clusters. Again, all clusters are homogeneous. Cluster memberships are displayed in
Table 3.
Table 3: Cluster membership - meat exports_______________________________________
|
Division Cluster of sam ple num ber |
No. of |
C ountries |
|
Small 1 |
4“ |
Cote d'Ivoire, India, M alaysia, Philippine s |
|
m eat 2 exporters |
~ |
Cos ta Rica, Dom in ic an Republic, Guatem ala, Hon du ras, M auritius, |
|
~ |
~ |
Republ ic of K ore a, Z im babw e |
|
4^^ |
4^^ |
Alge ria, F iji Island s, M or occo, M oz am bi qu e |
|
5- |
24^^ |
B ah rain, B an g lade sh, B elize, C am eroon , C olom bi a, D om e ni ca, |
|
Large 10 |
1 |
Argentina |
|
meat — |
— |
Brazil, China, Thailand |
|
exporte is ɜ 0 |
T |
Chile, M exi co |
Source: own calculation
Like in the analysis for fruits and vegetables each cluster got, according to the particular
characteristics of the groups a specific label which is displayed in Table 4. To
complement the interpretation the “average” value of fruit and vegetable exports in
2002- 2004 and the coefficient of variation are also displayed.
Table 4: Cluster labels - meat export
|
Clust. |
C luster lab el |
Exam ples |
No. of |
Mean of clustervariables |
D escrip tive | ||
|
Difference (m illion $ ) |
R atio 02/04/93/95 |
C oefficient |
A ver age | ||||
|
5 |
V ery sm all exporters, |
e g ypt, |
24 (21a) |
-96a |
0.4 a |
0.68a |
61 a |
|
4 |
Sm all exporters, |
M orocco, |
4 |
1068 |
3.0 |
0.58 |
1768 |
|
1 Sm all to m edium exp ., strong winners |
C ote d'Ivoire, |
4 |
2845 |
7.8 |
0.54 |
3264 | |
|
2 |
M edium exporters, |
C osta Rica, |
6 |
-20060 |
0.1 |
0.73 |
4893 |
|
3 |
M edium exporters, |
R . o. Korea, |
2 |
-66838 |
0.1 |
0.10 |
6484 |
|
30 |
L arge exporter, strong |
C hile, |
2 |
247270 |
14.1 |
0.28 |
278042 |
|
10 |
L arge exporter, |
Argentina 1 |
-2 3 5 5 6 8 |
0.7 |
0.25 |
538587 | |
|
20 |
V ery large exporter, |
B razil, |
3 |
591835 |
1.9 |
0.20 |
1206907 |
a M edian , bas th e tw o gr oups s h ow m any sim ilarities th ey ha ve t he s am e labe l. N eve rthe le ss th e differen ce i s m u ch larg er in clus ter 3 .
Source: own calculation
Again clusters are arranged according the "average". Like in the cluster analysis for
fruits/ vegetables the variable is not included in the cluster analysis but still is
important for the interpretation of the results. The group of small exporters includes
one cluster of very small exporters. The meat exports of all countries analyzed increased
with a ratio of 1.6 comparing the two time spans which again is taken as the benchmark
against which to label cluster “loser” or “winner”.
Cluster 5 (very small exporters, losers): Among the group of small meat exporters
(cluster 1- 5), cluster 5 is with 21 countries the largest cluster. It consists mainly of very
small meat exporters. Their average trade value of meat exports in the second period in
thousand US$ (hereafter “average”) is below 500 and their ratio of exports is 0.4. Thus
the cluster can be labeled as “very small exporters, losers”. Examples of this cluster are
Egypt and Ecuador. However, three countries do not fit well in the cluster: Indonesia and
Nicaragua with averages of about 25,000 and 50,000. Both are rather stagnating with a
12
More intriguing information
1. An institutional analysis of sasi laut in Maluku, Indonesia2. AN EXPLORATION OF THE NEED FOR AND COST OF SELECTED TRADE FACILITATION MEASURES IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WTO NEGOTIATIONS
3. The name is absent
4. SOME ISSUES IN LAND TENURE, OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL IN DISPERSED VS. CONCENTRATED AGRICULTURE
5. Technological progress, organizational change and the size of the Human Resources Department
6. Regional Intergration and Migration: An Economic Geography Model with Hetergenous Labour Force
7. Existentialism: a Philosophy of Hope or Despair?
8. Fiscal Rules, Fiscal Institutions, and Fiscal Performance
9. The name is absent
10. Government spending composition, technical change and wage inequality