energy security of asia

8/2/2019 Energy Security of Asia

1/36

Naik Yaaba

ASIA PAcIfIc EcoNomIc PAPErS

No. 388, 2010

HOW DOES A DECREASE IN OIL PRODUCTION

AFFECT THE WORLD ECONOMY?

AuStrAlIAJAPAN rESEArch cENtrE

ANu collEgE of ASIA & thE PAcIfIc

crAwford School of EcoNomIcS ANd govErNmENt


2/36


3/36

HOW DOES A DECREASE IN OIL PRODUCTION

AFFECT THE WORLD ECONOMY?

Naik Yaaba*

ASIA PAcIfIc EcoNomIc PAPEr No. 388

2010

AuStrAlIAJAPAN rESEArch cENtrE

crAwford School of EcoNomIcS & govErNmENtANu collEgE of ASIA ANd thE PAcIfIc


4/36

II

Naohiko Yahaba, 2010.

This work is copyright. Apart rom those uses which may be permitted under the Copy-

right Act 1968 as amended, no part may be reproduced by any process without written

permission.

Asia Pacic Economic Papers are published under the direction o the Editorial Committee o

the AustraliaJapan Research Centre (AJRC). Members o the Editorial Committee are:

Proessor Jenny CorbettExecutive DirectorAustraliaJapan Research CentreThe Australian National University, Canberra

Proessor Emeritus Peter DrysdaleCraword School o Economics and GovernmentThe Australian National University, Canberra

Proessor Christopher FindlayProessor o EconomicsUniversity o AdelaideAdelaide, South Australia

Proessor Stuart HarrisDepartment o International RelationsThe Australian National University, Canberra

Dr Kazuki OnjiCraword School o Economics and GovernmentThe Australian National University, Canberra

Papers submitted or publication in this series are subject to double-blind externalreview by two reerees.The views expressed in APEPs are those o the individualauthors and do not represent the views o the AustraliaJapan Research Centre, theCraword School, or the institutions to which authors are attached.

The AustraliaJapan Research Centre is part o the Craword School o Economics andGovernment, The Australian National University, Canberra.

iSSN 0 728 8409iSbN 978-0-86413-342-7

auStraliaJapaN reSearch ceNtre

crawford Schoolof ecoNomicSaNd GoverNmeNtthe auStraliaN NatioNaluNiverSitYcaNberraact 0200

telephoNe: (61 2) 6125 3780

facSimile: (61 2) 6125 8448e-mail: [email protected]: http://www.crawford.aNu.edu.au


5/36

howdoeSadecreaSeiN oilproductioN affectthe world ecoNomY?

Contents

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 5

2. Review o world oil production and consumption ................................................. 6

2.1 Oil consumption ........................................................................................... 6

2.2 Economic growth and oil consumption ......................................................... 8

2.3 Oil price ...................................................................................................... 10

2.4 Oil reserves ................................................................................................. 10

3. Model structure and scenario ............................................................................. 133.1 Structure o GTAP model ............................................................................ 13

3.1.1 Firm behaviour .................................................................................... 13

3.1.2 Household behaviour .......................................................................... 14

3.1.3 Market equilibrium .............................................................................. 15

3.2 Scenario, sectors and regions ........................................................................ 16

3.2.1 Scenario ............................................................................................... 16

3.2.2 Sectors and regions .............................................................................. 174. Results o the simulation ..................................................................................... 18

4.1 Production .................................................................................................. 18

4.1.1 GDP .................................................................................................... 18

4.1.2 Production quantity ............................................................................. 19

4.1.3 Production quantity by region and by industry ..................................... 21

4.1.4 Price o commodities ........................................................................... 21

4.2 Trade .......................................................................................................... 224.2.1 Import and export ............................................................................... 22


6/36

2

Asia Pacic Economic Papers

4.2.2 Terms o trade ..................................................................................... 22

4.3 Welare ........................................................................................................ 25

4.3.1 Income ................................................................................................ 25

4.3.2 Per capita utility rom household expenditure....................................... 27

4.3.3 Equivalent variation ............................................................................. 27

5. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 29


7/36

3

No. 388, 2010

Figures

Figure 1 World Oil Consumption (1965 to 2008 ..................................................... 7

Figure 2 Oil consumption by country/region (2008) ............................................. 7

Figure 3 Oil consumption in major economies (1965 to 2008) ............................... 8

Figure 4 Per capita oil consumption in major economies (2008).............................. 8

Figure 5 GDP and oil consumption (1983 to 2008)................................................. 9

Figure 6 GDP and oil consumption per GDP ........................................................... 9

Figure 7 Oil prices (1965 to2009) ......................................................................... 10

Figure 8 Declared proved reserves in OPEC member countries (1980 to 2008) ..... 12

Figure 9 Changes in proved reserves and oil consumption (1981 to 2008) ............. 12

Figure 10 Decomposition o Change in equivalent variation ................................... 28

Tables

Table 1 Proven reserves by country ........................................................................ 11

Table 2 Changes in oil outputs ............................................................................... 17

Table 3 Industry sectors ......................................................................................... 17

Table 4 Regions ..................................................................................................... 18Table 5 Changes in GDP by region (percentage change) ........................................ 19

Table 6 Change in output quantities by industry sector (percentage change) .......... 19

Table 7 Changes in production quantities by region by industry sector (percentagechange) .................................................................................................................. 20

Table 8 Changes in price o commodities (per cent change) ................................... 22

Table 9 Changes in value o regional imports by commodity (percentage change) .. 23

Table 10 Changes in value o regional exports by commodity (percentage change) . 24

Table 11 Changes in terms o trade (percentage change) ........................................ 25

Table 12 Changes in household income (percentage change) ................................. 27

Table 13 Changes in the price o primary actors (percentage change) .................... 26

Table 14 Changes in per capita utility rom household expenditure (percentagechange) .................................................................................................................. 27

Table 15 Changes in equivalent variation (2005 $ US million) ................................ 28


8/36

4



9/36

5

No. 388, 2010

Abstract

The world's oil consumption has been increasing or more than a century with a

ew exceptions. However, there would be a possibility that the recent increase in oil

consumption in developing countries such as China and India tighten the long term

oil market. Since the exact amount o oil reserves is unknown, it is dicult to predictwhen the ultimate decrease in oil production will come. However, or the last two

decades, the amount o oil consumption per year has surpassed the amount o oil

reserves newly ound. Thereore, the possibility o ultimate decrease in oil production

may increase. This paper examines the impact o the decrease in oil production on

major economies using a computable general equilibrium model. Under the simu-

lations in this paper, the oil exporting economies increase their GDPs, the utilities

and the terms o trade. The oil importing regions, especially in newly industrialised

and developing regions, decrease their GDPs, utilities and the terms o trade. All

industry sectors decrease their world output. Among industry sectors, oil industry

aects most and the industry sectors which use large amount o oil such as petroleum

industry and chemical industry decrease its outputs signicantly.

*Visiting Fellow, Australia-Japan Research Centre, ANU, Canberra; Customs Bureau,

Ministry o Finance, Japan.

1. Introduction

World oil consumption has been increasing or more than a century with a ew exceptions.

Oil consumption increased by 171 per cent during the period o 1965 to 2008.1 World oil

consumption in 2008 was 30.8 billion barrels per year. The International Energy Agency

(IEA) o the Organisation o Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) predicted

in its reerence scenario that world oil consumption will reach to 105 million barrels per

day (38.3 billion barrels per year) in 2030.2 The Energy Inormation Administration

(EIA) o the U.S. Department o Energy predicted in its reerence scenario that world oil

consumption will reach to 106.6 million barrels per day (38.9 billion barrels per year) in

2030.3 However, it is possible that the recent increase in oil consumption in developing

countries such as China and India will tighten the long-term oil market. According tothe IEAs reerence scenario in 2007, the increase in energy consumption in developing

countries represents 74 per cent o the world increase in energy consumption between

2005 and 2030.4

Energy is indispensable or prosperous lie; it is used or transporting and producing

goods, transmitting inormation, and providing light and heat. Without a large supply o

oil, it would have not been possible to realise the economic growth we enjoy today. Since

oil occupies one third o the primary energy supply, change in oil production would have

enormous infuence on the world economy.5How long will the increase in oil production last? This depends on the amount o oil


10/36

6


reserves. The world declared proven reserves in 2008 accounted or 1.41 trillion barrels.6

The IEA reports that the world is not running short o oil yet. It says that the worlds total

endowment o oil is large enough to support the projected rise in production beyond 2030

in its Reerence Scenario in 2007.7 However, there are doubts about the reliability o the

declared reserves in many major producing countries, which are not subject to externalaudit or verication. OPEC countries increased their reserves rom around 667 billion

barrels in 1980 to 1005 billion barrels in 1989 without any signicant actual discovery o

new reserves.8

Since the exact amount o oil reserves is unknown, it is impossible to predict when

the ultimate decrease in oil production will come. However, or the last two decades, the

amount o oil consumption per year has surpassed the amount o oil reserves newly ound.

Thereore, the possibility o an ultimate decrease in oil production is growing.9

This paper examines the impact o a decrease in oil production on the economies

o some countries and regions by using a computable general equilibrium model. The

scenario is as ollows: Increases in oil production cause the drying up o oil elds which can

produce oil with relatively less cost, and oil production will shit to more costly oil elds.

The analysis is conducted using Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model, which is a

computable general equilibrium model developed by the Global Trade Analysis Project.

This paper is organised as ollows: Section 2 reviews the trend o oil production,

oil consumption, oil price and oil reserves and the relationship o oil consumption and

economic growth; Section 3 outlines the structure o the GTAP model and presents the

scenario or simulations and the sectors and regions used in the analysis; Section 4 presents

the results o the analysis on changes in production, trade and welare.

2. Reviewofworldoilproductionandconsumption

2.1 Oilconsumption

For the last our decades, world oil consumption has increased constantly except two oil

crises in 1973 and 1980 and recent global nancial crisis in 2008. Figure 1 shows the

world oil consumption between 1965 and 2008. The world oil consumption increased

rom 11.4 billion barrels to 30.8 billion barrels during the period.


11/36

7

No. 388, 2010

Figure1WorldOilConsumption(1965to2008)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

Billionbarrels

Other econom ies

India

China

Advancedeconom ies

Japan

EU

US A

Source: BP Statistical Review o World Energy 2009, Oil Consumption - barrels (rom 1965).

Figure 2 shows oil consumption in 2008 by country/region. The consumption in

all advanced economies accounts or 56.3 per cent o the total and the consumption in

developing economies accounts or 43.7 per cent. The consumption in the United States

accounts or 23.0 per cent and the consumption in the EU members accounts or 17.5

per cent. China occupies 9.5 per cent, Japan occupies 5.7 per cent and India occupies

3.4 per cent. Figure 3 shows the trend in consumption in major economies. The increase

in oil consumption in the United States, the EU and Japan is slow, while the increase in

consumption in China and India is rapid. According to the IEAs reerence scenario in2007, the increase in energy consumption in developing countries represented 74 per cent

o the increase in world energy consumption between 2005 and 2030. China and India

alone took up45 per cent o the increase.10

Figure2Oilconsumptionbycountry/region(2008)

USA, 7.09, 23.0%

EU, 5.39, 17.5%

Japan, 1.77, 5.7%

Other

advanced

economies, 3.10, 10.1%

China, 2.92, 9.5%

India, 1.05, 3.4%

Other

economies, 9.51, 30.8%

Source:BP Statistical Review o World Energy 2009, Oil Consumption - barrels (rom 1965)Note:Advanced economies are the ollowing: USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Hong Kong, Iceland, Korea, NewZealand, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland and Taiwan.


12/36

8


Figure3Oilconsumptioninmajoreconomies(1965to2008)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

Millionbarrelsdaily

US

EU

Japan

China

India

Source:BP Statistical Review o World Energy 2009, Oil Consumption - barrels (rom 1965).

As regards the oil consumption per capita in major economies in 2008, per capita

consumption is 23.5 barrels per day in the United States, 13.9 barrels in Japan, 11.0 bar-

rels in the EU, 2.2 barrels in China and 0.9 barrels in India, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure4Percapitaoilconsumptioninmajoreconomies(2008)

4.7

0.9

2.2

11.0

13.9

23.5

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

W orld

average

India

China

EU

Japan

US

barrels per year

Sources:BP Statistical Review o World Energy 2009, Oil Consumption - barrels (rom 1965);CIA WorldFactbook 2008.

2.2Economicgrowthandoilconsumption

There is a strong correlation between economic growth and oil consumption. Figure 5

shows the relations o GDP and oil consumption in major economies.In each economy,

a strong correlation between GDP and oil consumption is observed. This implies that the

oil consumption in China and India would increase as their GDP increase in uture.


13/36

9

No. 388, 2010

Figure5GDPandoilconsumption(1983to2008)

20082000

1983

1990

20082000

19831990

2008

2000

1990

19831983

1990

2000

2008

1983

2008

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

0 200 0 40 00 60 00 80 00 1 000 0 120 00 140 00 160 00

GDP (billion US dollars)

Oilconsumption(billionbarrels)

US

E U

Ja p a n

China

India

Sources: BP Statistical Review o World Energy 2009, Oil Consumption - barrels (rom 1965);IMF WorldEconomic Outlook Database, GDP.

Figure6GDPandoilconsumptionperGDP

1983 19902000

2008

200820001990

19831983

2008

1983

1990

2000

2008

1983

2008

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

GDP (billion US dollars)

OilconsumptionperGDP(barrelsperUSdol

lars)

US

E UJapan

China

India

Sources: BP Statistical Review o World Energy 2009, Oil Consumption - barrels (rom 1965); IMF WorldEconomic Outlook Database.

Figure 6 shows the relation o the oil consumption per unit o GDP and the GDP

in major economies. In each economy, oil consumption per unit o GDP decreases as its

GDP increases. This is true or the comparison among dierent economies. Oil consump-

tion per unit o GDP o China and India is bigger than that o developed countries such

as the United States and Japan. There are some dierences in oil consumption per unit

o GDP among developed countries. The EU and Japan have lower oil consumption per


14/36

10


unit o GDP while the United States has higher oil consumption per unit o GDP. This

gure implies that, in uture, oil consumption as a proportion o GDP would decrease in

China and India as the development o these countries advances.

2.3Oilprice

Figure 7 shows the history o oil prices. The oil industry is an oligopolistic industry. The

price fuctuates by the decision o relatively small number o oligopolistic producers and

by the political instability at the oil producing area. The trend shows that oil prices rose

sharply at the time o two oil shocks in 1974 and 1979. Ater the oil shocks, the price

ell gradually due to the eorts or energy saving and the improvement o eciency in

oil consuming countries. In 2007 the price rose again because o political instability in

Middle East. Ater that the price ell due to worldwide economic recession caused by theglobal nancial crises.

Figure7Oilprices(1965to2009)

0 .00

10 .00

20 .00

30 .00

40 .00

50 .00

60 .00

70 .00

80 .00

90 .00

100 .00

1 96 5 19 70 19 75 1 98 0 19 85 19 90 1 99 5 20 00 20 05

US$ at that t ime

US$ 2008

Sources: BP Statistical Review o World Energy 2009, Crude Oil Prices (1861-2008), Brent Oil Price; USEIA Petroleum Navigator, Spot Crude Oil Prices, Brent Oil Price (2009); US Bureau o Labor Statistics,Consumer Price Index (2009).

2.4 Oilreserves

As described above, oil consumption and production have increased and shows a trend to

increase into the uture. It depends on the amount o oil reserves whether the increase in

oil production lasts into the uture. Oil reserves are categorised into three groups basedon condence level: proven reserves, probable reserves and possible reserves. Proved


15/36

11

No. 388, 2010

reserves are the reserves claimed to have normally 90 per cent o certainty o containing

the amount specied. Probable reserves are the reserves which are not yet proven, but are

claimed to have a better than 50 per cent o certainty o recovery, and possible reserves

are the reserves which cannot be regarded as probable, but are claimed to have at least 10

per cent o certainty o recovery.11

Table 1 shows proven reserves by country. The world declared proven reserves

in 2008 account or 1.41 trillion barrels. The IEA reports in 2007 that the world is not

running short o oil yet. It says that the worlds total endowment o oil is large enough to

support the projected rise in production beyond 2030 in its Reerence Scenario.

Table1Provenreservesbycountry

Country Reserves Share(billion barrels) (per cent)

Saudi Arabia 264.1 18.7Canada 179.3 12.7Iran 137.6 9.8Iraq 115.0 8.2Kuwait 101.5 7.2

Venezuela 99.4 7.1United Arab Emirates 97.8 6.9Russia 79.0 5.6Libya 43.7 3.1

Kazakhstan 39.8 2.8Nigeria 36.2 2.6United States 30.5 2.2Qatar 27.3 1.9China 15.5 1.1

Angola 13.5 1.0Brazil 12.6 0.9

Algeria 12.2 0.9Mexico 11.9 0.8

World total 1,408.7 100.0

Source: BP Statistical Review o World Energy 2009, Proved Reserves - barrels (rom1980).

However, there are doubts about the reliability o the declared reserves in many

major producing countries, which are not subject to external audit or verication. It is sug-

gested that the member countries o the Organisation o Petroleum Exporting Countries

(OPEC) have economic incentives to overstate their reserves, since there were discussions

in the 1980s among OPEC countries over setting production quotas based, at least partly,

on reserves. Figure 8 shows declared reserves o some OPEC member countries. Therehave been signicant increases in declared reserves in the 1980s without any signicant


16/36

12


actual discovery o new reserves. For example, Kuwait increased its proven reserves rom

67 billion barrels to 93 billion barrels in 1984. The UAE raised its reserves rom 33 to

97 billion barrels in 1986. Saudi Arabia increased its reserves rom 170 to 255 billion bar-

rels in 1988. In total, world oil reserves, except Canadian oil sands, increased rom around

667 billion barrels in 1980 to 1,006 billion barrels in 1989 and reached 1,258 in 2008.

Figure8DeclaredprovedreservesinOPECmembercountries(1980to2008)

0

50

10 0

15 0

20 0

25 0

30 0

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

billionbarrels

Saudi Arabia

Iran

IraqKuwait

Venezuela

UA E

Qatar

Source:Statistical Review o World Energy 2009, Proved Reserves - barrels (rom 1980).

Figure9Changesinprovedreservesandoilconsumption(1981to2008)

0

20

40

60

80

10 0

12 0

1 98 1 19 83 1 98 5 1 987 19 89 1 99 1 1 993 19 95 1 99 7 1 999 20 01 2 00 3 2 005 20 07

million

barrelsperyear

newly discovered oil

oil consumption

Source: Statistical Review o World Energy 2009, Proved Reserves - barrels (rom 1980).

It is very dicult to tell exactly when oil production will ultimately reach the

point o decline, due to the nite quantity o actual oil reserves, without knowing the

accurate amount o reserves. However, world annual oil consumption has exceeded the


17/36

13

No. 388, 2010

increase in reserves in most years since 1989. Figure 9 shows the world oil consumption

and volume o oil reserves rom 1980 to 2008. In the 1980s there was large increase

in reserves due to revisions made in 1980s in OPEC countries, not by new discovery

o oil reserves. Modest increases have continued since 1990. Though the increase in

reserves in the 2000s is higher than in the 1990s, the volume o consumption continuesto outstrip the increase in reserves. Thereore, there would be some possibility o a tight

supply-demand situation or oil caused by ultimate production decline.

3.Modelstructureandscenario

Based on the circumstances described in Section 2, the eect o decrease in oil production

on major economies is examined in this section. The assumed situation is as ollows: As

oil production increases, the ratio o oil production rom the oil reserves which produces

oil with less cost declines, and the ratio o oil production rom more costly oil reserves

increases. The analysis is conducted by using GTAP model, which is a computable general

equilibrium model developed by the Global Trade Analysis Project.

3.1StructureoGTAPmodel

The GTAP model consists o database, model and sotware. The current database covers

113 countries/regions and 57 sectors. The database covers input-output data o sectorsin each country/region, trade between countries/regions transportation cost and trade

barriers. The basic structure o GTAP is explained in the ollowing paragraphs.12

3.1.1 Firm behaviour

In GTAP model, rm behaviour is determined by minimising the cost or certain amount

o output. The quantities o input o production actors and intermediate commodities

are determined by the ollowing Leontie type production unction;

{min , jr ijr ava t af t aot jr jr ijr QO e QVA e QF e= (1)

jrQO : quantity o commodityjoutput in region r

QVA: quantity o composite production actors used or producing commodity

jo region r

ijrQF : quantity o composite intermediate commodityiused or producing

commodityjo region r

ao, avajr, afijr: parameters or technology progress


18/36

14


Factors o production, which are the composite goods o land, capital and labour,

are described as the ollowing CES (Constant Elasticity o Substitution) type production

unction:

1 1

j

j j

jr ijr java t afe t

jr ijr ijr i ENDW

QVA e d QFE e

=

(2)

QFEijr: quantity o actor o production iused or producing commodityj

QFMijro region r

ddijr, dmijr: share o production actor i in all production actors used or producing

commodity j o region r

afeijr : progress in production increasing technology or actor iused or

producing commodityjo region r

j : elasticity o substitution among production actors used in sectorj

The shares o domestic commodity and imported commodity in each composite in-

termediate commodity are determined by the ollowing CES type production unction:

1 11

Di

Di DiDi

ijr Di Diaf t

ijr dijr ijr mijr ijr QF e d QFD d QFM

= +

(3)

QFDijr : quantity o domestic commodityiused or producing commodityjo

region r

QFMijr : quantity o imported commodityiused or producing commodityj

o region r

ddijr, dmijr: share o domestic/imported commodity Di : elasticity o substitution between domestic and imported commodities

in commodityi

3.1.2 Household behaviour

In GTAP, household expenditures are governed by an aggregate utility unction that allocates

expenditure across three broad categories, private households, government households


19/36

15

No. 388, 2010

and saving expenditures. Households behave so as to maximise their welare subject to

budget constraints described as ollows:

INCOMEr= PRIVEXPr+ GOVEXPr+ SAVEr (4)

INCOMEr : value o net income in region r

PRIVEXPr: value o private household expenditure in region r

GOVEXPr: value o government household expenditure in region r

SAVEr: value o net saving in region r

Utility uction used in GTAP is as ollows:

( ) ( )r

r r

DPSAVE DPPRIV DPGOV

r

r r rr

QSAVEU C UP UG

POP

=

(5)

Ur: per capita utility rom aggregate household expenditure in region r

UPr: quantity o per capita private household expenditure in region r

UGr: quantity o per capita government household expenditure in region r

QSAVEr: quantity o net saving in region r

POPr: population in region r

DPPRIVr, DPGOVr, DPSAVEr: distribution parameters o private household

consumption, government household consumption and saving in region r

3.1.3 Market equilibrium

In GTP model, market equilibrium or tradable goods is described as ollows:

ir ir ir irs s REG

VOM VDM VST VXMD

= + + (6)

VOMir : value o commodity i produced in region r

VDMir : value o domestic sales o commodity i in region r

VSTir : value o international transportation cost or exports ocommodity i in region r

VXMDirs: value o exports o commodity i rom region r to region s

Market equilibrium or production actors is described as ollows:

ir ijr j PROD

VOM VFM

= (7)

VFMijr: value o production actor idemanded by sectorjo region r

= PMir*QFEijr

Value o domestic sales o commodityi (VDMir) is described as ollows:


20/36

16


ir ir ir ijr j PROD

VDM VDPM VDGM VDFM

= + + (8)

VDPMir: value o private household expenditure on domestic commodityi

in region r

VDGMir: value o government household expenditure on domestic com-

modityiin region r

VDFMijr: value o purchase o domestic commodityiby sectorjin region r

Value o imports o commodityi (VIMir) is described as ollows:

ir ir ir ijr j PROD

VIM VIPM VIGM VIFM

= + + (9)

VIPMir: value o private household expenditure on imports o commodityi

in region r

VIGMir : value o government household expenditure on imports o com-

modityiin region r

VIFMijr : value o purchase o imports o commodityiby sectorjin region r

Since the zero prot condition is assumed in the GTAP model, cost structure o

thee value o commodity output at agents price (VOA) is described as ollows:

jr ijr ijr ijr i PROD i PROD i ENDOW

VOA VDFA VIFA VFA

= + + (10)

3.2Scenario,sectorsandregions

3.2.1 Scenario

The scenario o the change is as ollows: Increase in oil production causes the dry up o the

oil elds which can produce oil with relatively less cost, and the oil production will shit to

more costly oil eld. Thereore, aggregate oil production becomes more ineciently.

In the GTAP model, aosec (output augmenting technical change o all regions) or

oil sector is used or the simulation o this scenario. The shock is described as the decrease

in aosec or oil sector. The degree o the shock is 10 per cent and 20 per cent. This does

not mean that the possibility o occurrence o these levels o shock is high. These levels o

shock are chosen just or simulate certain levels o shock. The changes in oil output under

these shocks are described in Table 2 below:


21/36

17

No. 388, 2010

Table2Changesinoiloutputs

Shock Change in oil output

10 per cent decrease in technology change parameter 3.73 per cent

20 per cent decrease in technology change parameter 8.26 per cent

For closure or this simulation, the standard closure or GTAP model is adopt-

ed.13

3.2.2 Sectors and regions

For this simulation, industry sectors are aggregated into 14 sectors and world countries

and regions are aggregated into 11 regions as shown in Table 3 and 4:

Table3Industrysectors

Industry Sector Composing categories

Agriculture, ood and extracts paddy rice, wheat, cereal grains n.e.c.,vegetables/ruit/nuts, oil seeds, sugar cane/sugar beet,plant-based bers, crops n.e.c., cattle/sheep/goats/horses,animal products n.e.c., raw milk, wool/silkworm cocoons,orestry, shing, minerals n.e.c.,meat (cattle/sheep/goats/horses), meat products n.e.c.,

vegetable oils/ats, dairy products, processed rice, sugar,

ood products n.e.c., beverages/tobacco productsGas and coal coal, gasOil oilTextiles and apparel textiles, wearing apparel, leather products

Wood and paper products wood products, paper products/publishingPetroleum, coal products petroleum/coal productsChemical products chemical/rubber/plastic productsMetal and Mineral products mineral products n.e.c., errous metals, metals n.e.c., metal

productsTransport equipment motor vehicles/parts, transport equipment n.e.c.Electronic equipment electronic equipmentMachinery machinery/equipment n.e.c., manuactures n.e.c.Utilities and construction electricity, gas manuacture/distribution, water,

constructionTrade and transport trade, transport n.e.c., sea transport, air transportOther services communication, nancial services n.e.c., insurance,

business services n.e.c., recreation/other services, publicadministration/deence/health/education, dwellings


22/36

18


Table4Regions

Region Composing countries and regions

Net oil importers (major economies)USA USAEU Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic,

Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK

Japan JapanNewly Industrialised Asian economies Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong

ASEAN 5 Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Viet NamChina ChinaIndia IndiaBrazil Brazil

Net oil exporters14

Russia RussiaOther oil exporting countries Rest o Western Asia (including Saudi Arabia, UAE,

Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, Oman, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain),Iran, Norway, South Central Arica (Angola,D.R. Congo), Venezuela, Rest o North Arica(Algeria, Libya), Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Canada,Mexico, Azerbaijan, Central Arica (includingCameroon, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon),Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina, Rest o Southeast Asia(Brunei, East Timor)

Rest o the world Other countries and regions

4.Resultsofthesimulation

4.1Production

4.1.1 GDP

Under the simulations, the GDPs o oil producing regions increase, while the GDPs o

oil importing regions decrease. Among oil importing regions, decrease in the GDP in

developed countries is smaller than decrease in the GDP in developing countries. Table

5 shows the change in GDP o regions under two scenarios (10 per cent decrease in

technology change parameter and 20 per cent decrease in technology change parameter.

Hereinater, 10 per cent decrease scenario and 20 per cent decrease scenario, respec-

tively.)15 For 20 per-cent decrease scenario, the GDP value o Russia and the GDP value

o other Oil Exporting Countries (Other OECs) increase by 18.61 per cent and 19.83


23/36

19

No. 388, 2010

per cent, respectively. Among oil importing regions, the average change in GDP value o

the United States, the EU and Japan is 0.42 per cent, while the average change in GDP

value o Newly Industrialised Asian Economies (NIAEs), ASEAN 5,China, India and Brazil

is 3.09 per cent. The reason the eect o oil productivity decrease is more signicant in

developing countries than in developed countries is that the oil consumption per GDP is

bigger in developing countries than in developed countries.

Table5ChangesinGDPbyregion(percentagechange)

Region 10 per cent decrease scenario 20 per cent decrease scenarioQuantity Price Value Quantity Price Value

USA -0.14 0.04 -0.09 -0.36 -0.03 -0.39EU -0.29 0.29 -0.01 -0.82 0.57 -0.25Japan -0.13 0.00 -0.13 -0.36 -0.26 -0.62

NIAEs -0.26 -1.30 -1.56 -0.79 -4.07 -4.83 ASEAN 5 -0.70 0.46 -0.24 -1.84 1.12 -0.74China -0.26 -0.43 -0.69 -0.68 -1.67 -2.34India -0.51 -1.77 -2.28 -1.58 -5.30 -6.80Brazil -0.60 0.44 -0.16 -1.64 0.91 -0.74Russia -2.15 8.08 5.76 -5.22 25.15 18.61Other OECs -1.86 8.00 5.99 -4.35 25.27 19.83Rest o the world -0.29 0.16 -0.13 -0.78 0.24 -0.55

4.1.2 Production quantity

The output quantities o industry sectors are shown in Table 6 below.16

The output quan-tities o all industry sectors except other services decrease under the two scenarios. The

Oil sector decreases by 8.83 per cent, the petroleum products sector decreases by 8.94

per cent and the gas and coal sector decreases by 2.96 per cent under 20 per-cent decrease

scenario. Decreases in output o other sectors are less than 2 per cent.

Table6Changeinoutputquantitiesbyindustrysector(percentagechange)

Industry sector 10 per cent decrease scenario 20 per cent decrease scenario

Agriculture, ood & extracts -0.43 -1.22Gas and coal -1.12 -2.96Oil -3.73 -8.83Textiles and apparel -0.48 -1.34

Wood and paper products -0.19 -0.49Petroleum, coal products -3.76 -8.94Chemical products -0.46 -1.32Metal and Mineral products -0.09 -0.26Transport equipment -0.30 -0.79Electronic equipment -0.06 -0.12Machinery -0.10 -0.24Utilities and construction -0.14 -0.34

Trade and transport -0.51 -1.48Other services 0.07 0.30

Total -0.40 -1.03


24/36


25/36

21

No. 388, 2010

For gas and coal sector, the quantity o output decreases under these simulations.

This is contrary to common sense. It would be probable that the demand or gas and coal

increases as a substitute o oil when the output o oil decreases and the price o oil increases.

However, the results o the simulations are opposite. It is considered that the substitu-

tion among intermediate commodities in each sector is not ully described by the model.When the quantity o output o some intermediate commodity changes signicantly, it is

usual that the producers would shit the intermediate commodity to another intermediate

commodity. However, the GTAP model adopts the Leontie-type production unction

or the use o intermediate commodities as explained in Section 3.1.1, the substitution o

intermediate commodities may not be appropriately described. As a result, when the output

o oil decreases and the price o oil increases, the rms activity as a whole shrinks and the

consumption o other energy such as coal and gas decreases in these simulations.

4.1.3 Production quantity by region and by industry

Table 7 shows the production quantities by region and by industry sector.17 Russia and

other OECs decrease their out put in all sectors except other services. For oil importing

economies, the output change diers among regions in some industry sectors. In textiles

and apparel sector, the outputs in India and China increase while the outputs in NIAEs

and the EU decrease. For chemical products sector, the outputs in the ASEAN 5, China

and the USA increase while the outputs in NIAEs, India and Brazil decrease.

The reason or the dierence in output o a sector among regions is not clear. In

general, the industry sector o a region that is more productive than the same industry sec-

tor o other regions could increase its output even though the industry sector o the world

as a whole decreases its output. Each region would concentrate on producing commodity

that is the most appropriate to the region, according to the endowment o production

actors. For example, India increases the output in textile and apparel sector and ASEAN

5 increases the output in chemical products sector. India increases the outputs o these

sectors because the price o production actors decrease signicantly ater the shock andthe outputs o the industry sectors, which use large amount o production actors and

intermediate commodities except or oil, increase.

4.1.4 Price of commodities

The price o commodities increases ater the shocks except gas and coal. Table 8 shows the

price change in commodities.18 The price o oil increases by 109.40 per cent under the

20 per cent decrease scenario. The price o commodities which need large amount o oil

increases signicantly, while the price o commodities which needs less oil or production

shows moderate increase. The price o petroleum products increases by 84.66 per cent


26/36

22


and the price o chemical products increases by 7.89 per cent, while the price o textile

and apparel increases by 1.28 per cent and the price o electronic equipment increases by

0.74 per cent.

Table8Changesinpriceofcommodities(percentchange)

Industry sector 10 per cent 20 per centdecrease scenario decrease scenario

Agriculture, ood & extracts 0.55 1.62Gas and coal -0.68 -0.57Oil 34.76 109.40Textiles and apparel 0.48 1.28

Wood and paper products 0.54 1.48Petroleum, coal products 26.89 84.66

Chemical products 2.60 7.89Metal and Mineral products 1.06 3.10Transport equipment 0.48 1.30Electronic equipment 0.32 0.74Machinery 0.36 0.91Utilities and construction 0.68 2.06Trade and transport 1.50 4.58Other services -0.10 -0.44

4.2 Trade

4.2.1 Import and export

The value o global imports increases under the simulation except or gas and coal. Table

9 shows the changes in the values o merchandise imports.19 Under the 20 per-cent de-

crease scenario, the value o global oil imports increases by 87.00 per cent and the value

o global petroleum products imports increases by 72.65 per cent. The values o imports

by region show that all regions increase its importation. Russia and other OECs increase

their imports by 15.21 per cent and 15.95 per cent, respectively, and Japan increases itsimports by 11.63 per cent. The value o imports increases because the prices o imports

increase, although the quantities o imports decrease.

The values o exports increase in all regions too. Table 10 shows the values o

merchandise exports.20 The value o exports in Russia increases by 19.81 per cent and the

value o Indias exports increases by 24.56 per cent. The same explanation can apply to

the increase in value o exports as increase in the value o imports.

4.2.2 Terms of trade

Table 11 indicates the terms o trade o economies.21 Under the 20 per-cent decrease


27/36


28/36


29/36

25

No. 388, 2010

scenario, the terms o trade o oil exporting economies increase signicantly, while the

terms o trade o oil importing economies decrease. The terms o trade o Russia and other

OECs increases by 45.98 per cent and 40.68 per cent, respectively, and the terms o trade

o India and Japan decrease by 19.64 per cent and 10.81 per cent, respectively. Since the

price o oil increases by more than 100 per cent while the price o other merchandise com-modities increase moderately compared with oil, oil exporting economies terms o trade

are improved signicantly and the terms o trade o oil importing economies decrease.

Table11Changesintermsoftrade(percentagechange)

Region 10 per cent 20 per centdecrease scenario decrease scenario

USA -3.12 -8.63EU -1.07 -3.11Japan -3.81 -10.81NIAEs -2.38 -6.87

ASEAN 5 -1.45 -4.26China -2.27 -6.87India -7.17 -19.64Brazil -2.20 -6.67Russia 14.26 45.98Other OECs 12.59 40.68Rest o the world -1.68 -4.91

4.3 Welare

4.3.1 Income

Under the simulations, the incomes o oil exporting economies increase and the incomes o

oil importing economies decrease. Table 12 indicates the changes in household incomes.22

The income o Russia and the income o other OECs increase by 19.08 per cent and 21.05

per cent, respectively. Among oil importing economies, the incomes o developing economiesdecrease more than incomes o developed economies. Under the 20 per cent decrease sce-

nario, India, NIAEs, China and ASEAN 5 decrease their incomes by 7.25 per cent, 5.39 per

cent, 2.70 per cent and 1.26 per cent, respectively, while the incomes o the EU, the United

States and Japan decrease by 0.36 per cent, 0.55 per cent and 0.85 per cent, respectively.

The incomes o developing economies decrease relatively by large number because the price

o labour and capital decreases signicantly in those countries. Table 13 shows the price o

production actors.23 The cost o unskilled labour and capital o India decrease 12.88 per

cent and 13.53 per cent, respectively, while the cost o unskilled workers and capital o the

United States decrease by 1.52 per cent and 1.48 per cent, respectively.


30/36

26


Table1

3Changesinthepriceofp

rimaryfactors(percentagechange)

USA

EU

Japa

n

NIAEs

ASEAN

Chin

a

India

Brazil

Russia

Other

ROW

5

OECs

Land

-0.45

-1.37

-1.27

-2.55

-2.23

-2.09

-4.61

-1.51

-1.44

-2.04

-1.10

-1.48

-4.40

-4.10

-8.23

-6.69

-6.58

-13.53

-4.51

-3.16

-4.88

-3.46

Unskilled

-0.45

-0.77

-0.42

-2.32

-2.14

-1.76

-4.28

-1.63

0.38

1.90

-1.00

labour

-1.52

-2.61

-1.49

-7.08

-6.83

-5.81

-12.88

-5.36

1.56

6.92

-3.34

Skilled

-0.43

-0.69

-0.40

-2.28

-1.98

-1.85

-4.01

-1.46

1.97

3.05

-1.00

labour

-1.46

-2.36

-1.45

-6.96

-6.32

-6.09

-11.97

-4.85

6.40

10.57

-3.31

Capital

-0.38

-0.71

-0.44

-2.28

-1.63

-1.59

-4.25

-1.35

2.19

3.38

-0.87

-1.35

-2.45

-1.56

-6.94

-5.60

-5.42

-12.80

-4.69

6.16

10.56

-3.01

Natural

36.97

24.30

-0.32

-2.09

36.26

19.2

5

23.40

82.13

57.35

61.24

24.48

resources

127.03

83.95

-0.88

-5.14

124.50

67.3

9

79.41

275.75

193

.65

203.51

85.03

Note:1

0percentdecreasescenarioonupperlineand20percentscenarioonlowerline.


31/36

27

No. 388, 2010

Table12Changesinhouseholdincome(percentagechange)


USA -0.15 -0.55EU -0.04 -0.36Japan -0.20 -0.85NIAEs -1.74 -5.39

ASEAN 5 -0.41 -1.26China -0.81 -2.70India -2.43 -7.25Brazil -0.17 -0.75Russia 5.90 19.08Other OECs 6.35 21.05Rest o the world -0.22 -0.85

Table14Changesinpercapitautilityfromhouseholdexpenditure(percentagechange)


USA -0.66 -1.87EU -0.72 -2.07Japan -0.65 -1.93

NIAEs -1.78 -5.40 ASEAN 5 -1.56 -4.39China -1.11 -3.35India -2.18 -6.62Brazil -0.88 -2.50Russia 2.62 8.46Other OECs 2.75 9.02Rest o the world -1.01 -2.94

4.3.2 Per capita utility from household expenditure

Per capita utility rom household expenditure shows the same trend as income. Table 14

indicates the change in per capita utility rom aggregate household.24 Per capita utility o oil

exporting regions economies increases, while per capita utility o oil importing economies

decreases. For example, other OECs increase their utility by 9.02 per cent, while NIAEs

decreases their utility by 5.40 per cent.

4.3.3 Equivalent variation

Changes in equivalent variations show the same trend as changes in incomes and per capita

utilities. Table 15 shows the changes in equivalent variations.25 Equivalent variations in

oil exporting economies increase, while equivalent variations o oil importing economies


32/36

28


decrease. For example, Russia increases its equivalent variation by US$45,979, while the

United States decreases its equivalent variation by US$198,648. Figure 10 show the

decomposition o change in equivalent variation.26 In all regions, changes in terms o

tradeshow the biggest eect.

Table15Changesinequivalentvariation(2005$USmillion)

Region 10 per-cent 20 per-centdecrease scenario decrease scenario

USA -69,707 -198,648EU -80,401 -231,800Japan -25,838 -76,876NIAEs -19,902 -60,297

ASEAN5 -9,015 -25,292

China -16,867 -50,832India -12,799 -38,810Brazil -4,811 -13,643Russia 14,227 45,979Other OECs 84,706 277,836Rest o the world -27,510 -80,250

World total -167,917 -452,631

Figure10DecompositionofChangeinequivalentvariation

5. Conclusion

This paper analyses the eects o the decrease in oil production on some economies using

a computable general equilibrium model. Under the simulations, the world output o oil

decreases. In oil exporting economies, the GDPs increase, the utilities increase, and the

terms o trade increase. In oil importing economies, the GDPs decrease, the utilities de-

crease, and the terms o trade decrease. Among oil importing economies, the developing

economies and newly industrialised economies aects more than developed economies.

Most industry sectors decrease their world outputs. Among industry sectors, oil industry

aects most and the industry sectors which use large amount o oil such as petroleum

industry and chemical industry decrease its output signicantly.

The results o the simulations show that the economies which are expected to

increase their oil consumption such as India and China would be aected signicantly by

the decrease in oil production. I they cannot change their economic structures which are

dependent on oil, they cannot maintain their economic growth or they would economi-

cally decline. Unlike the oil price increase due to speculation, the oil price increase due


33/36

29

No. 388, 2010

to the decrease in oil production would last a longer time, unless new technology or oil

production is introduced. Thereore, its infuence on economies would be more serious

than the previous oil shocks in the 1970s.

References

Arrow, K. J., Chenery, H. B., Minhas, B.S. and Solow, R. M., 1961. Capital-Labor Substitutionand Economic Eciency. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 43(3):225250.

Ban, K., tsubo, S., Kawasaki, K., et al., 1998. y Ippan Kink Model ni yoru Beki TshiJiyka to Kanky Seisaku no Hyka (Evaluation o Trade and Investment Liberalisationand Environment Policy by Using Applied General Equilibrium Model), Keizai Bunseki,156: 2642.

BP, 2009. BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2009. London, UK: BP Distribution Serv-ices

Brockmeier, Martina, 2001. Graphical Exposition o the GTAP Model. GTAP Technical PaperNo. 8, Revised.

Hertel, Thomas W., 1997. Global Trade Analysis, Modeling and Applications. Cambridge, U.K.:Cambridge University Press.

Hosoe, N., Gasawa, K. and Hashimoto, H., 2004. y Ippan Kink Modeling: Program karaSimulation made (Applied General Equilibrium Modeling: From Programming to Simula-tion), Tokyo, Japan: University o Tokyo Press.

Hu, Karen M. and Hertel, Thomas W., 2000. Decomposing Welare Changes in the GTAPModel. GTAP Technical PaperNo. 5.

International Energy Agency, 2007-2009. World Energy Outlook 2007-2009. Paris, France: Or-ganisation o Economic Cooperation and Development.

International Energy Agency, 2009. Key World Energy Statistics 2009. Paris, France: Organisationo Economic Cooperation and Development.

International Monetary Fund, 2009. World Economic Outlook Database. Washington D. C.:International Monetary Fund.

Japan Energy Data and Modeling Center, 2008. EnerugKeizai Data no Yomikata Nymon (In-terpretation o Energy and Economic Data), Tokyo, Japan: Energy Conservation Center,Japan.

McDougall, Robert, 2003. A New Regional Household Demand System or GTAP. GTAP Tech-nical PaperNo.20, Revision 1.

Population Reerence Bureau, 2009. 2008 World Population Data Sheet. Washington D. C.:

Population Reerence Bureau.Roberts, P., 2004. The End of Oil: the Decline of the Petroleum Economy and the Rise of a New

Energy Order London: Bloomsbury.

Shoven, John B. and Whalley, John, 1984. Applied General-Equilibrium Models o Taxation andInternational Trade: An Introduction and Survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 22:10071051.

U.S. Energy Inormation Administration, 2009. International Energy Outlook 2009. WashingtonD.C., U.S.: U.S. Department o Energy.

Notes1 BP Statistical Review o World Energy 2009, Oil Consumption - barrels (rom 1965).


34/36

30


2 IEA World Energy Outlook 2009.

3 US EIA International Energy Outlook 2009.

4 IEA World energy Outlook 2007.

5 IEA Key World Energy Statistics 2009.

6 BP Statistical Review o World Energy 2009, Proved Reserves - barrels (rom 1980).


8 BP Statistical Review o World Energy 2009, Proved Reserves - barrels (rom 1980).

9 BP Statistical Review o World Energy 2009, Oil Consumption - barrels (rom 1965).


11 Society o petroleum Engineers, Glossary o Terms Used in Petroleum Reserves/Resources, PetroleumReserve Denitions 1997.

12 For more details, see Ban, K., tsubo, S., Kawasaki, K., et al. (1998).

13 Exogenous variables: pop (population), psaveslack (slack variable or the savings price equation), pactwld(world price index o primary actors), protslack (slack variable in the zero prot equation),

incomeslack (slack variable in the expression or regional income), endwslack (slack variable inendowment market clearing condition), cgdslack (slack variable or qcgds (output o capitalsector)), tradslack (slack variable in tradables market clearing condition), ams (import augmentingtechnical change), atm (technical change in transportation mode) at (technical change in shipping,worldwide), ats (technical change in shipping rom region r), atd (technical change in shipping toregion s), aosec (output technical change o sector j), aoreg (output technical change o region r),avasec (value added technical change o sector j), avareg (value added technical change o regionr), acom (actor input technical change o input i), asec (actor input technical change o sector j),areg (actor input technical change o region r), aecom (actor input technical change o input i),aesec (actor input technical change o sector j), aereg (actor input technical change o region r),aoall (output augmenting technical change) aall (intermediate input augmenting technical change)aeall (primary actor augmenting technical change), au (input-neutral shit in utility unction),dppriv (private consumption distribution parameter), dpgov (government consumption distributionparameter), dpsave (saving distribution parameter), to (output (or income) tax) tp (shit in tax on

private consumption), tm (change in tax on imports), tms (change in tax on imports rom regionr), tx (change in subsidy on exports), txs (change in subsidy on exports to region s), qo(ENDW_COMM, REG) (primary actor output). Rest o variables are endogenous.

14 These countries cover more than 97 per cent o world net oil exports.

15 Represented as 'qgdp', 'pgdp' and 'vgdp in GTAP model.

16 Represented as qow in GTAP model.

17 Represented as qo and qgdp in GTAP model.

18 Represented as pw in GTAP model.

19 Represented as viwci , viwcom and viwreg in GTAP model.

20 Represented as vxwob, vxwcom and vxwreg in GTAP model.

21 Represented as tot in GTAP model.

22 Represented as y in GTAP model.

23 Represented as pm in GTAP model.

24 Represented as u in GTAP model.

25 Represented as EV in GTAP model.

26 Represented as EV Decomposition in GTAP model.


35/36

31

No. 388, 2010

PreviousAsiaPacifcEconomicPapers

387 Internal Promotion and the Eect o Board Monitorin: a Comparison o Japan and the UnitedStatesMeg Sato, 2010

386 Interaction between trade, confict and cooperation: the case o Japan and ChinaShiro Armstrong, 2010

385 Japanese Aid as a prerequisite or FDI: the case o Southeast Asian countriesSverine Blaise, 2009

384 Insular Decision-making in the Board Room: Why Boards Retain and Hire Sub-Standard CEOsMeg Sato, 2009

383 How does Financial System Eciency Aect the Growth Impact o FDI in China?Ying Xu, 2009

382 A Tale o Pork Prices: Evasion and Attenuation o a Japanese TariKazuki Onji, 2009

381 Are the East Asian Currencies Still Misaligned? An Analysis Based on Absolute ppp-IncomeRelationship using Panel DataTaizo Motonishi, 2009

380 Is Foreign Aid a Vanguard o Foreign Direct Investment? A Gravity-Equation ApproachHidemi Kimura and Yasuyuki Todo, 2009

379 Rain, Elections and Money: The Impact o Voter Turnout on Distributive Policy Outcomes in JapanYusaku Horiuchi and Jun Saito, 2009

378 Japanese FDI in China: determinants and perormanceShiro Armstrong, 2009

377 Expansion Abroad and Jobs at Home: Evidence rom Japanese Multinational EnterprisesNobuaki Yamashita and Kyoji Fukao, 2009

376 Should Australia Encourage Developing Countries to Adopt Competition Laws?Henry Ergas, 2008

375 Will New Trends in Foreign Direct Investment Change the Structure o Intra-industry Tradebetween China and Japan?Tao Tao, 2008

374 Competition Policy in ASEAN: Case studiesJohannah Branson, 2008

373 Can the New Antimonopoly Act Change the Japanese Business Community? The 2005 Amendmentto Antimonopoly Act and Corporate Compliance.Kazukiyo Onishi, 2008

372 Immunising uture trade against protectionists: preventing the emergence o more sensitive sectorsAndrew Elek, 2008

371 Tax law asymmetries and income shiting: evidence rom Japanese Capital KEIRETSUKazuki Onji and David Vera, 2008

370 The response o rms to eligibility thresholds: evidence rom the Japanese value-added taxKazuki Onji, 2008

369 China and East Asian Energy: Prospects and Issues Vol. 1 & 11Peter Drysdale, Kejun Jiang and Dominic Meagher, 2008

368 Measuring trade and trade potentialShiro Armstrong, 2007

367 APEC and inectious disease: meeting the challengeJoel Gilbourd, 2007


36/36


Annualsubscriptionrateoruptoeightissues:

Individuals A$65.00 (includes GST) A$60 (overseas)

Institutions A$110.00 (includes GST) A$100 (overseas)

Costorsingleissues:

A$16.50 (includes GST) A$15.00 (overseas)

A$10.00 (Students)

No postage required within Australia

Availablerom:

Centre Administrator

AustraliaJapan Research Centre

Craword School o Economics and Government

ANU College o Asia and the Pacic

The Australian National University

Canberra ACT 0200, Australia

Facsimile: (61 2) 6125 8448

Telephone: (61 2) 6125 3780

Email: [email protected]

URL: http:/www.craword.anu.edu.au

energy security of asia

Documents