Perdagangan Internasional & Investasi Asing Jangka Panjang

Kiki Verico, Ph.D

Cakupan

1. Mengapa negara membutuhkan perdagangan?

2. Mengapa negara membutuhkan investasi?

2. Mengapa negara membutuhkan perdagangan?

https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xfa1/t51.2885-15/s306x306/e15/10986254_620265724773402_1398315305_n.jpg

Mengapa Harus Dagang?

1. “Trade can make everybody better off ” (do not produce something that cheaper if you buy, A. Smith, 1776)

2. Autarky is nearly impossible

3. Specialization is nature as we are all relative

4. Absolute, Comparative, Abundance, Specialization, Networks, Competitive

5. Import substitution is misleading

6. Openness starts from trade, investment thus finance: Money follow Goods

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/12/24/can-asean-achieve-economic-community.htmlhttp://goliveindonesia.com/2013/05/02/asean-economic-integration-challenges-and-strategies/http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/blogs/indonesiaproject/?p=2950

7

The Large - Economic Size - Member is the High-Income Country

17.0%

13.6%13.1% 12.6%

9.6%

3.5%

2.0%

8.0%

2.3%1.8%

1.2%

2.3%

1.1%

2.2%

1.0%

2.2% 2.1%

1.1%

0.1%

1.5%

0.4% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2%

20.9%

15.9%15.1%

12.3%

8.1%

4.7%

3.2% 3.0% 2.9%2.4%

1.9%1.5% 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2%

0.8% 0.6% 0.3%0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

% Population & % GDP of Total EU, 2012

%Population %GDP

Source: own calculation using the WDI-WB dataset

8Source: own calculation using the WDI-WB dataset

71,620

59,850

55,970

47,970 47,66046,490

44,660 44,260

41,750

39,110 38,670

33,860

29,620

26,110

23,260 22,80020,620

18,120 17,180

14,120 13,83012,660 12,380

6,840

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$),2012

HIC>US$ 12,616US$ 12,615>UMIC>US$4,086

The Large - Economic Size - Member is the High-Income Country

9http://www.apex-foundation.org/wp-content/uploads/european-entities-member-countries.png

10Source: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/blogs/indonesiaproject/2013/05/03/asean-economic-integration-challenges-and-strategies/

11

The Large - Economic Size - Member is not the High-Income Country

Source: Own calculation using WDI-WB data

0.9%0.1%

4.8%

11.0%

40.6%

15.9%14.6%

1.1%2.4%

8.7%

12%

1%

13%

16%

38%

11%

7%

0% 1% 1%0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Singapore Brunei Malaysia Thailand Indonesia Philippines Vietnam Laos Cambodia Myanmar

% Population & %GDP to total ASEAN, 2012

% Population to Total ASEAN Population % GDP to Total ASEAN GDP

12

The High-Income Country is not the Large - Economic Size - Member

Source: Own calculation using WDI-WB data

47,210

34,173

9,820

5,210

3,420 2,500

1,550 1,270 880 284

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Singapore Brunei Malaysia Thailand Indonesia Philippines Vietnam Laos Cambodia Myanmar

GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$), 2012

LI<$ 1,035$1,036<LM<$4,085$4,086<UM<$12,615HI>$12,616

HICSin,Bru

UMICMlysa,Thai

LMICIna,Phi,Viet,Lao

LICCbd,Mynmr

13Source: own calculation using the WDI-WB dataset

Consistent between share of productivity in area and GNI per Capita

Country %GDP/%Pop GNP/Cap

Singapore 13.77 Singapore

Brunei 10.95 Brunei

Malaysia 2.78 Malaysia

Thailand 1.46 Thailand

Indonesia 0.95 Indonesia

Philippines 0.69 Philippines

Vietnam 0.47 Vietnam

Laos 0.38 Laos

Cambodia 0.25 Cambodia

Myanmar 0.07 Myanmar

14

Economic Community: FDI Inflows

‘U.S. based surveys... revealed that U.S. firms were stepping up their investments in the Community (EC/CU) in anticipation of the benefits likely to be incurred by firms producing within the Community and no less important, to avoid the costs likely to be incurred by those remaining outside.... that by

remaining outside of the EU become less attractive to U.S. investors’

(John H. Dunning, 1990)

Free flows of goods (trade), capital (investment), trade related services, whole services, free flows of people, free flows of money (monetary union & single currency)

International NetworksMarket driven factors

FDI inflows role in Regional Production Network/RPN (Flying Geese Model of Akamatsu, 1944; Kojima, 1978; Aoki, 1992; Urata, 1993) on ASEAN-5

RPN is behind the Southeast Asia economic integration before the ECBN/guanxi (Wang, 2001) & KPN of Thailand & ASEAN-4 (Cheong, 2011)

FDI inflows stimulate knowledge & education advancement in host-countries (Hejazi & Safarian, 1999)and higher education & political economic stability stimulate FDI inflows (Aggarwal, 2008)

Endogenous relation (Hejazi & Pauly, 2003)

3. Mengapa negara membutuhkan investasi?

Source: Calculated on Indonesia based on World Bank data, 2016

Source: Verico, K., 2016

Source: IMF Report, April 2016

Red:trade, Blue:FDIYellow:InternationalReserve

Source: IMF Report, April 2016

Source: Own calculation

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14

LNCHN LNINA

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14

LNCHN LNMLY

11.00

11.25

11.50

11.75

12.00

12.25

12.50

12.75

13.00

98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14

LNCHN LNTHAI

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14

LNCHN LNPHI

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14

LNCHN LNVIE

Source: IMF Report, April 2016

Source: TE,2016

Source: IMF Report, April 2016

Source: IMF Report, April 2016

http://www.pajak.go.id/statistik-amnesti

Source: Verico, K.,, Indonesia IO Table 2010

Government Expenditure Multiplier Based On Input Output Table

Source: Verico, K., based on World Bank data, 2016

Traditional

Pre-Condition for take-off

Take-off

Maturity

High Mass Consumption

“Choosing Success”: Competitiveness

1. Export Oriented: Korea (Chaebol: bank financing) Success Story

2. World Supply Chain: Taiwan (Bee’s Model:SME’s) Success Story

3. Protection & Local Winner (Monopoly) Proton & Krakatau (Steel, Automotive & Machinery, no progress)

4. Government Intervention Innovation (RnD) instead of Protection

5. Competitive industry Innovation & Entrepreneurship (Social Movement)

Source: Verico, K., based on World Bank data, 2016

Traditional Pre-Condition for take-off

Take-off

2010-2015 Japan South Korea China

Sub-SectorNumber of

Project

FDI Inflows (Realization) in 000 US$

Rank Value

Number of Project

FDI Inflows (Realization) in 000 US$

Rank Value

Number of Project

FDI Inflows (Realization) in 000 US$

Rank Value

Food Crops & Plantation 15 5,588 3 53 153,124 1 27 141,100 2

Livestock 5 7,742 1 17 7,595 2 1 0 3

Forestry 4 184 3 31 67,244 1 4 248 2

Fishery 39 11,051 1 10 7,615 2 27 2,303 3

Mining 23 148,309 3 117 821,338 1 359 337,541 2

Total Primary Sector 86 172,873 3 228 1,056,916 1 418 481,191 2

Food Industry 145 528,249 1 106 159,909 2 64 111,122 3

Textile Industry 137 526,517 2 614 600,247 1 14 5,274 3

Leather Goods & Footwear Industry 5 0 3 228 304,105 1 23 4,847 2

Wood Industry 26 16,402 2 53 25,948 1 22 8,457 3

Paper and Printing Industry 52 387,949 1 79 14,893 2 15 6,791 3

Chemical and Pharmaceutical Industry 216 840,559 1 175 395,493 2 35 31,534 3

Rubber and Plastic Industry 206 428,761 2 254 696,408 1 33 121,105 3

Non Metallic Mineral Industry 33 76,345 2 24 21,987 3 49 97,226 1

Metal, Machinery & Electronic Industry 882 2,344,515 2 521 3,572,992 1 258 317,934 3

Medical Preci. & Optical Instru, Watches & Clock Industry 9 2,734 2 9 9,913 1 1 0 3

Motor Vehicles & Other Transport Equip. Industry 775 7,500,682 1 19 15,951 2 18 12,998 3

Other Industry 77 59,563 2 229 143,294 1 35 11,155 3

Total Secondary Sector 2,563 12,712,276 1 2,311 5,961,139 2 567 728,441 3

Electricity, Gas & Water Supply 23 323,121 2 19 287,113 3 53 371,643 1

Construction 71 86,186 1 116 53,286 3 62 78,559 2

Trade & Repair 649 426,370 1 1,137 228,758 2 695 134,670 3

Hotel & Restaurant 109 38,484 2 117 53,076 1 28 3,014 3

Transport, Storage & Communication 88 119,230 2 71 105,937 1 34 29,777 3

Real Estate, Ind. Estate & Business Activities 82 604,140 1 53 41,473 3 40 113,019 2

Other Services 446 115,932 1 325 43,995 2 51 5,467 3

Total Tertiary Sector 1,468 1,713,462 1 1,838 813,638 2 963 736,149 3

Source: Own Calculation based on BKPM data, 2015

% Total Without Joint Countries Investment & They are >56% of Total FDI Inflows in Indonesia

2009-2010 to 2011/2013

Mining USA (45%-47%); Mauritius (0%-17%); Singapore (24%-11%); Netherlands (0% -10%)

Transport, Storage & Communication

Singapore (66%-79%); Netherlands (23%-18%)

Metal, Machinery & Electronic Industry

Korea (34%-54%); Japan (32%-23%);Singapore (11%-4%)

Chemical and Pharmaceutical Industry

United Kingdom (0-35%); Japan (6-14%); Australia (25%-14%); Singapore (16%-10%); Netherlands (2%-8%); Korea (4%-7%)

Motor Vehicles & Other Transport Equip. Industry

Japan (67%-89%); Germany (17%-3%); Singapore (11%-3%); USA (0%-2%)

Source: Own Calculation based on BKPM Data, 2014

33

FDI Inflows to ASEAN’s Host Country by Home Country 1995-2005 (US$ Million: Cumulative)

Source: Own calculation using Statistic of FDI, ASEAN Secretariat, 2012

Host

Home Brunei Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam TOTAL

Japan 0.75% 6.10% 0.04% 16.17% 0.22% 5.87% 29.49% 36.37% 5.00% 100%

China 0.28% 30.66% 1.48% 4.00% 6.92% 10.75% 33.97% 1.62% 10.33% 100%

Korea 0.77% 20.54% 2.19% 3.87% 1.11% 4.84% 21.56% 9.87% 35.25% 100%

USA 0.18% 3.93% 0.01% 27.18% 0.81% 6.90% 46.43% 12.74% 1.82% 100%

EU 6.86% 7.67% 0.19% 11.21% 1.85% 1.76% 57.18% 9.62% 3.67% 100%

ASEAN 3.77% 11.68% 0.74% 23.83% 2.77% 3.29% 24.81% 20.52% 8.59% 100%

Brunei -5.6% 0.0% 59.4% 0.0% 0.0% 43.4% 2.2% 0.6% 100%

Indonesia 1.2% 0.0% 6.1% 0.9% 0.8% 88.5% 1.2% 1.3% 100%

Laos 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% -8.3% 100% 100%

Malaysia 3.2% 18.1% 1.3% 0.8% 1.2% 60.9% 6.3% 8.2% 100%

Myanmar 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 97.1% 2.9% 0.0% 100%

Philippines 0.7% 1.9% 0.0% 14.4% 0.6% 40.4% 34.7% 7.3% 100%

Singapore 4.9% 12.8% 0.0% 35.2% 3.3% 4.8% 30.3% 8.7% 100%

Thailand 0.6% 10.3% 12.0% 15.4% 14.2% 0.3% 10.2% 37.0% 100%

Vietnam 0.0% 0.0% 10.5% 44.2% 0.0% 0.0% 38.4% 7.0% 100%

5660

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Manufacturing (343) Service (187)

Do you Know the AEC?

65

50

76

33

100

56

0 20 40 60 80 100

Trade

Construction

Tourism & CreativeEconomy

Telecommunication

Finance

Other

Know about AEC by Sub-Sector in Service

Sumber: Studi LPEM, Sementara Tidak Untuk Dikutip, 2014

Sumber: Studi LPEM, Sementara Tidak Untuk Dikutip, 2014

84

77

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Manufacturing (191) Service (113)

Readiness towards the AEC

71

63

89

100

80

76

0 20 40 60 80 100

Trade

Construction

Tourism & Creative Economy

Telecommunication

Finance

Other

Ready towards AEC by Sub-Sector of Service

Sumber: Studi LPEM, Sementara Tidak Untuk Dikutip, 2014

90

10

95

5

66

34

67

33

86

14

84

16

81

19

89

11

80

20

86

14

67

33

80

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

M S M S M S M S M S M S

Intra ASEANInvestment

Extra ASEANInvestment

Non CompetitiveMember Loss

China Obtain Benefit Service Liberalisationon Trade Related

Service

Service Liberalisationon Service Sector

Perceived Impact

OLIGOPOLY12.2

• The Linear Demand Curve—An Example

The demand curve is P =

30 − Q, and both firms

have zero marginal cost.

In Cournot equilibrium,

each firm produces 10.

The collusion curve shows

combinations of Q1 and Q2

that maximize total profits.

If the firms collude and

share profits equally, each

will produce 7.5.

Also shown is the

competitive equilibrium, in

which price equals

marginal cost and profit is

zero.

Duopoly Example

Figure 12.5

38

No Top Ten Exporting Countries Year 2010 % of World

1 Thailand 898,454 83.7%

2 Malaysia 47,773 4.5%

3 Guatemala 20,603 1.9%

4 Belgium 14,255 1.3%

5 Indonesia 12,929 1.2%

6 Cameroon 8,160 0.8%

7 India 7,407 0.7%

8 Germany 6,039 0.6%

9 United States of America 5,369 0.5%

10 Sri Lanka 4,563 0.4%

Source: Own calculation using FAO Statistic Database

Top Ten Producer Countries (Tonnes) 2011

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Tha

iland

Indo

nesia

Malay

sia

India

China

Viet N

am

Côte d'Ivoire

Niger

ia

Sri La

nka

Philip

pine

s

39

World Trade Patterns of Natural Rubber IMT (ITRO) & Non-IMT, 1988-2008 (Thousand

Tonnes/Year)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08

IMT NONIMT

Source: Own Description using FAO Statistic Database

Non - Incomplete Information

Non - Bayesian

Collusive, CNE & Competitive

Collusive

Cournot-Nash

Competitive

Q1

Q1 Q2

Q2

Qcollusive

Qcollusive

QCNE

QCNE

Qcompetitive

Qcompetitive

(A/4Q1,2)

(A/3Q1,2)

(A/2Q1,2)

1.2 Q

A

2.2 Q

A

Competitive Market

TR1 = P1. Q1

= (A - Q1). Q1

= A.Q1 - Q12

MR1= A-2.Q1 = 0

; Q2 = Q1 =

1

2

.2

.4

1

Q

AQ

A

2

.2 2Q

A

2.4 Q

A

Q1 =

Q2=

Collusive Market

Cournot-Nash Equilibrium

1.2 Q

A

2

1Q2 = . Q2

2

1

.2

3

.2Q

Q

A

1.3 Q

A

2.3 Q

AQ2=

Q1=

Assumption:

*

2

*

1

* qqQK m

K qqqQ )( *

2

*

1

*

)( 2*

1* qqp

(.)(.) 1 xp

sQpK

QQp K

KK ).().( *

**

41

Microeconomic Approach :World’s Natural Rubber Trade (in Quantity)

Source: Own calculation using FAO Statistic Database

Country BFTA

China

Mexico (1999),ASEAN(2003), Australia, Costa Rica, Peru(2010),

Singapore (2009),Pakistan (2007), India (2007), Hong Kong (2004),

Macao (2004), Chile (2006), NZ (2008)

Japan

ASEAN (2008), Indonesia (2008), Philippines (2008), Malaysia

(2006), Thailand (2007), Singapore (2006), Vietnam (2009), Brunei

(2008), Mexico (2005), Chile (2007), Switzerland (2009)

South KoreaASEAN, Singapore (2006), India, EFTA (2006), Chile (2004), Peru,

USA

Singapore

China, Japan (2002),South Korea (2006), EFTA, India (2005), Sri

Lanka, Pakistan, Australia (2003), EFTA (2003) Chile, Jordan (2006),

Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, New Zealand (2001), Australia

(2003), Panama(2006), Peru (2009), USA (2004)

Malaysia Japan (2006), Pakistan (2008)

ThailandJapan (2007), Australia (2005), India, Peru, New Zealand (2005),

Singapore, Laos (1991)

Philippines Japan (2008)

Indonesia Japan (2008)

Indonesia – Pakistan PTA

Pendapat Pemerintah Pendapat Pengusaha

Legal Manfaat BiayaPersaingan

usaha

Kemungkinan

mencapai tujuanJumlah

Ekspor 42 46 34 36 44 134

Impor 41 33 31 32 36 111

Investasi 40 29 29 32 31 103

Lapangan

pekerjaan 41 29 33 30 29 96

Jumlah 164 137 127 130 140 444

Legal Manfaat BiayaPersaingan

usaha

Kemungkinan

mencapai

tujuan

Jumlah

Ekspor 13 21 18 20 17 53

Impor 11 16 16 17 16 44

Investasi 10 17 17 18 17 45

Lapangan

pekerjaan 11 15 15 16 19 46

Jumlah 45 69 66 71 69 188

10/22/2016 Lembaga Penyelidikan Ekonomi dan Masyarakat FEB UI 43

$1.35

$0.27

$1.08

$2.11

$0.16

$1.95

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Ekspor Impor Net-Ekspor

Juta

US$

Nilai Perdagangan dengan Pakistan,2012 & 2014

2012 2014

45

FTA IndonesiaAEC

(2015) ACFTA (2002/10) AKFTA (2005/6) AJFTA (2008)AIFTA

(2010/2013/16/18) AANZFTA (2009) IJEPA (2008)

Goods √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Service √ √ √ √ √ √

Investment √ √ √ √ √ √

IPR √ √ √

CompetitionPolicy √ √ √

DisputeSettlement √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Economic &TechnicalCooperation √ √ √ √ √

ROO √ √ √ √ √ √ √

CustomCooperation √ √ √ √ √

Source: CSIS, 2013Source: CSIS, 2014

Source: Verico, 2016

Source: Own Calculation based on the WB data, 2015

Share of Macro Indicators by Country of TPP (%)

Source: LPEM Team for FTAAP

Source: Verico, 2016

Maksimisasi: TPP; RCEP;OBOR towards Regional Convergence

Source: Verico 2015

Source: http://www.asiantradecentre.org/talkingtrade/2016/5/30/transforming-supply-chains-ketchup-in-the-tpp

Pre-TPP & Post-TPP on GVCs: Trade Diversion

Post TPP GVCs: Market Enlargement (Internal & External)

Source: http://www.asiantradecentre.org/talkingtrade/2016/5/30/transforming-supply-chains-ketchup-in-the-tpp

Adjustment Cost to Total Gain

ASEAN Economic Convergence

Terima KasihLPEM FEB UI

25 Oktober 2016