Services trade: making it work for LICs/LMICs Anirudh Shingal WTI, University of Bern & CARIS, University of Sussex “Good” practices in LDC/LIC service trade statistics compilation WTO Public Forum, 2 October 2015

Overview  Based on work undertaken under a TAF project What we know about services trade statistics collection/compilation Study methodology Findings Factors shaping “good practices” Next steps

Collection of services trade statistics Manual on Statistics of International Trade in Services (MSITS) represents internationally accepted best-practice for the collection of services trade data However, in many cases, the requirements and methodologies as laid out in the Manual put stress on the capacity of statistical agencies and central banks in LICs and LDCs This pillar of work aims to help identify ‘interim’ methodologies and approaches that are more aligned with available capacities

Study methodology Review availability of services trade statistics in international databases ▫WTO/UNCTAD/ITC services database ▫UN Statistical Database (UNSD) Consider evolution of “coverage” over to identify LDCs & LICs with good and/or improved coverage ▫“Who had good bilateral and sectoral coverage and/or made improvements in reporting these data over time?” Complement data review with interviews of services data experts (WTO, UNCTAD, UNSD) and info from IMF’s General Data Dissemination Service (GDDS)

Findings (i) Data by number of partners ▫Except Bhutan ( ) and Kyrgyz Rep. ( ), no LDC or LIC reports bilateral services trade flows to UNSD  i.e. most report only trade with the world (Eritrea does not even report that) Data by number of sectors (EBOPS classification) ▫Larger variability by country and time ▫Exports: ranges from 0 categories up to 51 (2012) ▫Imports: ranges from 0 categories up to 58 (2012)

Findings (ii): “better” performers Relatively better performance at reporting disaggregated services trade data: Export data ▫Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Malawi and Uganda Import data ▫Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique and Uganda

Factors shaping “good practices”: i Enabling legal provisions ▫Legal provisions requiring banks to report ▫Confidentiality for firms  data to be used only for statistical collection ▫Penalty for non-compliance (Afghanistan) Proper institutional arrangements ▫Arrangements between statistical agencies and central bank… channels for data submission/requests (Bhutan) Use of multiple data sources ▫“Better performers” tend to access multiple sources to help add to availability (Uganda, Malawi) ▫Use of firm-level surveys  essential

Factors shaping “good practices”: ii Elaborate checks and balances ▫Evaluating compiled data against other available information to assess and correct errors (Uganda) Availability and quality of human capital ▫Ensuring skills for reporters and compilers ▫Need for regular training (esp. with turnover) External support ▫Technical assistance and capacity building  E.g. AANZFTA ECWP, EU-ASEAN COMPASS, UNCTAD- UEMOA, EU-Afghanistan, GIZ-SADC

Next steps Toolkit on improving services trade data collection ▫Turning insights into actionable guidance… not just what is needed, but suggestions on how to implement  Especially in light of available capabilities in LDC and LIC statistical agencies Toolkit on using services trade data for analyses ▫Where to find what sort of data and how to use it for meaningful analyses

Thank you 10