3
4.0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 133

Bulgaria
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers...................................................................................3 .....■ .........1.1
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ....................................5 .....■ .........0.5
Tariff barriers for agricultural products .........................................14 .....■ .........9.3
Non-tariff barriers .........................................................................45 .....■ .......31.5
Complexity of tariffs .....................................................................92 .....■ .........3.1
Variance of tariffs .........................................................................58 .....■ .......10.8
Domestic tariff peaks ...................................................................87 .....■ .........9.8
Specific tariffs...............................................................................90 .....■ .......10.5
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................92 .....■ .....1,491
Share of duty-free imports ...........................................................22 .....■ ..........68
Tariffs faced ..................................................................................60 .....■ .........5.6
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................84 .....■ .......10.4

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures....................................................72 .....■ .........3.5
Customs services index ...............................................................55 .....■ .........6.5

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance....................................62 .....■ .........2.5
Time for import.............................................................................59 .....■ ..........21
Documents for import ..................................................................44 .....■ ............7
Cost to import ..............................................................................94 .....■ .....1,776
Time for export .............................................................................79 .....■ ..........23
Documents for export ..................................................................24 .....■ ............5
Cost to export ..............................................................................95 .....■ .....1,626

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ................................101 .....■ .........2.9
Corruption Perceptions Index.......................................................57 .....■ .........3.6

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

133
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ..............................................................................81 .....■ .........0.4
Transshipment connectivity index ................................................87 .....■ .......56.9
Paved roads..................................................................................19 .....■ .......99.0
Road congestion...........................................................................72 .....■ ..........63
Quality of air transport infrastructure ...........................................94 .....■ .........3.6
Quality of railroad infrastructure...................................................53 .....■ .........2.9
Quality of roads ..........................................................................106 .....■ .........2.3
Quality of port infrastructure ........................................................71 .....■ .........3.7

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index................................................88 .....■ .........5.1
Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................60 .....■ .........2.8
Competence of the logistics industry ..........................................51 .....■ .........2.9
Ability and ease of tracking ..........................................................39 .....■ .........3.1
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .........................42 .....■ .........3.6
Postal service efficiency...............................................................74 .....■ .........4.1
GATS commitments in the transport sector ................................20 .....■ .......36.5

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption ...............................................104 .....■ .........4.0
Mobile telephone subscribers ........................................................9 .....■ .....129.6
Broadband Internet subscribers ...................................................41 .....■ .........8.2
Internet users ...............................................................................45 .....■ .......31.0
Telephone lines ............................................................................37 .....■ .......30.1

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights..............................................................................89 .....■ .........3.6
Ethics and corruption .................................................................103 .....■ .........2.2
Undue influence .........................................................................100 .....■ .........2.7
Government inefficiency ............................................................102 .....■ .........3.0
Domestic competition ..................................................................76 .....■ .........4.1
Openness to foreign participation ................................................99 .....■ .........4.3
Ease of hiring foreign labor ..........................................................85 .....■ .........4.4
Prevalence of foreign ownership .................................................95 .....■ .........4.4
Business impact of rules on FDI ................................................107 .....■ .........4.3
Capital controls.............................................................................83 .....■ .........4.2

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .......................................................100 .....■ .........3.1
Business costs of crime and violence..........................................89 .....■ .........4.0
Business costs of terrorism .........................................................92 .....■ .........5.1

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 134

Burkina Faso
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank

World average trade

70

10

60

8

50

6

40

4

30

2

20

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 ...........................................15.2
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)......................274.0
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................8.1
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ...............577.0
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008.........................110
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................5.0

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

134

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ........................................–11.0
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ..............................................623.0
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) ..............................................69.7
Total exports (rank out of 121).....................................................................117
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ............................................1,620.0
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) ............................................432.5
Total imports (rank out of 121) ....................................................................113

WTO accession year ..................................................................................1995
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................48.5
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................2
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .........41.8; 11.9
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008 ............3.4
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.......................................0.0
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008 ...............................0.0

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
Ghana
EU27
Côte d’Ivoire
Niger
Others

Imports origin
60.9
15.4
3.8
2.9
17.0

EU27
Côte d’Ivoire
Japan
United States
South Africa
Others

100

29.7
17.9
13.1
7.1
4.9
27.4

80

■ Manufactures

6.5

2.7

■ Fuels and mining
products

62.0

60
40

■ Agricultural
products

72.4
32.6

20

25.0
12.5

0

Source: WTO

Exports

Imports

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index............................................................................104

3.4

Market access ...................................................................................................46

4.2

Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................46

4.2

Border administration.....................................................................................112

2.6

Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................97
Efficiency of import-export procedures ........................................................116
Transparency of border administration...........................................................69

2.6
1.9
3.4

Transport and communications infrastructure ..........................................101

2.6

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .......................................89
Availability and quality of transport services.................................................98
Availability and use of ICTs..............................................................................116

3.0
3.0
1.7

Business environment ......................................................................................69

4.2

Regulatory environment .....................................................................................67
Physical security .................................................................................................75

3.8
4.6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 135

Burkina Faso
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers.................................................................................89 .....■ .........9.8
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ..................................95 .....■ .........9.8
Tariff barriers for agricultural products .........................................45 .....■ .........9.9
Non-tariff barriers ...........................................................................4 .....■ .........1.0
Complexity of tariffs .......................................................................9 .....■ .........6.8
Variance of tariffs .........................................................................20 .....■ .........6.8
Domestic tariff peaks .....................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Specific tariffs.................................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Number of distinct tariffs ...............................................................4 .....■ ............4
Share of duty-free imports .........................................................110 .....■ ............7
Tariffs faced ..................................................................................21 .....■ .........5.0
Margin of preference in target markets .....................................113 .....■ .........8.9

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures....................................................66 .....■ .........3.6
Customs services index ...............................................................97 .....■ .........3.0

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance..................................100 .....■ .........2.1
Time for import...........................................................................110 .....■ ..........54
Documents for import ................................................................113 .....■ ..........11
Cost to import ............................................................................116 .....■ .....3,630
Time for export ...........................................................................108 .....■ ..........45
Documents for export ................................................................114 .....■ ..........11
Cost to export ............................................................................109 .....■ .....2,132

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ..................................74 .....■ .........3.6
Corruption Perceptions Index.......................................................62 .....■ .........3.5

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

135
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ............................................................................110 .....■ .........0.1
Transshipment connectivity index ...............................................n/a ..................n/a
Paved roads................................................................................117 .....■ .........4.2
Road congestion.............................................................................9 .....■ ............7
Quality of air transport infrastructure ...........................................97 .....■ .........3.5
Quality of railroad infrastructure...................................................73 .....■ .........2.1
Quality of roads ............................................................................88 .....■ .........2.7
Quality of port infrastructure ........................................................60 .....■ .........3.9

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index ...............................................n/a ..................n/a
Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................69 .....■ .........2.7
Competence of the logistics industry ..........................................92 .....■ .........2.3
Ability and ease of tracking ........................................................108 .....■ .........2.1
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .......................117 .....■ .........2.3
Postal service efficiency...............................................................57 .....■ .........4.9
GATS commitments in the transport sector ................................68 .....■ .........0.0

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption .................................................90 .....■ .........4.2
Mobile telephone subscribers ....................................................115 .....■ .......10.9
Broadband Internet subscribers .................................................103 .....■ .........0.0
Internet users .............................................................................117 .....■ .........0.6
Telephone lines ..........................................................................111 .....■ .........0.7

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights..............................................................................62 .....■ .........4.2
Ethics and corruption ...................................................................67 .....■ .........2.8
Undue influence ...........................................................................69 .....■ .........3.3
Government inefficiency ..............................................................47 .....■ .........3.8
Domestic competition ..................................................................64 .....■ .........4.3
Openness to foreign participation ................................................77 .....■ .........4.7
Ease of hiring foreign labor ..........................................................34 .....■ .........5.2
Prevalence of foreign ownership .................................................87 .....■ .........4.7
Business impact of rules on FDI ..................................................85 .....■ .........4.8
Capital controls.............................................................................89 .....■ .........4.0

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .........................................................44 .....■ .........4.7
Business costs of crime and violence..........................................96 .....■ .........3.8
Business costs of terrorism .........................................................76 .....■ .........5.3

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 136

Burundi
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank

World average trade

75

2.0

60

1.5

45

1.0

30

0.5

15

0.0

0

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 .............................................8.9
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)........................27.8
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ................................................1.1
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ...............138.0
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008.........................120
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................4.5

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

-0.5
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

136

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ........................................–11.1
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ................................................53.0
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) ................................................6.6
Total exports (rank out of 121).....................................................................119
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ...............................................319.1
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) ............................................167.8
Total imports (rank out of 121) ....................................................................118

WTO accession year ..................................................................................1995
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009...........................34
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................1
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .........68.2; 12.7
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2008 ..........10.2
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008.......................................0.0
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2008 ...............................0.0

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination

Imports origin

100
15.8

UAE
EU27
Switzerland
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Kenya
Others

34.2
12.9
10.9
9.4
7.2
25.4

Saudi Arabia
EU27
Uganda
Kenya
Japan
Others

27.4
21.9
10.7
7.9
7.0
25.0

■ Manufactures

6.7

80

■ Fuels and mining
products

67.0

60
40

■ Agricultural
products

77.5
5.5

20

23.4

0

Source: WTO

Exports

Imports

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index............................................................................116

3.0

Market access ...................................................................................................68

3.9

Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................68

3.9

Border administration.....................................................................................114

2.6

Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................85
Efficiency of import-export procedures ........................................................117
Transparency of border administration...........................................................95

2.9
1.9
2.9

Transport and communications infrastructure ..........................................120

2.2

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .....................................119
Availability and quality of transport services...............................................117
Availability and use of ICTs..............................................................................114

2.1
2.6
1.8

Business environment ....................................................................................114

3.3

Regulatory environment ...................................................................................114
Physical security ...............................................................................................108

2.9
3.6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 137

Burundi
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers.................................................................................99 .....■ .......11.6
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ................................105 .....■ .......11.8
Tariff barriers for agricultural products .........................................47 .....■ .......10.0
Non-tariff barriers.........................................................................n/a ..................n/a
Complexity of tariffs .....................................................................22 .....■ .........6.8
Variance of tariffs .........................................................................44 .....■ .........9.3
Domestic tariff peaks .....................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Specific tariffs...............................................................................35 .....■ .........0.0
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................20 .....■ ............6
Share of duty-free imports ...........................................................88 .....■ ..........30
Tariffs faced ..................................................................................16 .....■ .........4.9
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................75 .....■ .......15.2

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures....................................................98 .....■ .........2.9
Customs services index ..............................................................n/a ..................n/a

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance....................................89 .....■ .........2.2
Time for import...........................................................................114 .....■ ..........71
Documents for import ................................................................100 .....■ ..........10
Cost to import ............................................................................117 .....■ .....3,705
Time for export ...........................................................................111 .....■ ..........47
Documents for export ..................................................................98 .....■ ............9
Cost to export ............................................................................110 .....■ .....2,147

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ..................................78 .....■ .........3.6
Corruption Perceptions Index.....................................................114 .....■ .........1.9

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

137
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ............................................................................112 .....■ .........0.1
Transshipment connectivity index ...............................................n/a ..................n/a
Paved roads................................................................................105 .....■ .......10.4
Road congestion..........................................................................n/a ..................n/a
Quality of air transport infrastructure .........................................100 .....■ .........3.5
Quality of railroad infrastructure ..................................................n/a ..................n/a
Quality of roads ..........................................................................111 .....■ .........2.0
Quality of port infrastructure ........................................................89 .....■ .........3.2

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index ...............................................n/a ..................n/a
Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................80 .....■ .........2.5
Competence of the logistics industry ..........................................73 .....■ .........2.5
Ability and ease of tracking ........................................................109 .....■ .........2.0
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .......................121 .....■ .........2.0
Postal service efficiency.............................................................113 .....■ .........2.9
GATS commitments in the transport sector ................................68 .....■ .........0.0

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption ...............................................103 .....■ .........4.0
Mobile telephone subscribers ....................................................119 .....■ .........2.9
Broadband Internet subscribers ..................................................n/a ..................n/a
Internet users .............................................................................115 .....■ .........0.8
Telephone lines ..........................................................................115 .....■ .........0.4

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights............................................................................116 .....■ .........2.8
Ethics and corruption .................................................................104 .....■ .........2.1
Undue influence .........................................................................110 .....■ .........2.4
Government inefficiency ............................................................101 .....■ .........3.0
Domestic competition ................................................................117 .....■ .........3.3
Openness to foreign participation ..............................................110 .....■ .........4.0
Ease of hiring foreign labor ..........................................................57 .....■ .........4.8
Prevalence of foreign ownership ...............................................109 .....■ .........3.9
Business impact of rules on FDI ................................................101 .....■ .........4.4
Capital controls...........................................................................115 .....■ .........3.0

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .........................................................96 .....■ .........3.1
Business costs of crime and violence..........................................95 .....■ .........3.8
Business costs of terrorism .......................................................115 .....■ .........4.0

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 138

Cambodia
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

World average trade

150

12
10

120

8

90

6
4

60

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 ...........................................14.7
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)......................181.0
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................11.2
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ...............818.1
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008.........................105
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................6.0

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank
30

0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

138

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ........................................–10.9
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ...........................................4,089.0
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) .........................................1,510.5
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................85
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ............................................5,423.6
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) ............................................858.9
Total imports (rank out of 121) ......................................................................91

WTO accession year ..................................................................................2004
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................53.2
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................2
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .........19.0; 14.2
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2007 ............7.5
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2007.......................................0.0
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2007 ...............................0.0

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
United States
Hong Kong SAR
EU27
Others

Imports origin
46.9
22.0
21.2
9.9

Hong Kong SAR
China
Taiwan, China
Thailand
Vietnam
Others

100

19.9
16.5
11.8
11.2
8.2
32.5

80

■ Manufactures

60

■ Fuels and mining
products
97.4

■ Agricultural
products

48.1

40
20

11.4
5.2

2.6

0

Source: WTO

Exports

Imports

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index..............................................................................91

3.5

Market access ...................................................................................................27

4.6

Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................27

4.6

Border administration.......................................................................................98

3.0

Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................91
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................86
Transparency of border administration.........................................................118

2.7
4.1
2.2

Transport and communications infrastructure ..........................................109

2.5

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .....................................105
Availability and quality of transport services.................................................91
Availability and use of ICTs..............................................................................115

2.7
3.0
1.7

Business environment ......................................................................................87

3.9

Regulatory environment .....................................................................................89
Physical security .................................................................................................89

3.5
4.2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 139

Cambodia
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers.................................................................................97 .....■ .......11.5
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ................................102 .....■ .......11.2
Tariff barriers for agricultural products .........................................71 .....■ .......15.6
Non-tariff barriers .........................................................................14 .....■ .........4.2
Complexity of tariffs .....................................................................30 .....■ .........6.7
Variance of tariffs .........................................................................57 .....■ .......10.8
Domestic tariff peaks .....................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Specific tariffs.................................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Number of distinct tariffs ...............................................................4 .....■ ............4
Share of duty-free imports .........................................................115 .....■ ............3
Tariffs faced ....................................................................................2 .....■ .........4.6
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................35 .....■ .......46.4

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures..................................................100 .....■ .........2.8
Customs services index ...............................................................77 .....■ .........4.5

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance....................................93 .....■ .........2.2
Time for import.............................................................................89 .....■ ..........30
Documents for import ................................................................113 .....■ ..........11
Cost to import ..............................................................................29 .....■ ........872
Time for export .............................................................................77 .....■ ..........22
Documents for export ................................................................114 .....■ ..........11
Cost to export ..............................................................................20 .....■ ........732

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ................................117 .....■ .........2.4
Corruption Perceptions Index.....................................................118 .....■ .........1.8

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

139
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ..............................................................................99 .....■ .........0.3
Transshipment connectivity index ................................................89 .....■ .......54.1
Paved roads................................................................................115 .....■ .........6.3
Road congestion...........................................................................60 .....■ ..........37
Quality of air transport infrastructure ...........................................79 .....■ .........4.2
Quality of railroad infrastructure...................................................91 .....■ .........1.6
Quality of roads ............................................................................72 .....■ .........3.1
Quality of port infrastructure ........................................................81 .....■ .........3.4

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index................................................91 .....■ .........3.5
Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................88 .....■ .........2.5
Competence of the logistics industry ..........................................75 .....■ .........2.5
Ability and ease of tracking ..........................................................76 .....■ .........2.5
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .........................71 .....■ .........3.1
Postal service efficiency.............................................................110 .....■ .........3.0
GATS commitments in the transport sector ................................48 .....■ .......24.0

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption .................................................97 .....■ .........4.1
Mobile telephone subscribers ....................................................110 .....■ .......17.9
Broadband Internet subscribers ...................................................91 .....■ .........0.1
Internet users .............................................................................119 .....■ .........0.5
Telephone lines ..........................................................................118 .....■ .........0.3

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights............................................................................102 .....■ .........3.2
Ethics and corruption ...................................................................64 .....■ .........2.9
Undue influence ...........................................................................96 .....■ .........2.7
Government inefficiency ..............................................................78 .....■ .........3.3
Domestic competition ..................................................................94 .....■ .........4.0
Openness to foreign participation ................................................59 .....■ .........5.0
Ease of hiring foreign labor ..........................................................71 .....■ .........4.6
Prevalence of foreign ownership .................................................68 .....■ .........5.1
Business impact of rules on FDI ..................................................63 .....■ .........5.2
Capital controls.............................................................................55 .....■ .........5.0

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .......................................................103 .....■ .........2.9
Business costs of crime and violence..........................................71 .....■ .........4.5
Business costs of terrorism .........................................................86 .....■ .........5.1

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .....................176.5
Denmark...........................................36.0
Norway .............................................85.0
Switzerland.......................................65.9

8th pillar: Regulatory environment
Switzerland.........................................6.5
Singapore ...........................................6.5
Denmark.............................................6.3
Singapore ...........................................6.1
Singapore ...........................................5.7
Singapore ...........................................6.3
United Arab Emirates .........................6.1
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.7
Ireland ................................................6.7
Hong Kong SAR .................................6.6

9th pillar: Physical security
Finland ................................................6.7
Syria ...................................................6.7
Finland ................................................6.8

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 140

Cameroon
Key indicators

Trade and FDI inflows, percent of GDP (1995–2007)
Country trade

World average trade

80

7

60

5

40

3

20

1

FDI inflows

Population (millions), 2008 ...........................................18.9
Surface area (1,000 square kilometers)......................475.4
GDP (US$ billions), 2008 ..............................................23.2
GDP (current prices, US$) per capita, 2008 ............1,199.2
GDP per capita (rank out of 121), 2008...........................92
Real GDP growth (percent), 2008 ..................................3.4

Trade

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

Source: IMF; United Nations Population Fund; World Bank
0

-1
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: IMF; WTO; UNCTAD

140

Main trade data

Trade policy data

Current account balance (share of GDP), 2008 ............................................0.4
Merchandise exports, f.o.b. (US$ millions) ...........................................3,604.4
Commercial services exports (US$ millions) ............................................476.1
Total exports (rank out of 121).......................................................................93
Merchandise imports, c.i.f. (US$ millions) ............................................3,680.0
Commercial services imports (US$ millions) .........................................1,413.5
Total imports (rank out of 121) ......................................................................96

WTO accession year ..................................................................................1995
Multilateral agreements index score (range 0–100), 2009........................51.1
Regional trade agreements notified to WTO ..................................................2
Simple tariff average: MFN; Applied tariffs (all goods), 2007 .........79.9; 17.9
Applied tariff escalation (% diff. raw to finished, all goods), 2007 ............1.3
Domestic agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2007.......................................0.0
Domestic non-agricultural tariff peaks (percent), 2007 ...............................0.0

Source: WTO; IMF

Source: WTO; ITC; World Bank

Main trading partners, 2007

Exports and imports by sector, 2007

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Share of total volume of merchandise trade (percent)

Exports destination
EU27
United States
Others

Imports origin
74.3
6.4
19.4

EU27
Nigeria
China
Others

100

35.0
23.3
6.3
35.3

3.6

80

■ Manufactures

48.3

■ Fuels and mining
products

65.3

60
40

■ Agricultural
products

31.5

20

30.5
19.6

0

Source: WTO

Exports

Imports

Source: WTO

Enabling Trade Index

Rank
(out of 121)

Score
(1–7 scale)

2009 Index............................................................................106

3.4

Market access ...................................................................................................83

3.8

Domestic and foreign market access..............................................................83

3.8

Border administration.......................................................................................96

3.1

Efficiency of customs administration...............................................................93
Efficiency of import-export procedures ..........................................................90
Transparency of border administration.........................................................113

2.7
4.0
2.5

Transport and communications infrastructure ..........................................104

2.5

Availability and quality of transport infrastructure .......................................94
Availability and quality of transport services...............................................107
Availability and use of ICTs..............................................................................108

3.0
2.8
1.9

Business environment ......................................................................................81

4.0

Regulatory environment ...................................................................................103
Physical security .................................................................................................72

3.3
4.7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, and for a list of multiple best-performer economies for each indicator in the ETI in detail on the right-hand
page, please refer to “How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles.”

The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum

6/19/09

12:50 PM

Page 141

Cameroon
The Enabling Trade Index in detail
INDICATOR

■ Competitive Advantage ■ Competitive Disadvantage
RANK/121

SCORE

BEST PERFORMER

SCORE

1st pillar: Domestic and foreign market access

1.04
1.05
1.06

Tariff barriers...............................................................................111 .....■ .......14.1
Tariff barriers for non-agricultural products ................................114 .....■ .......13.6
Tariff barriers for agricultural products .........................................88 .....■ .......20.1
Non-tariff barriers ...........................................................................3 .....■ .........0.3
Complexity of tariffs .....................................................................20 .....■ .........6.8
Variance of tariffs .........................................................................49 .....■ .........9.5
Domestic tariff peaks .....................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Specific tariffs.................................................................................1 .....■ .........0.0
Number of distinct tariffs .............................................................16 .....■ ............5
Share of duty-free imports .........................................................119 .....■ ............0
Tariffs faced ..................................................................................92 .....■ .........5.6
Margin of preference in target markets .......................................47 .....■ .......38.7

2.01
2.02

Burden of customs procedures..................................................101 .....■ .........2.8
Customs services index ...............................................................77 .....■ .........4.5

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07

Effectiveness and efficiency of clearance....................................56 .....■ .........2.6
Time for import.............................................................................93 .....■ ..........33
Documents for import ..................................................................66 .....■ ............8
Cost to import ..............................................................................90 .....■ .....1,672
Time for export .............................................................................90 .....■ ..........27
Documents for export ..................................................................98 .....■ ............9
Cost to export ..............................................................................51 .....■ ........995

4.01
4.02

Irregular payments in exports and imports ................................113 .....■ .........2.7
Corruption Perceptions Index.....................................................104 .....■ .........2.3

1.01

1.02
1.03

Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Chad ...................................................0.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................7.0
Hong Kong SAR .................................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Multiple economies ..........................0.0
Hong Kong SAR ....................................1
Hong Kong SAR ................................100
Chile ...................................................3.8
Nepal ................................................94.6

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Part 2

2nd pillar: Efficiency of customs administration
Singapore ...........................................6.5
United Kingdom ...............................12.0

3rd pillar: Efficiency of import-export procedures
Netherlands ........................................4.0
Singapore ..............................................3
France ...................................................2
Singapore ..........................................439
Multiple economies .............................5
France ...................................................2
Malaysia ............................................450

4th pillar: Transparency of border administration
Sweden ..............................................6.6
Multiple economies ..........................9.3

141
5th pillar: Availability and quality of transport infrastructure
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08

Airport density ............................................................................103 .....■ .........0.2
Transshipment connectivity index ................................................48 .....■ .......69.0
Paved roads................................................................................106 .....■ .......10.0
Road congestion.............................................................................3 .....■ ............3
Quality of air transport infrastructure .........................................114 .....■ .........3.0
Quality of railroad infrastructure...................................................69 .....■ .........2.2
Quality of roads ..........................................................................103 .....■ .........2.4
Quality of port infrastructure ......................................................102 .....■ .........2.7

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07

Liner Shipping Connectivity Index................................................67 .....■ .......11.1
Ease and affordability of shipment...............................................98 .....■ .........2.3
Competence of the logistics industry ..........................................96 .....■ .........2.3
Ability and ease of tracking ..........................................................78 .....■ .........2.5
Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination .........................55 .....■ .........3.3
Postal service efficiency.............................................................107 .....■ .........3.1
GATS commitments in the transport sector ................................68 .....■ .........0.0

7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05

Firm-level technology absorption .................................................71 .....■ .........4.6
Mobile telephone subscribers ....................................................102 .....■ .......24.5
Broadband Internet subscribers .................................................107 .....■ .........0.0
Internet users .............................................................................106 .....■ .........2.2
Telephone lines ..........................................................................107 .....■ .........1.0

8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06

Property rights..............................................................................91 .....■ .........3.5
Ethics and corruption .................................................................114 .....■ .........1.9
Undue influence .........................................................................109 .....■ .........2.4
Government inefficiency ..............................................................96 .....■ .........3.1
Domestic competition ..................................................................91 .....■ .........4.0
Openness to foreign participation ................................................76 .....■ .........4.7
Ease of hiring foreign labor ..........................................................43 .....■ .........5.1
Prevalence of foreign ownership .................................................53 .....■ .........5.3
Business impact of rules on FDI ..................................................95 .....■ .........4.5
Capital controls.............................................................................96 .....■ .........3.8

9.01
9.02
9.03

Reliability of police services .........................................................58 .....■ .........4.3
Business costs of crime and violence..........................................88 .....■ .........4.1
Business costs of terrorism .........................................................54 .....■ .........5.7

Norway .............................................10.6
United Kingdom .............................100.0
Multiple economies ......................100.0
Bangladesh............................................1
Singapore ...........................................6.9
Switzerland.........................................6.8
France ................................................6.7
Singapore ...........................................6.8

6th pillar: Availability and quality of transport services
China ..............................................137.4
Netherlands ........................................4.1
Netherlands ........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.3
Singapore ...........................................4.5
Switzerland.........................................6.9
Moldova ...........................................60.6

7th pillar: Availability and use of ICTs
Japan ..................................................6.3
United Arab Emirates ..