Report Nb.5832-R0 Romania: Economic Memorandum: External Stabilization and Structural Adjustment (In TwoVolumes) Volume II: Statistical Appendix May 6,1986 Europe, Middle East and North Africa Regional Office FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY -~~- - -, . - - .. 7 ~ . . Document of the World Bank This report has-a restricted distribution andmay beused by recipients only in theperformance of their official duties. Itscontents may nototherwise bedisdosed without World Bank authorization. Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
92
Embed
Romania: Economic Memorandum: External Stabilization … · Economic Memorandum: External Stabilization and Structural Adjustment ... 2.3 Gross Fixed Capital Formation by ... includes
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Report Nb. 5832-R0
Romania:Economic Memorandum:External Stabilization and Structural Adjustment(In Two Volumes) Volume II: Statistical Appendix
May 6,1986
Europe, Middle East and North Africa Regional Office
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
-~~- - -, . - - ..
7 ~ . .
Document of the World Bank
This report has-a restricted distribution and may be used by recipientsonly in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwisebe disdosed without World Bank authorization.
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Fiscal Year = Calendar Year
Weights and Measures = Metric System
Currency EquivalentsDomestic Currency = Leu (L) (Plural: Lei)
Rates are those in effect as of January 1 unless otherwise indicated.
Nominal effective average exchange rate for trade in convertiblecurrencies.
A unified exchange rate for commodity trade was introduced on July 1,1983. At the same date, the commercial rate was pegged to a basket ofcurrencies.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ROMANIA ECONOMIC MEMORANDUM
Volume II: STATISTICAL APPENDIX AND ANNEXES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
ANNEX I: Statistical and Methodological Issues ...................... 1ANNEX II: Relationship Between Growth of Investment and
Growth of Productivity .*...*.......................... 16ANNEX III: Analysis of Trends in Romanian Exports to Major Markets .... 18
LIST OF TABLES:
I. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT1.1 Population, 1975-84 ................. ,........................ 271.2 Demographic Indicators, 1975-84 ......... ........... 281.3 Labor Force, 1975-84 .................. .. * .. ........... 291.4 Occupied Population by Age and Sex, 1975-90 . 301.5 Labor Force Structure by Sector, 1975, 1980-84 311.6 Industrial Employment by Subsector, 1975, 1980-84 ..... 321.7 Average Monthly Wage, Net of Tax, by Sector, 1975-85 ....... 331.8 Money Income and Expenditure of Population, 1975-85 ....... 34
II. NATIONAL ACCOUNTS2.1 GDP by Origin, 1975-84 . .............. ... ......... ........ 352.2 GDP by Expenditure, 197584 - ............ ................ . 362.3 Gross Fixed Capital Formation by Economic Sector, 197584 4... 37
III. BAIANCE OF PAYMETS AND TRADE3.1 Balance of Paymets, 1975-85 - ................. ...... . 383.2 Balance of Payments, Convertible Currency, 197585 393.3 Service Receipts and Payments, 197645 403.4 Service Receipts and Payments, 197685,
Convertible Currency .. ........ ....... o ...... ..... 413.5 Comodity Composition of Expo-ts, 197584 ...4 423.6 Couodity Composition of Impc,ts, 197584 ........ 433.7a) )3.7b) Exports by Major Trading Partners, 1975-84 ............... ) 44-3.8a) ) 473.8b) Imports by Major Trading Partners, 197544 .............. )3.9 Composition of Exports to NonSocialist Countries, 1976-84... 483.10 Composition of Exports to Socialist Countries, 1976-84 ..... 493.11 Composition of Imports from NonSocialist Countries, 1976-84. 503.12 Composition of Imports from Socialist Countries, 197684.... 513.13 Composition of Imports, Convertible Currency, 198084 ...... 523.14 Composition of Imports, NonConvertible Currency, 1980-84 .... 533.15 Exchange Rates, 1975, 1980-85 ............. ................. 54
IV. EXTERNAL DEBT4.1 External Debt and Capital Flows, 1975-84 ......... 6......... 554.2 External Debt and Capital Flows by Type of Credit, 1976-84.. 56
T dacuiAmt lime rantud distrbution an may be mu by ncWaes only in the pefomaneof tk offiil duhoi Its conent my not otherwism be diuoud without Wofld ulak autborirno
- ii -Page No.
V. PUBLIC FINANCE AND INVESTMENT5.1 Revenues and Expenditure of the State Budget, 1981-85 ........ 575.2 Investment Financing, 1980-85 ............................... 585.3 Credit and Deposit Interest Rates, 1975, 1980, 1983, 1985 .... 595.4 Sectoral Allocation of Actual and Planned Investments,
1981-85, 1986-90 ............................................ 605.5 Machinery and Equipment Investment by Branches of Economy,
1970-84 ..................................................... 615.6 Machinery and Equipment Investment by Branches of the
VI. AGRICULTURE6.1 Trends in Production of Principal Agricultural Goods, 1975-84 63
Fig. 6.1 Trends in Production of Principal Agricultural Goods, 19/5-84 646.2 Principal Indicators of Agricultural Mechanization,
Fertilization, and Irrigation, 1975-84 ...................... 656.3 Livestock, 1975-84 ....................................... 666.4 Average Yield of Main Agricultural Products, 1975-84 ........ 67
Fig. 6.4 Trends in Average Yields of Main Agricultural Products 68-696.5 Exports and Imports of Agricultural Products and
Foodstuffs, by volume, 1975-84 ..... ......................... 706.6 Exports and Imports of Main Agricultural Products,
in US Dollars, 1978-84 ...................................... 71
VII. INDUSTRY AND ENERGY7.1 Gross Industrial Production, by Subsector, 1975-84 .. ........ 727.2 Industrial Investment, by Subsector, 1975-84 ....... ......... 737.3 Changes in Production Costs by Branch of
Manufacturing, 1979-83 ................ .. .................... 747.4 Construction Output by Type, 1975-83 ..... ................... 757.5 Production, Consumption, Exports and Imports of Oil
and Oil Products, 1975-85 .............. .. ................... 767.6 Installed Capacity and Electric Power Production, 1976-90 777.7 Domestic Production of Energy Products, 1976-90 . . 787.8 Trends in Domestic Energy Consumption, 1976-84 . 797.9 Trends in Electric Power Consumption, 1976-84 . .80
VIII. PRICES8.1 Comprehensive Consumer Price Index, 1981-85 ................. . 818.2 Retail Price Indices for Goods and Services
from the Socialist Sector, 1975-85 ......................... 828.3 Energy Prices, 1980-85 . ........................ ............ . 838.4 Producer Prices in Republican Industry and Agriculture,
IX. PRIVATE CONSUMPTION AND SOCIAL WELFARE9.1 Retail Sales in Socialist Trade, 1981-85 .... ................. 859.2 Construction of Housing, 1981-85, 1986-90 ................... 869.3 Meat Consumption Per Capita, 1975, 1980-84 . .87
ANNEK I
STATISTICAL AND METRODOLOGICAL ISSUES
This Appendix highlights several methodological and statisticalproblems which have arisen in preparing the report. The followingpresentation is not intended to assess in detail the Rowanian statisticalprocedures and data. -This has been done to a large extent in separate studiesand further discussion of the issues would be redundant and outside themission's terms of reference. 1' The purpose of this note is simply tohighlight additional problems not discussed in the literature and specificissues affecting this report.
CONTENTS
A. Production
1. Comparison of Changes in Gross Industrial Production by Branches withChanges in Output of Main Products, 1980-83
2. National Income Accounts and Implicit Price Deflators3. 1984 Production and Expenditure Accounts4. Transport Output in 1984
B. Pricins
1. New Products2. Moving Price Base
C. Foreign Trade Statistics and Exchange Rate Movements
' For more details see M.R. Jackson: Romanian National Accounts andEstimation of its Gross Domestic Product and Growth Rates, Washington,D.C.: World Bank, forthcoming as Working Paper, 1985. T.P. Alton, etal.: The Structure of Gross National Product in Eastern Europe(Derivation of GNP Weights for 1975-1979), New York, L.W. InternationalFinance Research, Inc., 1981.
-2-
A. Production
1. Comparison of Changes in Gross Industrial Productionby Branch with Chanzes in Output of Main Products, 1980-83
1. The attached tables, drawn entirely from the Statistical Yearbook ofthe Romanian Central Statistical Office (CSO), permit a comparison of thereported increase in gross production of the engineering and metalworkingbranch, accounting in 1983 for almost 30S of total industry (Table A-1), withreported changes in output of what are described in the Yearbook as the mainproducts of this branch (Table A-2). (The period covered by the 1984 issue ofthe Yearbook is 1980-83.) While not fully conclusive in the absence ofweights, the tables show that whereas aggregate gross production of thisbranch is reported to have risen at the rate of 11.5S, as indicated in TableA-1, the last two columns of Table A-2 indicate a decline over the period1980-83 in the output of the main product groups. The only product groups forwhich output was reported to have unambiguously increased more strongly thanthe purported average were batteries, fine mechanical and optical products,metalworking machines, bicycles, and gas stoves. Most products, includingthose most commonly associated with Romanian engineering, showed eithersmaller increases (e.g., tractors) or sizable declines (e.g. railwaylocomotives and cars, motor vehicles, and radio and TV sets).
2. The discrepancy between the two sets of statistics is also evidentin the case of otner branches of industry. Production of electrical andthermal power is reported to have increased by 5.5S in Table A-1, whereas thelisting of physical output in the Statistical Yearbook suggests an increase ofonly 4.1X in electrical energy (measured in kWh) and a decline of 5.4S inthermal power (measured in kcal). Crude oil extraction is reported to haveinreased by 10.71 in Table A-1, whereas the volume of crude oil extracted roseonly from 11.5 to 11.6 million tons according to the product listing of theYearbook. Gross production of the ferrous metals branch is reported to haveincreased by 6.11 in Table A-1, whereas all of the iron rose and steelproducts (with the exception of specialty steels) showed sizable declines inthe product listing. There is evidence of similar discrepancies in the caseof most other branches of industry, although not always as conclusive, giventhe absence of appropriate weights for individual products.
3. The Romanian authorities explained the apparent discrepancies between thetwo sets of statistics on the grounds that gross industrial production (TableA-1) includes the value of repairs as well as the production of spare partsand unfinished products, whereas Table A-2 includes only the main finalproducts. However, in order to account for the magnitude of difference intrends between the two sets of data, the weight of repairs and spare parts intotal production would have to be very significant, and growing very rapidly.As indicated in Table A-1, however, for the machine-building and metal-processing branch alone, repairs only constituted 2.41 of total production(8.31 of this subsector's output).
4. It is possible that the apparent discrepancies in the data can bepartly explained by quality improvements and by the existence of "new
- 3 -
Table A-1: GROSS INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION BY BRANCH, 1980-83
Growth,in comparable
Structure in 1983 1/ Prices(in percent of total) (in percent)
Source: Directia Centrala de Statistica, Anuarul Statistic, 1984.
-4-
Table -2: 1fl P C UD2 AIS LF
Uhit of Puu&tim TIncrw DwcLiz"bumnmt in 198
(in )
Iiustrial atesm boilrs units 387 -24.9n I PN mu ... 20.9
Stem_ tbium Ihits 13 - -
n to '00 W 257 -48.3Wdr.uic nbz& units 54 640A.
to lo w 178 -16.mutin -u '1000 ado 228 -2.3
Eltric ar1 cat u1 qpaUrn '000 lei 926 -6.1
ELitric ad wtrwAuc .utcwtimequiPt -. '0 ei 8*261 -1.8
Eltric 'aFtor 00W 606 -45.5B wttie oo low i 1,371 25.5Electric ca ut cAbls '000 tICs 70 -29.3Eltric ioudio1d qap a li1ii li 2,533 2.3
dio ts '00o uit. 54&2 -37.2Thlwisii us '000 arits 390 -27.9Fim dmuil ad optical po&ts Mlim I 10,398 2.2%whiz for anel *&utti and 10
f1illizg 59,997 10Vimrns, eaziutand instaflatimu
fwe poll latio,wil ilirz ad 1sploiati '00D tm 138 10.6
~du~acgc mhim, pp adztallaeia f ;,duutzy 'OOD ton 602 -12.0
ZwAtoc Ibits 791 -34.0Tft=s IMit 77,142 8.8Tructr-drive pjua 1t 12,748 -0.5T ratO--dLO seda Ttiu 14,028 -27.5Cin hwwseers units 5,094 4.2Yin line lomtives units 168 -39.1tMin line fit cms Ibt 11,298 -6.0.in line pauw4pr en Liits 606 -32.8
tr vddclm '0 mits - 108 -15.6of Uti&: tam cas '000 iits 7 -3.1
Sm: Direie Caemla de Statistica, AmIul Stistic, 1984.
2141F
- 5 -
products" not captured by physical output series.-' However, these factorsare unlikely to play a significant part in the case of fuels and electricpover and, perhaps, other industr-al branches producing standard andhomogenous commodities which are less amenable to quality upgrading andirnovation. A more Likely explanation is the methodology of computing thegross output series reported in Table A-2 (see item B.2 below, Moving PriceSeries).
2. National income accounts and implicit price deflators.
5. The Government supplied the mission with a table showing GDPfigures by origin in current and constant prices. The constant price serieswere provided in 1981 prices rather than in terms of 1977 prices which wereused previously. The table shows that the level of industrial outputexpressed on 1981 prices was lower in 1980, 1981 and 1982 than that expressedin terms of 1977 prices. This implies that the level of industrial prices in1981 was lower relative to 1977. According to Government's own figures,however, industrial prices increased by 12.4S in 1981 relative to 1980. Eventhough no comparable figures are available for 1978-1980, it is unlikely thatindustrial prices were actually reduced in those years by that magnitude.
6. Similarly, in 1984, aggregate consumption increased by 5.6X in 1981prices and by 4.1% in current prices as compared to the previous year.However, these changes are inconsistent with the change in the consumer priceindex which declined by only 0.2X in 1984.
3. 1984 production and expenditure accounts
7. According to the national income data provided by the Romanianauthorities, net exports (including statistical discrepancy) in terms of leiincreased by 143.4X in 1984. The actual data are shown in Table A-3.
8. However, the above net export figures are not consistent with thosein the balance of payments. Net exports of goods and non-factor services in1984 in the balance of payments amount to US$2,378 billion (Table 3.1,Statistical Appendix). If this figure is converted into lei at the averagecommercial exchange rate for the year of 21.28 lei = US$1 (cf. IFS), we obtain50.60 billion lei, i.e, 19 billion lei less than the figure from the nationalincome accounts.
9. The Romanian authorities have provided the explanation that thebalance of trade surplus achieved in 1984 was US$2.3 billion, "excludingUS$900 million representing commodities ready for the export as of December31, 1 9 8 4 ."A' The figure of US$900 million is equivalent to the discrepancy
' See M. Jackson, 'Romania's Economy at the End of the 1970s: "Turning theCorner of Intensive Development," East European Assessment; US Congress,Joint Economic Committee, 1981, Part 1, p. 238.
Government"' Economic Memorandum, June 1985, page 1.
- 6-
Table A-3: USE OF NATIONAL rNCOME, 1981-84 &'(in billions of lei)
Accumulation Fund 149.9 164.1 186.8 180.8 194.0Net investment 142.1 144.2 153.3 160.1 172.5Increase in stocks 7.8 19.9 33.5 20.7 21.5
Net export and statisticaldiscrepancy 1.0 23.0 28.6 69.6 109.9
National income 530.7 628.8 657.6 709.0 779.9
'' National income as defined by Romanian authorities. The concept and,consequently, the figures and growth rates differ slightly from theWestern convention.
b' Preliminary.C' Forecast.
Source: Data provided by Romanian authorities.
between the net export figure in the national income accounts and that in thebalance of payments accounts (US$900 million x 21.28 lei:US$1=19.2 billionlei).
10. There are two important implications of the above discrepancy.First, the figure for net exports in lei in the national income accounts wouldbe consistent with a balance of trade of US$3.1 billion, an amount which wasactually announced in the 1984 Plan Fulfillment Commun.Lque. If we take thelower trade surplus figure of US$2.3 billion and calculate the correspondinglevel of national income used (Romanian definition) in that year, we obtain afigure of 688.3 billion lei, or about 3X less than the figure shown in TableA-3. To put it differently, the growth of national income used in 1984 afteradjustment for the statistical discrepancy would be 4.71 in comparison to 7.8Sas implied in Table A-3.
11. Second, to the extent that the comodities which are "ready forexports" have been actually sold and await loading, they will '"blow up" theexport figures in 1985. If they are not sold and remain in warehouses, theyshould show up as "increases in stocks" in 1984. If treated as stocks, thefigure of 19 billion lei would increase the existing "changes in stocks" to39.9 billion lei (=20.7+19.2), i.e., by 931. The authorities explained thatthe goods in question were sold and delivered in 1985, but will not bedouble-counted as exports in 1985.
12. The discrepancy between figures for the net exports in the balanceof payments and in the national income accounts seem to be limited only todata for 1984. There are also some discrepancies in 1981 and 1982 but theyare not significant. To avoid such statistical problems in the future, it isrecomended that actual net exports be distinguished from "statisticaldiscrepancy" in the national income accounts.
4. Transport sector output in 1984
13. According to Plan Fulfillment figures, niet production value inindustry increased by 8.41 in 1984 in comparison to 1983 (gross industrialsupply increased by 71) and net agricultural output increased by 12.12 in thesame year (gross agricultural supply increased by 13.3Z). These substantialincreases in growth of agricultural and industrial output are not consistentwith the volume of goods transported by means of "public means oftransportation" which shows 4.21 decline in the same year. The mission wastold that road transport did decline by design as traffic was shifted to railand river conveyance. However, the data in question are inclusive of allmeans of transport, including those provided by producing enterprises fromtheir own stock of transport vehicles. No indications were made availableabout the magnitude of the enterprises' own transport and about theimplication for the value of industrial output which is now presumablydistorted by the inclusion of own transport. Pari passu, "transport" figuresare, therefore, downward biased.
B. Pricing
1. New products
14. It is well known that introduction of new products may havesignificant influence on changes in the rates of growth of output as well asprice indices. Since new products are typically introduced mainly by themanufacturing sector, it is the growth rates of the manufacturing output whichare affected most. Biases in growth indices of centrally-planned economies(CPEs) come from two sources: (i) choice of indices, and (ii) over-estimation of quality improvement in the system of price formation. Whileissues arising from (i) are the result of the familiar index number problem,issues under (ii) are specific for CPEs. The effect of Romanian methodologyof constructing index numbers is discussed in general terms in the 1980 CEM(Report No. 2757-RO), Appendix A.
15. It is less clear, however, what is the magnitude of the biasesarising from the introduction of new products in Romania. The bias willdepend on the rate at which new products are introduced into productionlines. The attached Table A-4 gives, therefore, an indication of theimportance of "new products" in industrial output. According to productionplans for 1980, new products introduced between 1975 and 1980 amounted toabout 451 of gross industrial output. The corresponding percentage for theperiod 1970-1980 was estimated in a separate source as 70-75S of the volume ofoutput. In other words, the product assortment was fundamentally changed in1980 in comparison to 1970; Romania produced in 1980 only about 251 ofproducts which it produced in 1970.
lliatay of ahidldid d Elacticsl Oiam - (19)0 u br vow)
2 Shauofam p. 20.0 32.4 4J2*J 6.3 AD0
Skwc: IL Jadru: _i ibtinl Ac_ _s and EAtima of La Count Dometi,c Ptu& aCMW& am, t,hii-. D.C.; l1d a. 1exW- Pa, FUMmb.
16. One of the effects of the measures introduced under the umbrelLa ofthe stabilization program in 1981 was that resources were reallocated moretowards production of import substitutes. The policy was focussed primarilyon substitution of fuels imports but it also included products of themanufacturing industry. As a result of import cuts introduc.3d at the sametime, enterprises were requested to replace imports of machinery and equipmentfrom domestic sources as many import plans had to be scrapped. It is believedthat these commodities would be defined (and counted) in production statisticsas new products.
17. The 1986-90 Plan puts major emphasis on the introduction of new andtechnologically improved products. The definition of "new products" isdetermined by the authorities on the basis of a set of parameters of productperformance and other product features. For example. reduction of productioncosts resulting from savings of intermediate inputs may not lead to productionof a qualititatively different final product but could permit the product tobe identified as new. It is questionable that such commodities should bedefined as new and it is even less clear how the costs savings are related toprice formation of new products. Nevertheless, it is possible that theimportance of new products is overestimated, leading to increases in theirprices.
18. It is not possible to ascertain precisely the magnitude of the biaswithout detailed assessment of the price policy towards new products andwithout actual price data. The price coummission and, possibly, other centralorgans will typically provide guidelines such as "produse de talon" (i.e.reference products) which specify standards for production costs and usevalues. Both ministries and centrales, and even enterprises, haveconsiderable discretion to set and change prices of many products within suchguidelines.
-9-
2. Moving price base
19. According to the Statistical Yearbook, "the dynamics of industrialproduction ... is calculated on the basis of prices existing in the beginningof the year and adjusted for price interventions in the year immediatelypreceding it."-' For example, the value of output in, say, 1984 is derivedfrom prices of January 1984 and it is believed that these were adjusted forprice changes in 1983 and should correspond, therefore, to the prices existingat the end of 1982. A similar procedure was adopted in deriving the value ofoutput in 1983 but with an adjustment for price changes in 1982 leading toadoption of prices existing at the end of 1981 and so on. In other words, theprocedure corresponds to a derivation of a "constant" price series which iscalculated on the basis of (continuously) moving price base. It should benoted further that how the adjustment is actually made for "price interventionin the preceding year" is not explained in the official sources. Here and inthe following example it was assumed that the adjustment for price changes ismade for actual prize changes rather than planned changes and that the changesrefer to those which occurred during the whole year rather than any part of it.
20. The effect of the current methodology on the value of outputmeasured by the "constant" (moving base) prices is shown in Table A-5. Thetable, which is based on a simple numerical example, shows that the procedureof using "moving" base price series generates an upward bias ii output series(compare rows 4 and 7).
Table A-5: MOVING BASE SERIES: A NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
1. Output Volume (tons) .. 100 102 104 106
2. Price (Lei/ton) 5 5 8 10 11
3. Value (Lei)=(lx2) .. 500 816 1040 1166
4. Index of OutputVolume (1980 = 100) .. 100 102 104 106
5. Price Index(1980 = 100) .. 100 160 200 220
6. Index of Value ofOutput (=3)(1980 = 100) .. 100 163 208 233
7. Index of Output at"Constant" (Moving Base)Prices (1980 - 100) .. 100 160 204 229
' Statistical Yearbook 1984, p. 67.
- 10 -
C. Foreign trade statistics and the exchange rates movements
21. The analysis of Romania's foreign trade is subject to difficultiesarising from peculiarities in the organization of foreign trade (and itsimplications on domestic price formation) and exchange rate policy; thedetermination of a particular level of the exchange rate and its changes arethe results of administrative decisions and the exchange rate does nottypically reflect the real scarcity value of foreign currencies. The recentrevaluation of the leu (plural:lei) seems to complicate further theinterpretation of Romanian foreign trade statistics.
22. The effect of the exchange rate on foreign trade statistics can beseen from Table A-6, which shows the total value of imports from socialistcountries in lei terms and in terms of US dollars and the respective shares ofsocialist countries in total imports. The lei value of imports in 1980 referto "valuta lei" and lei values of imports after 1980 refer to domesticlei."" The transactions are, therefore, affected by three changes in theexchange rate: by the introduction of a commercial exchange rate in 1981,devaluation in 1982 and revaluation in 1984.
23. As the table shows, the reported trade flows depend considerably onthe units of measurement (i.e., domestic or valuta lei or US dollars). Boththe growth rates and the geographical composition of imports vary considerablydepending on whether they are based on lei or US dollars. The share ofsocialist countries in total imports, which was approximately the same in 1980when measured in valuta lei in comparison to the US dollar share, increasedconsiderably in 1981 and has remained consistently above the share measured interms of dome3tic lei.
24. The effect of changes in the exchange rate does not appear to havebeen neutral with regard to the share of socialist countries in totalimports. The introduction of a commercial exchange rate in 1981 is associatedwith a substantial increase in the share calculated in dollar terms, asindicated above. However, the share calculated in domestic lei remainedconstant. The revaluation in 1984 was accompanied by an increase in thedollar-based share of socialist countries and a substantially reduced sharebased on domestic lei. Only the devaluation of 1982 appears te have a uniformeffect on both shares, slnce they show a similar increase.
25. At least part of the explanations for these dichotomies lies in thearbitrary changes in cross exchange rates between the US dollar,"' which isused in convertible currency transactions, and transferable rouble (TR), whichis used in non-convertible currency transactions. The effect of revaluationof the leu in November 1984 on the dollar-rouble cross exchange rate is shownin the Table A-7.
~-L A "leu valuta" expressed the formal gold price of the leu, termed the"official rate"; it was used only to express the value of foreign tradein government statistics. The "domestic leu" is converted at theconmercial exchange rate and is used in actual transactions as well toexpress the value of foreign trade in official statistics (starting in1981).
- 11 -
Table A-6: ROMANIAN IMPORTS: TOTAL AND FROM SOCIALIST COUNTRIESIN US DOLLARS AND LEI
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
1. Imports from socialist countries 4851 5555 5141 5422 6051(mln. US dollars)
2. Imports from socialist countries 22315 61154 54430 65289 73190(mln. lei)
3. Total imports 12685 12264 9745 9643 10344(mln. US dollars)
4. Total imports 59006 164671 124851 130369 160816(mln. lei)
5. Share of socialist countriesin total imports 38.2 45.3 52.8 56.2 58.5[Based on US dollar data,5 = 1 as S 31
6. Share of socialist countriesin total imports 37.8 37.1 43.6 50.1 45.5[Based on lei data,6 = 2 as X 4]
7. Ratio of rows 2 and 1 4.60 11.01 10.59 12.04 13.00
8. Ratio of rows 5 and 6 1.01 1.22 1.21 1.12 1.29
Source: Data in Statistical Appendix.
Revaluation of the implicit cross exchange rate between thetransferable rouble and US dollar
26. The effect of the November 1984 revaluation of the implicit crossexchange rate between the transferrable rouble and US dollar can be analyzedwith the help of the following example. Let Us assume that exports to CMEAarea, to OECD area and, consequently, total exports are fixed at given levelsand the revaluation has no effect on the value of these exports. Therevaluation of the leu is also assumed to generate a revaluation of 8.8S ofthe TR vis-a-vis US dollar. The impact of the changes in exchange rate aresummarized in the following tables. Both tables are essentially identicalexcept that Table A-8 shows data expressed in lei terms while Table A-9 showsthe data in US dollar terms.
- 12 -
Table A-7: ROMANIAN REVALUATION 1984
1. Via-i-Vis US dollar : 19.4S [17.50 as X of 21.50 7
2. Vis-i-Vis Transferrable Rouble(TR) : 12.62 [15.50 as Z or 17.50 1
3. Transferrable Rouble -US dollar exchange rate:
a. Before revaluation: 1 TR = US$0.8140
b. After revaluation: 1 TR = US$0.8857
4. Implicit Revaluation ofTransferrable Rouble:
Vis-i-Vis US dollar : 8.82
27. One can draw the folloving conclusions from the tables. Assumingconstant value of exports to CMEA in terms of transferrable roubles andconstant value of exports to OECD countries expressed in terms of US dollars:
i) the value of exports to CMEA area and the share of CMEA increase as aresult of the revaluation; (2) the share increases by the same amountirrespective whether it is calculated in lei or US dollar terms. This mustclearly follow from the application of the same implicit cross exchange ratebetween TR and US dollars in both cases; (3) the effect of devaluation of theimplicit cross exchange rate between TR and US dollar will be exactly theopposite to the effect of revaluation.
Statistical Anomalies
28. The dollar share of, say, socialist countries in total Romanianimports will be the same as the corresponding share expressed in lei providedthat the dollar/leu rate implicit in data for trade with socialist countriesis the same as the dollar/leu rate in trade with non-socialist countries.Since trade with socialist countries is conducted in transferable roubles,their share will depend on cross exchange rates between the US dollar and TR.As the figures in Tables A-6 and A-10 reveal, however, the implicit dollar/leurates were different in trade with socialist countries in comparison to thoseimplicit in trade with non-socialist countries, with the exception of 1980(rows 7). This means, therefore, that import transactions with socialist andnon-socialist countries expressed in terms of lei were calculated on the basisof TR/leu and dollar/leu exchange rates which implied a cross dollar/TR rate
-' An indication of the arbitrariness of these changes is the transferrablerouble-US dollar rate as quoted by the Czechoslovak National Bank in1983: 1 Rb US$1.2638, which compares to 1 Rb - US$ = 0.8857 quoted byRomanians. The latter figure refers to 1984 but is comparable to theCzech figure for 1983.
- 13 -
Table A-8: STATISTICAL EFFECT OF NOVEMBER 1984 REVALUATION OF RONANIAN LEI:EFFECT ON LEI VALUES OF EXPORTS A
CMEA OECD Total1 2 3=1+2
1. Assumptions: Exports 100 TR US$ 100
II. Export Values: [leie
A. Before revaluation 1750 2150 3900B. After revaluation 1550 1750 3300
III. Export Shares:
A. Before revaluation 44.9 55.1 100.0B. After revaluation 47.0 53.0 100.0
different from the cross exchange rate between dollar and TR which wasactually used in the dollar computations, except in 1980, i.e., in derivingthe dollar values of imports.
29. Moreover, the changes in import shares of socialist countries indollar and lei terms will be the same, provided the change in cross exchangerate which is implicit in the transactions and the one actually used in thecalculations is the same. To put it differently, the changes in lei anddollar shares of imports of socialist countries will be the same. provided thechanges in cross exchange rate which is used in the conversion of imports fromtransferable roubles into dollars corresponds to revaluation/devaluation ofleu vis-a-vis dollar and TR. This was also clearly not the case during theperiod of 1980-84.
30. An interpretation. It is not entirely clear which cross exchangerate was actually used in the calculations. It appears, however, that in 1980both the trade transacticns and the cross exchange rates were based on thesame, and most probably, valuta, exchange rate when the dollar/rouble ratestood at US$l.49/lTR. This practice was discontinued in 1981 when rouble anddollar transactions were recorded at new commercial rates but the crossexchange rate between dollar and rouble actually used in data conversions wasthe same as in 1980 when the rate was derived from the valuta exchange rate.Thus, the implicit cross exchange rate between the IR and US dollar changed asa result of devaluation in 1983 and revaluation in 1984, but the crossexchange rate used in the conversion of trade from TR into US dollars didnot. Instead, a constant TR-US dollar valuta rate was used.
31. The effect of this methodology on the trade structure of Romania canbe sumarized as follows. The dollar share of socialist countries in Romanianimports increased relatively faster than the corresponding lei share as aresult of "revaluation" of the TR vis-a-vis the US dollar.,' "Devaluation"of the TR vis-a-vis the US dollar in 1983 increased the dollar share ofsocialist countries relatively less than the share in terms of lei. Moreover,the shares of socialist countries expressed in terms of US dollars have beengenerally higher in com_rison to those expressed in lei since 1981.
The term "revaluation" ("devaluation") of transferable rouble vis-a-visUS dollar refers here to the change in the implicit cross exchange rateresulting from changes in the commercial exchange rates of lei vis-a-visUS dollar and transferable rouble.
- 15 -
Table A-10: ROMMNIAN IMPORTS: TOTAL AND FROH NON-SOCIALIST COUNTRIESIN US DOLLARS AND LEI
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
1. Imports from non-socialist 7834 6709 4604 4221 4283countries (mln. US dollars)
3. Total imports 12685 12264 9745 9643 10344(mln. US dollars)
4. Total imports 59006 164671 124851 130369 160816(mln. lei)
5. Share of non-socialistcountries in total imports 61.8 54.7 47.2 43.8 41.4
[Based on US dollar data,5 - 1 as S 31
6. Share of non-socialistcountries in total imports 62.2 62.9 56.4 49.9 54.5
[Based on lei data,6 = 2 as S 41
7. Ratio of rovw 2 and 1 4.68 15.43 15.30 15.42 18.58
8. Ratio of rows 5 and 6 0.99 0.87 0.84 0.88 0.76
- 16 -
AN= Ir
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROWTH OF INVESTMENT AND GROWTH OF PRODUCTrVITYIN ROMANIA
1. The table in this Annex shows, in a summarized form, the results ofthe regression analysis of investment as a source of productivity growth.According to the null hypothesis, which was developed in the text, the growthof productivity in individual industrial sectors is dependent on investment(I) on year t (or t-1, that is in the year preceding t, or t-2). The numbersin columns identified as It, It-, and I-,_ are the estimatedb-coefficients of the regression equation OILma+bI+u, where O/L is the outputper worker, I is the fixed investment put into operation and u is the randomterm. The b-coefficient shows the strength of the relationship betweeninvestment and productivity. The higher the numbers are, the stronger is therelationship, i.e. the greater productivity growth was generated from one unitof investment growth.
2. Each sector's growth of productivity is related to investment in anyone year, say t, while possible effects of fixed investment put into operationin other years, such as t-l, were not considered. As shown in the table, mostresults are reported in column It-2, vhich suggests that each year's growthof productivity vas related in most sectors to fixed investment put intooperation 2 years earlier. Experiments for alternative years have been alsocarried out but they turned out to be statistically insignificant. Thefigures in the last three columns give the results of standard statisticaltests of the regression.
3. The form of the equation is based on vhat the mission believes to bea strong argument of economic theory. The relationship between investment andproductivity in market economies is probably subject to a great deal ofsimultaneity. In other words, investments (together with other factors) arebelieved to determine the growth of productivity while there may also be astrong effect of growth of productivity on growth of investments. Underconditions of central planning, however, the flow of causality fromproductivity to investment is likely to break down since investments aredetermined administratively and are subject to various constraints such associal objectives and price distortions. On the other hand, there are strongreasons to believe that the incentive schemes in centrally-planned economiesinduce enterprise managers to demand new investment as a "precondition" forgrowth of output and productivity, which contributes to what is sometimescalled "investment hunger".
- 17 -
Am H10 inUS OF U INU Mm ANLU
Itm (I. -!t-) t t-1 't-2 a r D41
Actricity 0.035 - - - O.m2 o.02S 0.363t64.221)
MIS 0.41 - O _ O.1 0.511 OJi3(0.057)
uous Iha11 - - - OA55 O.86 47.429 0.05(0.066)
a umu 1ItaUllr - - - 0.569 0.698 23.115 0.938(0.116)
Total Indus - - - 0.655 0.967 178.221 0.90t(0OQ69)
t ..... tim priod t
Figm in I ara are stadurd error. Siz of _s We 1m64 (1970-1983). Twmst Ei.zeszef w1 fid iu ,t PC unto opmtcni a, proactivity fiPes to totel tp" few deperiod 1970-1980 a to mtable som i aftmw&. he basic dets ue Om in 1963 peif do peri mtl 1976, an 1977 i tC until 1960, ad Uo '-alld "%mt.rwi pie"
afterward (mA I, pra. 19, for definition).
- 18 -
ANNEX III
ANALYSIS OF TRENDS IN ROMANIAN EXPORTS TO MAJOR MARKETS
1. One of the major statistical indicators of the competitiveness of acountry's exports is the trend in market shares: an increase in the share ofCountry X in total exports to (imports by) a given market would suggestgrowing competitiveness, while stable or declining shares would indicate thatexternal competitiveness is being maintained or lost, respectively.'L
2. The mission attempted such an analysis of market shares for Romaniausing data from the UN Trade Data System, which consists of countries'reported exports and imports tolfrom all other countries of the world. SinceRomania does not report her own trade to this system, data on Romanian exportsmust be obtained "inversely" as other countries' imports from Romania.Romania's export market shares can therefore be determined as the ratio ofimports from Romania into any given country or country grouping, and allimports from all sources into the same country or grouping.
3. Table A suhiarizes the trend of market shares for total merchandiseexports by Romania to three major market groupings !.* 1970-79. In thedeveloped market economies (defined by OECD membership), and in the "world"(defined as all reporting countries),z' Romania's export shares rose totheir peak in 1975-76 and then started to decline. In the developing countrymarket,-I this decline began somewhat later (1978).
4. Tables B-D record the market shares by commodity categories for thefive most recent years in the data system. Table B illustrates that in theOECD market, the share held by Romanian exports has further declined over the1979-83 period for almost every category of merchandise. The decline has beenparticularly marked and consistent for food (especially meats), non-fuel rawmaterials, and miscellaneous manufactures. The patterns for mineral fuels,basic manufactures, and for total merchandise are more erratic, but still show
Note that this indicator of competitiveness is merely descriptive, notdiagnostic; in particular, market shares tell us nothing about theefficiency or profitability of exports by Romania relative to those ofother countries.
2' Most CMEA member countries are not included.
3' Note that since not all countries in a given grouping report to the UNTrade Data System, the total values of trade for any commodity or partnercountry are not complete. Reporting is most comprehensive for the OECDarea, and least so for developing countries. Since the shares discussedhere involve the same reporting countries in the numerator anddenomindtor, the problem of non-reporting does not seriously affect thevalidity of the analysis.
- 19 -
a loss of position, on balance. Machines and transport equipuent largelymaintained their market share; only chemicals show a steady increase in marketpenetration.
5. Among developing countries (Table C), the trends are moreequivocal. After falling sharply in 1980, Romania's export shares showed nodefinite pattern of change from 1980 to 1983 for mostcommodities. The shares fluctuate most sharply for food, non-fuel and rawmaterials, chemicals, and basic manufactures. suggesting that the markets arevolatile and/or that Romania has an insecure foothold.
6. Romania's exports "to the world" (Table D) show an overalldeterioration in market shares for total merchandise, and in particular since1981 for meats, basic manufactures, machines, and transport equipment.
7. To determine how Romania's exports of all commodities have performedmore recently in the market of major industrialized countries (DMEs), Table Eand Figure E were prepared from IMF Direction of Trade data. Romania's exportshare is shown to have followed a decline since the mid-1970s, with a greaterdeterioration in 1981-83. Export penetration partially recovered in 1984 andslackened again in 1985.
'Soure: I11R, Eefonaic Mwnan (larch 1986) wd date prowidad by the Roniian authorftles.
oots In term of 1961 prIce for years 1975 through 1979 hv bean obtafnedby rdelng the series fra the abv Ecrnmic Naoraw mAich weepresed In 1977 prices. The rabafn waqs done using 1981 - the overlappfng year.
- 36 -
TABLE 2.2: EP BY EXPEVDITU 1E. 7M-1984(Sittion tol, currat md contant prfes)
1/ Goods md unw-factor services. Includes errors and issions. The filure for 194 i n constant pricesis *stintSd a a residbaL. Nt eports for 1964 are not fulLy consIstant with thecorreopanding figure in the balence of paynnts account hickh exctude USS miitoen
worth of coindftifs *re dy for eKports-. For mre detailto. s Annx 1.
*Source: 1330 Economic Namornan (CNarch 1984) w*d data provided by Rcmoninm authorities.
'Data in term of 1981 pricn for yers 1975 throah 1979 has bean obtainedbV rdming the series from the above Ecovnc;c _inrands, cwhih areexpressed in 1977 prices. The chasing was dww using 1961 am the overlapping year.
- 37 -
Tabl2J: GOSS FIXED CAPITAL FBOAUTON BY ECONOMIC SECTOR 1975-19U4"milton lei)
1/ Excluding Albanisn Cuba, Vietnam nd Nongolia2/ Including Albanie C0uba. Vietnam9 Peopte s RepubLic of Corea and Mongotia.'NOTE: The trae figures for 1975-1980 are converted fro the currency of invoice
into tei using the official exchange rate (if vatuta) even though the transactionactatty took pLace at .ch higher and nonruniform cemercial exchange rates.
Source: Statistical Yearbook and data provided by Romulan authorities.
- 45 -
TABLE 3L7b : EXPORTS BY MAJOR TRADING PARTNERS, 1981-1984(Million (o, currant prices)
1/ Excluding ALbania, Cuba, Vietni and ongolia.2/ Including Albanis, Cuba, Vietn-n, People's Republic of Korea and Nang* Including Spain, Portugal and Greece."Excluding Spain, Portugal and Greece.
Source: Statistical Yearbook and data provided by Romanian authorities.
- 46 -
UK"J. INPORTS BY NAJOt TRADING PARTNERS, 1975-1960(Mtilion lef vatuto *, current prices)
COUNTRY 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980..................................................... ..... ......... ........................................................
TOTAL IMPORTS 26548.5 30293.9 34879.4 40618.9 48792 59006.2
C1EA TotaL 1/ 9766.B 12005.9 14490.6 14947.3 16496.1 18113.9
1/ Excluding ALbania, Cubs, Vietnan Peoptles Replbtic of Kore and MongoLia.2/ Including Albania, Cub.a Vietna, People's RepaLic of Kome and Nongolia.
NOTE : Th trdf figures for 1975-1980 are converted from the currency of invoiceinto lei using the officiaL exchange rate (Let valuta) even though the trancectioactually took place at much higher and non-uniform comnerciaL exchange rates.
Source: Statistical Yearbook end data s pltied by the Rommnfan authorities.
- 47 -
TMILS 3.8b: IMPORTS BY MAJOM TRADING PARTNERS, 1981-19K6
1/ Exeluding Albanti, Cus, Vietn, People's Repiblic of Korea d onpoli21 Inctuding Altanio, Cua, Vietnuo, People's RepubLic of Korea and Nonolf31 Including Spafn, Portugal nd Greece.4/ Exctudfng Spafn, Portugal nd CGrom.
Source: Statistieal Yero nd dta suplpfed by the Romnian authorities.
- 48 -
JA E 3.9 WN: nlY TIUN OF SOT TO SociALIST CURIES(N Ilionm of US Dollars)
'able 3.14 : tinoiitim OF eWGiI. UCW,ETE cOENm"CMlIsI i t f V a"tr)
iwo iwo io "a it&............................................................................................
Fitit Pe o 1S55 15t 1511 113 139cetuwdes us us ea as soInveustmen Its ioa is6 SuI 111
lntwmulmte fl 3112 Sab1 ism 36 a"mmanly .5 Owl suw
lIhlulslq Trart Wsl st lW 115i 115s lD1 1295halidism _1iIsis US Flttlts 52 42 61 32 41cQmlt, rwmlilhn a _ r 25 US so w 31si*. uisuri ma. "§ints a u nit. 12SO I3 140 1727 1oOf flintCrude all
cut In 133 lS 311 342fers Metals 247 a5 313 3 305lmonfeuflstais 46 40 42 a acot 91 3 ¶31 111 aim Or& a 2a a. 2n 20am Malaits far PaStuff prattle MD 135 92 107 1"
TOTAL 47V 539 gmS SO 542Of Slet. "w.ell lirts 4 532 S
NOTE 1 The rates until 1981 refer to imlpicit Pxchange rates defined as the ratiosof dosatic prices in Lei to world prices in US dollars. Ouoted rates referto thoe of fective fru aiw ry 1 each year unless othewise spfcif fad.
MOTE 2: A unified exchane rate for coaudity traed was introdur an July 1, 1983.At the s date, the peg for the cocrcial rate wn suitched free the U.S. dollar to abasAt of six currencies based an the geographical pattern of lRanifn trad- d payments.
1/-Effective weghtod averae exchne rate for trad in convortibL cuwrecies.2/*lisad to 15 an Juty 1, 1982.3/-Fron Octobr 2. 1974.4/-Frau March 6. 1978.5/-From February 11, 1901.6/-From Oeder 29, 1982.
- 55 -
TAKLE 4.1t EXTERNAL DEOT AD CAPtTAL FLOUS 4J 1975-19M(Thousuad uS dott1o. current rice )
Privote- Finncial Institutfins)SW ta n Credfts t1o7 lS 74 71 43
1/ Include both mdfin ad eng term as 1L *ras short term debt in convertfble currecy only.
21 The I3R0 data for 1980-84 as reported kee are obtafned from the Iinnfangovweuent. The differ slightly frem t%e wcrld Bank figures in the Debt ReportingSystem because of differences in te vat .e ion of non-US dottlr-dnominated debt.
- 57 -
Table 5.1: EVEMUE AWD EXPEhITUItE OF THE STATE JUOCET(NItl1o1a of Lef)
A. Revenue, total 280,342 277,408 259,364 310,938 362,645
Turnover tax 36,933 65,265 80.646 93,512 96,689Tax on net production 59,101 61,847 30,151 48.396 77,786Payments from profits 81.929 44,902 38,683 49,590 68,350Other taxes and revenues
fron sociaList units 20,809 18,725 20,757 25,271 21,350Taxes on agriculturat
coeperatives 942 1.186 1,282 1,278 1,550Taes on total Rmiunentlion
Fund 36.701 39,627 40,929 43,414 47,100Taxes and duties on thepopulation 3.216 3,860 4,013 4.190 4,181
Other services as 7 12 12 13 ( . ( . 71-7 5(44 18) (213 19)
Uon-allocated funds 68 6 6 7 5 ( )
Total A/ .iZD in ZI Zi 2U1 2L Z 11.m I 1350-1400 In
i/ Investmnt figures for theJ931-1955 plan period are expressed in 19S prices.hl Current prices of* each year.Vf In 1960 prices the figure is 15S billion lei.d Total for 1911-1963.Z/ Figures my not add up due to rounding.1/ Including fuel.
Sourcs: Statistical Yearbook and data provided by the Government.
- 61 -
TablI-LhJ: zNINhY M O WUZFITZ SlIWBY llA"CNE OF TNE WCONOW, 1976-11104 A/
g'urne for 1970 are expressed in 1963 prices and those for 197S in 1977 prices.Figsw for 1900-1901 are expressed In 1931 prices.Figurs for 192-19B4 are expressed in current prices.
' Figrs not add up to 100 due to rounding.
S:: lased on data provided by R1nian authorities.
- 62 -
Tabim 5u.J: I0CHINEW AND ECUZPOlt xiuS1NWEBY BRANCHES OF THE NAIWFACTURING SECTOR 1970-1964 I/
AFisures for 1970 are expressed in 1963 prices and those for 197S in 1977 prices.Figures for 1900-1951 are expressed in 1951 prices.Figures for 1952-1984 are expressed in current prices.
* Figures amy not add up to 100 due to rounding and minor adjustaentin original data.
Source: Based on data provided by Romnian authorities.
- 63 -
Xbmin *. 1: bOOLUCYbO OF PRINCIPAL MRUCULTIWL COOS. 1937-1966(Thousand tons)
1915 1976 1977 1978 1979 196 1961 1962 1963 1934
Grains - total hIM IUll 1L4 1IRZ&4 1 9 2M 10 45 22 1235 2 saof bicbh
Agricultural Area 1 OS ha) ... ... ... ... 196 149" 14964 1411 14193
S : Statistical Yearbook and dat provided by thr R_1nian authorities.
MM: Data for sme years are net constant with corresponding igues In the Statistical Yearbook adG_ve Ints cmnemic _wan (aJue 1995).Figures for 196 do not tnclude machinery passed frm mechanization units to State Form.
&/ From Covernant s Econsic Nmormnduin. June 1985. Table 39. and Statistical Yearbook.' Mario Ours. The Oevelopnnt of Qemnian Enlry., Swiste aoini ca Heo. 32. August tO. 1984. pp. 4-6. 23.
cL Esed on new capacity of about 500 NW to cow onstrema In 1936-90 free hydre projects which are alreadyundery.
dj Assming that closine of units operating on hydrocarbons proceeds no faster than opening of new capacity.a/ AssuwAne only two units of Cornavoda 1750 NW each) are operational by 1990.fr Assuing an impronemmit In the utilization factor of thermoelectric plants from about 0.55 in 1984 to 0.57 In
1M0.a/ Used on assund output of lignite and brown coal (Table 7.7). The mission stimate assune 1.7 tons
lignite:1000 Kwh (Implying on average 3.0 kcal/Kuh).
Lignite and Brown Coal 27.1 23.6 30.7 26.7 3SI J/ 4O .0 Al 66.S S/
" From Govenent's Econamic Narando. June 1935. Table 42* Statistical Yearbook, and Table 7.S.Frm 1934 Co1mique on Plan Fulfillment.
Ci Oerlved fra sam of crude oil produced and Iworted in that year (see Table KI-8). Eote that if the argin (inforeign exciane) betwen the iport of crude oll and export of refined products Is unfavorable, exports shouldbe nil; it could also be preferable to mnt the domstic d_end for refined products by ilortine thm diretly.rather than by i1eorting crude for local refining. It either of these options we chosen, refinery btui twould be considerably redueod.would bn on csidctay of out 3.6 million tons to cae onstro I n 1986 fron projects in Tirna1-CerisoausValea de tai. Timiseni-Pinoas Corieva Jest lord, and Cuprifere Sarce Rosia. nd assming som_ incre Inproductivity of existing minn.
EX sad on new capcuty of about 17 million tons to com onstrem In 1966-90 from above projects as well as thosin Lupeni-Sud. Pesteava. Srinul Jiet Sud, and Carieva Nosia Jiu. and assuwing se increae in productivity ofexisting mines.
NM: Crude oll excludes Natural Gas Liquids (HaL). amunting to about 0.4 million MT annally. Natural gasIncludes associated ga nd methane.
lotal Consumption Per CaRita c 2.64 2.78 2.88 2.95 2.86 2.87 3.02(Toe/Inhabitant)
Al From Government's Economic Memorandum. June 1985. Table 40. Converted from Tons Cop! Equivalentat average caloric value of 7000 Kcal/Kg standard coal and 10.2 million kcal/mt 'OE. BecauseTOE figures are obtained from data in TCE using average conversion factorb. .nere are smalldiscrepancies for some years in relation to demand figures on Table 1IZ-B.
0d' Calculated as percentage rate of annual change in consumption/percentage rate of annual changein real GOP. for respective sectors and for total.
c- For reference, comparator countries had the following energy consumption per capita (in TOE) in1983:
Portugal 1.2Yugoslavia 1.9Hungary 3.0Poland 3.1Bulgaria 4.4Czechoslovakia 4.7
eansuUer Pr les I/Socialist Services ofRetail Socialist Peasant
Composite Trade Sector Markets
11980 a 1001
1901 103.S 101.6 102.2 124.9
1982 118.1 115.6 114.3 168.6
1983 123.S 121.0 130.1 145.0
1914 123.3 122.0 129.6 120.6
(end-1984) (123.3) (122.0) (129.6) (120.6)
196S 123.3
1Parcent&a._ ehan&en
1981 3.5 1.6 2.2 24.9
1912 14.1 13.8 11.8 35.0
1963 4.6 4.7 13.8 -14.0
1954 -0.2 0.8 -0.4 -16.6
1915 ... ...
V The consumer price Index is calculated as a Paasche Index by using thestructure of consumption expenditure of workers" families (excluding tobaccoand alcoholic beverages).
SOUree: Data provided by the Romanian authorities.
- 82 -
Table .. 2: RETAIL PRICE INDICES FOR GOODS AND SERVICESFROM THE SOCIALIST SECTOR I/
All Items index of Salected Itnrn 119701001Index Percentage Food Fuel and Clothing Rent Other
mii mitt miii mit antl mmii emit (evim 150 Lai t h umit r |t rt rt m mm so lfl.,L L SL )l 10a1
ri *1 I i *al6 t it it &flt||I,/i 6us0mIw
mz ii mz am Suit lan somo t mmm iU"W/,L sgi
lIN a unr I me i tnr I er i ur t ir3]L Mt C06 . 1 goa mliu~~ ~ui J:mG - ur-- l i ama mi
ten tsp *lm S" an e itt m,: LIZti em,. men rmn ten Zin im east lsIsWsmLI £l5ubJutSt
*9 i * V8 *98 ii age Get *98 "Z z *z1 *98 i nzl gi/ ott/ tt)X l
emit mou not meet all of? mea met Oct met age me1 t1e ul a agte.
(11014/10 I. so 100net eota mea gig gmit mtc 9 so sot mselemnomusitum aiitmI. as IMAn:uGO Lt mitVimgut not NSI itst 15*1 soto sitn m*I mrit mmIm Sama mii BIs "ig (ums .ma, tte tmn ties,
*|16 W16 GIG GZIG ,& * Ill 216 zltt ilt Z1 VC1 Z1 Ollt Ot OwLAGO } 1} sitn ""tz St GoU ti 1 1 1o ti 00 e 8 8 Dl cost L.a 1 i Og (tsL2/1mI0 mdmbO
)labl A4: PRODUCER PRICES IN REPUILICAN A/ INOUSTEY ANO AGRICULTURE 1980-85(Percentage change)
Aggregate Industrial Hetal-Produeer Prices Electric lurgical Che_ical Light rood Machine-Year- Annual Power Industry Industry Indutry Industry Building Agric-End Average ----------- Selected Industries (annual average) ------------- ulture Ui
t930 0.1 6.1 2.7 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.2 0.1 1.6
1981 12.9 12.9 31.1 25.0 45.0 1.2 1.s -0.2 11.1
1982 16.9 10.7 28.8 8.4 1S.7 SS 21.4 2.9 13.8
1983 0.1 5.6 14.1 7.8 l.l 3.4 1.4 2.3 1.6
1984 -1.3 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 -0.5 6.9
1985 -1.0- -1.5 0.2- (0.4)
A/ State industry, excluding cooperatives.
-I Index of prices at which agricultural products are sold by state farms cooperatives andprivate producers to state purchasing untts.
jDUre: Data provided by the Ramanian authorities.
- 85 -
Table O.1: RETAIL SALES IN SOCIALIST TRAOE. T981-85(t41110ns of lei)
State CooperativeTotal Trade Trade
1910 213.085 162.622 S0.463
1981 223,189 174,018 49.171
1982 250,952 194.988 55.964
1913 259,336 201,021 58.315
1954 272.177 211.883 60.294
1915 (planned) 273.500 212.267 61.233
Food- Public Non-Total stuffs Catering Food Goods
1960 213.08S 70,761 35,468 106,856
1981 223.189 71,732 37.892 113.565
1982 250.9S2 86.897 45,370 118.685
1983 259.336 93,114 47.083 119,139
1984 272.177 98.247 50.224 123.706
1985 (planned) 273.500 58.701 50.927 123.872
Source: Statistical Yearbook and date provided by Government.
- 86 -
Table 0.2: CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING. 1981-85, 1986-90(000t units)