[Senate Prints 111-21]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress
1st Session COMMITTEE PRINT S. Prt.
111-21
_______________________________________________________________________
URUGUAY TRADE PREFERENCES:
A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY
IN THE SOUTHERN CONE
__________
STAFF TRIP REPORT
TO THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
One Hundred Eleventh Congress
First Session
June 29, 2009
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-518 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin Republican Leader designee
BARBARA BOXER, California BOB CORKER, Tennessee
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
JIM WEBB, Virginia JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
David McKean, Staff Director
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Letter of Transmittal............................................ v
Introduction..................................................... 1
Background....................................................... 2
Recommendations.................................................. 4
Conclusions...................................................... 5
Appendixes
Appendix I....................................................... 6
Appendix II 7
Appendix III..................................................... 9
Appendix IV...................................................... 11
(iii)
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC, June 29, 2009.
Dear colleagues: My senior Senate Foreign Relations
Committee (SFRC) staff member for Latin America, Carl Meacham,
visited Uruguay at my direction from May 26-28, 2009, to
examine ways to deepen our trade relations.
As Congress debates renewal of trade preferences for
several South American countries, which are set to expire this
year under the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act
(ATPDEA), it should also consider granting preferences for
Uruguayan exports that currently face high U.S. tariffs.
Uruguay has proved to be a reliable partner in the Southern
Cone, and the United States would benefit politically by
strengthening ties with a small but strategically important
neighbor of the two largest economies in South America.
I am strong believer in free trade and the power of markets
to strengthen the growing political and economic relationship
between our nations and help bring new jobs and goodwill to the
region. The ultimate goal of expanding commercial ties with
Uruguay should be a free trade agreement, which I have
advocated since 2002. Nevertheless, given the current domestic
obstacles to bilateral trade deals, a trade preference
arrangement is an interim step that would advance U.S.
interests. Trade preferences are usually designed to promote
economic growth in our poorest trading partners. Uruguay does
not fall into that category, but I believe that preferences
should also be used strategically to advance foreign policy
goals. In the case of Uruguay, the clear U.S. objective is to
strengthen a bilateral relationship that has important
political implications for the wider region, as Mr. Meacham's
report illustrates.
I hope you find the report helpful as the U.S. Congress
reviews trade preference programs. I look forward to continuing
to work with you on these issues, and I welcome any comments
you may have on this report.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Lugar,
Ranking Member.
URUGUAY TRADE PREFERENCES:
A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY
IN THE SOUTHERN CONE
----------
From May 26-28, 2009, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
minority staff traveled to Montevideo, Uruguay, on an official
visit. During this trip, staff met with senior officials of the
Government of Uruguay (GOU), Members of the Uruguayan Senate,
Uruguayan economists, representatives of the apparel and
textile industries, and the American Chamber of Commerce in
Montevideo (see Appendix I for complete list of meetings). At
the request of Senator Lugar, the purpose of the trip was to:
Explore ways to expand trade relations with Uruguay.
Assess the implications of deeper commercial relations,
with a particular focus on the political, strategic,
and regional benefits for the United States.
Introduction
Unilateral U.S. trade preference programs aim to increase
trade with beneficiary countries in order to foster economic
development and promote various U.S. foreign policy objectives.
Currently, the United States offers the Generalized System of
Preferences (GSP) and three regional programs, the Caribbean
Basin Initiative (CBI), the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug
Eradication Act (ATPDEA), and the African Growth and
Opportunity Act (AGOA).
U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk has indicated a
willingness to work with Congress to reform these programs,
though preference reform legislation is unlikely to be
considered before next year.\1\ Nevertheless, a review of trade
preferences is timely because several preference programs are
scheduled to expire during the current calendar year. In South
America, preferences for Colombia and Peru will expire on
December 31, 2009. Preferences for Ecuador will remain in
effect until the end of the year unless President Obama
determines by July 1, 2009, that Ecuador does not satisfy
certain requirements. Bolivia's preferences would expire on
June 30, 2009, but the Bush Administration suspended its
designation as a beneficiary country in November 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Reif Signals Preference Program Reform May Spill Into New
Year.'' Inside U.S. Trade. 8 May 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Congress debates the expiring trade preference programs
and as the Administration considers a new model for free trade
agreements, it should also consider new or expanded trade
preference opportunities. In the U.S. Congress, Members have
already introduced the U.S.-Paraguay Partnership Act of 2009,
which amends the ATPDEA to include Paraguay on the list of
countries eligible for unilateral duty-free treatment. But,
despite its strategic importance to the United States in South
America, one country that
has been missing from the current debate on trade preferences
is Uruguay.
Background
Uruguay is a relatively small U.S. trade partner,
accounting for less than 1 percent of U.S. exports and imports.
It is the 79th largest export market for the United States and
the 108th largest importer of U.S. merchandise goods. The
United States exports intermediate and capital goods to
Uruguay, such as machinery, computers, and perfume; the United
States imports from Uruguay mostly primary goods or simple
manufactured goods, such as meat, leather, wood, and frozen
fish.\2\ As a GSP beneficiary country, Uruguay mainly uses
duty-free treatment to export raw hides and skins; in 2008,
exports through GSP accounted for 23 percent of Uruguay's total
exports to the United States.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Office of the United States Trade Representative, http://
www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/uruguay.
\3\ Donnelly, J. M. (22 June 2009). Congressional Research Service
Memo on United States Tariff Treatment of Imports from Uruguay.
Requested by minority staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uruguay's top three trade partners and their respective
share of total trade are: Argentina (19 percent), Brazil (18
percent), and the European Union (12 percent), with the United
States at 5 percent.\4\ Although Uruguay is a member of the
MERCOSUR customs union, it has expressed a strong interest in
pursuing closer bilateral trade relations with the United
States. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ .U.S. Embassy in Montevideo, data from Central Bank of Uruguay.
22 June 2009.
\5\ MERCOSUR was established by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and
Uruguay in 1991. Uruguay's sales to MERCOSUR have declined since 1998,
when they accounted for about half of Uruguay's exports. MERCOSUR
currently buys about one-fourth of Uruguay's exports. (Source: U.S.
Embassy in Montevideo.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We enjoy a longstanding positive commercial relationship
with Uruguay that has grown over the past decade, beginning
with the creation of a Joint Commission on Trade and Investment
(JCTI) in 2002. This led to more formal arrangements, including
a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) providing greater
protections for U.S. investors operating in Uruguay, especially
in the area of dispute settlement.\6\ On January 1, 2007,
Uruguay and the United States signed a Trade and Investment
Framework Agreement (TIFA), which established the U.S.-Uruguay
Council on Trade and Investment as the formal mechanism for
pursuing means for liberalizing bilateral trade and investment.
In October 2008, Uruguay and the United States signed two
protocols to the TIFA on trade facilitation and public
participation in trade and environment.\7\ Most recently, the
Council held its third meeting in Washington, DC on June 5,
2009, to discuss full implementation of these protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Hornbeck, J.F. (8 April 2009). Congressional Research Service
Memo on U.S.-Uruguay Trade Relations. Requested by minority staff of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
\7\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uruguay's ties with the United States help diversify its
trade and balance its economic dependence on its two large
neighbors, Argentina and Brazil (a key goal since the economic
crisis in 2001-2003). Membership of the regional bloc MERCOSUR
provides Uruguay with preferential trade access to the markets
of Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay (as well as to other South
American countries with associate membership), yet some GOU
officials have expressed frustration with the dominance of the
two larger members and with the limitations this organization
places on Uruguay's ability to pursue trade relationships
outside of MERCOSUR.\8\ In addition, bilateral disagreements,
such as the ongoing dispute with Argentina over the
construction in Uruguay of a cellulose pulp mill, have weakened
Uruguay's relations with MERCOSUR. According to officials at
the U.S. Embassy in Montevideo, the United States now has a
historically high favorability rating among the Uruguayan
populace, much higher than in other countries, and it is viewed
as a strategically important relationship. In this context
especially, the United States is as an increasingly attractive
economic partner for Uruguay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Uruguay also has a free trade agreement with Mexico since
November 2003. It is based on a larger agreement, the MERCOSUR-Mexico
Economic Complementation Agreement signed in July 2002 to establish a
legal framework for trade relations between Mexico and MERCOSUR as well
as for bilateral negotiations between Mexico and individual MERCOSUR
countries. Mexico has become an important market for specific Uruguayan
goods; it is the second largest market for Uruguayan apparel exports
(at 23 percent) and the fifth largest market for fabric exports (at 5
percent), according to data provided by the U.S. State Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, Uruguay is now losing markets and jobs to
countries that have free trade agreements with the United
States. Staff found that the GOU is particularly concerned
about the situation of the Uruguayan textiles and apparel
industry, which has shrunk over the last decade, with a slight
recovery since 2003 (see Appendix II). Heavily based on wool
production, this sector employs about 21,000 workers, though
its unemployment rate remains above 20 percent--almost three
times the national average.\9\ Uruguayan textile and apparel
producers face high tariffs in the U.S. market (17.5 percent
for wool-based apparel and 25 percent for wool fabrics), as
well as strong competition from FTA signatories with the United
States (mainly Chile, Mexico, and Peru). Uruguay also faces
difficulties in exporting fabric to these countries since the
FTAs require that apparel be produced with U.S.-sourced or
local fabrics. According to the President of the Apparel
Chamber in Uruguay, the combination of MERCOSUR restrictions,
high entry tariffs, and rules of origin specifications has
caused Uruguay to lose its market share in the United
States.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. Embassy in Montevideo, Uruguay. 15 June 2009.
\10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to several GOU officials, U.S. trade preferences
for textiles and apparel would help Uruguayan exporters regain
market access in the United States and have a dramatic positive
economic impact on Uruguay. These industries are key sources of
employment in Uruguay that have been hurt by both U.S. tariffs
and the economic downturn.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the
marginal costs to U.S. industries of allowing these Uruguayan
textile products to enter duty free would be small and unlikely
to hurt U.S. industry's global competitiveness.\11\
Furthermore, Uruguay does not produce any cotton or cotton-
based products, which are the main concern for the United
States. Preferences for textile exports from such a small
economy would not likely affect U.S. producers, though they
would represent significant economic benefits for Uruguay, thus
accruing political benefits for the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Hornbeck, J.F. (8 May 2009). Congressional Research Service
Memo on Proposed Special Trade Treatment for Uruguayan Exports.
Requested by minority staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations
Both the United States and Uruguay have expressed interest
in deepening trade ties via some type of trade agreement,
including a free trade agreement (FTA). In 2002, Senator Lugar
sponsored a bill to authorize an FTA with Uruguay, yet after
many attempts during the Bush Administration a commitment was
never reached (see Appendix III). Nevertheless, it is important
to ``keep the fire'' of a bilateral FTA ``alive,'' as one
former GOU official told staff.
In the short-term, Congress should consider granting
unilateral tariff preferences for Uruguayan textiles and
apparel, thus complementing recent efforts by the executive
branch to expand commercial ties through the U.S.-Uruguay
Council on Trade and Investment. Negotiation of an FTA appears
politically impossible during the global recession, but
unilateral tariff preferences might be an appropriate
intermediate step towards deepening our relations with Uruguay.
As the case of Peru proves, unilateral trade preferences can
lead to the negotiation of a reciprocal FTA.
Approval of a unilateral trade preference arrangement for
Uruguay could occur through the expansion of ATPDEA,
petitioning to add products to the GSP, or a Miscellaneous
Tariff Bill (MTB).\12\ The most feasible strategy could be to
add Uruguay to the U.S.-Paraguay Partnership Act of 2009, which
was already introduced in both chambers of Congress, in order
to make a joint case for including both countries in ATPDEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The ATPDEA would need to be expanded to include wool-based
textiles in addition to a geographic expansion to include Uruguay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Uruguay has one of the higher per capita incomes
in the region, there is precedent for including a country with
Uruguay's level of per capita income in unilateral preferential
arrangements established by Congress for countries in both Sub-
Saharan Africa and Latin America. Certain Caribbean countries,
for example, have higher real per capita incomes than Uruguay
yet retain eligibility for trade preferences (see Appendix
IV).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Hornbeck, J.F. (8 April 2009). Congressional Research Service
Memo on U.S.-Uruguay Trade Relations. Requested by minority staff of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Uruguay's commitment to MERCOSUR, a reciprocal
FTA with the United States could be seen to violate the common
external tariff (CET) on which MERCOSUR was founded, but GOU
officials argue that the CET would not represent a barrier to
an FTA. A unilateral preference arrangement is a different
matter because there is no reciprocal treatment required of
Uruguay
and, therefore, no potential violation of the CET.\14\ The
potential
for trade preferences to lead to the negotiation of an FTA
remains, however, for MERCOSUR is a highly fluid arrangement
that
has allowed for a number of bilateral arrangements between its
member countries, some of which fall outside the MERCOSUR
guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions
The United States would benefit from deepened trade
relations with Uruguay in several ways. Despite Uruguay's small
size, a
U.S. initiative to expand commercial ties could afford an
opportunity for the United States to constructively extend its
influence in the Southern Cone, a sub region historically given
less attention by U.S. foreign policymakers compared to other
areas of Latin America.
By granting Uruguayan goods expanded access to the U.S.
market, the USG would solidify its image as a reliable and
strategically important partner, thereby strengthening the
bilateral relationship with Uruguay. According to senior GOU
officials, U.S. trade preferences would be viewed as a vote of
support for the GOU, which finds itself in a difficult
situation within MERCOSUR. In this regard, staff believes that
MERCOSUR perpetuates trade asymmetries with Brazil and
Argentina, resulting in Uruguay's interest in diversifying its
markets and commercial ties.
At the same time, promotion of trade on a bilateral basis
is an important option for the United States given the failure
of full regional commercial integration, as seen by the
collapse of negotiations for a Free Trade Area of the Americas
(FTAA). Free trade is an engine of job creation and social
mobility, and it would contribute to creating a more stable
environment for U.S. investors in Uruguay.
Regionally, the United States would signal its clear
commitment to free trade, an important marker given the anti-
free trade rhetoric of many governments in the region. Most
importantly, for the United States, a trade arrangement with
Uruguay could increase opportunities for deepening support for
our hemispheric agenda, as expressed bilaterally or regionally
through organizations such as the Inter-American Development
Bank or the Organization of American States. There is no
guarantee that Uruguay will agree with U.S. positions, but the
door may be open for greater collaboration and support through
deeper institutional relations.
A closer trade relationship with Uruguay could encourage
some heretofore reluctant countries to expand their trade
relations with the United States; U.S.-Brazil trade, for
example, is far from reaching its full potential. Stronger
U.S.-Uruguay relations could spur greater development of
commercial relations between the United States and Brazil.
The United States and South American countries would stand
to gain from expanded access to each other's markets. A
unilateral trade preference program for Uruguay would reinforce
our message that we value Uruguay as a strategic partner within
our broader policy towards South America and signal the United
States is not ceding its interests in the Southern Cone.
APPENDIX I
----------
Contributor
Kezia McKeague, Legislative Assistant, Committee on Foreign
Relations, United States Senate
Meetings With Individuals in Uruguay
Uruguayan Government Officials
Senior Trade Officer, Alvaro Ons
Foreign Minister, Gonzalo Fernandez
National Party Senator, Sergio Abreu
Frente Amplio Senator, Alberto Couriel
Minister of Industry, Energy, and Mining, Daniel Martinez
Director of Industry, Roberto Kreimerman
Minister of Economy and Finance, Cr. Alvaro Garcia
Other individuals and groups
Frente Amplio Economist, Fernando Lorenzo
Uruguayan Textile Association President, Norberto Cibils
Apparel Chamber of Commerce President, Elbio Fuscaldo
American Chamber of Commerce
Binational Center (Alianza) Montevideo facilities
representatives
Welcolan (Apparel manufacturer) representatives
HISUD (Wood/Textile manufacturer) representatives
APPENDIX II
----------
Table 1.--Key Figures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Textile/apparel exports (2008)---------------$290 million (including----
wool), 4.8% of total
exports (Of which wool
exports were $206 million,
or 3.5% of total exports
(2008)).
Exports of textiles/apparel to the U.S. $7.4 million, 3.4% of total
(2008) exports to the U.S. (Of
which wool is $2.7
million, apparel $2.7
million, and other
textiles $2.0 million.
(2008)).
Total textiles and apparel production $372 million (about 4% of
(2004) total industrial
production)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment in T&A (2008) 21,000 jobs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Wool Exports by Destination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 205,988,542
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China 77,624,918
Germany 33,561,121
Italy 20,728,576
Brazil 11,538,695
Japan 7,526,220
Iran 5,636,471
India 5,095,274
Bulgaria 5,084,848
United Kingdom 4,526,009
Mexico 4,417,789
Turkey 3,928,133
Argentina 2,959,220
Philippines 2,914,661
Czech Republic 2,846,254
United States 2,704,704
Hong Kong 2,216,438
Colombia 1,536,936
Spain 1,337,469
Thailand 1,317,779
Morocco 1,273,774
Switzerland 1,023,636
Rest 6,189,617
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Exports of Apparel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 63,872,099
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentina 29,022,934
Mexico 14,464,388
Brazil 10,243,937
United States 2,639,393
Chile 2,534,023
Tariff Free Zone Montevideo 1,712,797
Rest 3,254,627
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Exports of Fabrics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 9,730,122
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentina 5,126,617
Brazil 4,455,317
United States 2,044,357
Hong Kong 1,522,822
Mexico 1,072,267
Rest 5,508,742
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX III
----------
107th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2796
To authorize the negotiation of a free trade agreement with
Uruguay.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
July 25, 2002
Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr.
NICKLES, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. HATCH, and Mr.
COCHRAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and
referred to the Committee on Finance.
A BILL
To authorize the negotiation of a free trade agreement with
Uruguay.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``United States-Uruguay Free
Trade Agreement Act.''
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Economic growth in the United States has been
considerably enhanced by bilateral agreements to lower
barriers for United States exports.
(2) Free trade agreements facilitate economic growth
which enhances the welfare and quality of life of all
citizens of the countries which are party to the
agreements.
(3) Countries that open their domestic markets,
remove barriers to foreign direct investment, and
promote free enterprise, empower their citizens to
escape poverty and maintain social and environmental
values.
(4) Since the mid-1970's, Uruguay has implemented
successfully a number of economic and legal reforms,
including opening its markets and strengthening the
rule of law.
SEC. 3. UNITED STATES POLICY WITH RESPECT TO TRADE.
It is the policy of the United States to seek the
elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers in order to
achieve more open market access through bilateral free trade
agreements. The free trade agreements should address the
following:
(1) National treatment and market access for
agricultural and industrial products.
(2) Rules for determining which goods originate in
the territory of the United States and which goods
originate in the territory of the other party to the
agreement.
(3) Customs procedures that facilitate trade and
collection of trade statistics, while ensuring the
validity of claims for preferential treatment.
(4) Science-based, nondiscriminatory sanitary,
phytosanitary, and technical standards, including
voluntary standards.
(5) Safeguard provisions consistent with
international law.
(6) Government procurement procedures.
(7) National treatment and rights of establishment
for foreign direct investors.
(8) National treatment and market access for traded
services, including consumption of services abroad,
cross-border provision of services, rights of
establishment of commercial presence, and the movement
of natural persons.
(9) Protection of intellectual property.
(10) Transparency of legal and regulatory regimes.
(11) Measures to promote electronic commerce.
(12) Adherence to internationally recognized core
labor standards.
SEC. 4. NEGOTIATION OF A FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH URUGUAY.
The President is authorized to enter into an agreement with
Uruguay consistent with the policy described in section 3.
APPENDIX IV
----------
Staff requested from the Congressional Research Service
(CRS) the following comparisons of Uruguay's per capita income
with other countries that receive unilateral tariff
preferences.
* * * * * * *
One simple measure of development is per capita income
(PCI). The first comparison presented in Table 3 is a list of
per capita incomes for 2006 of selected countries eligible to
receive tariff preferences under one of the regional programs
(AGOA, ATPA, CBERA, CBTPA, HOPE Act), and average PCI for Latin
America and Sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest
region on average, has a 2006 PCI of $648. Although Uruguay's
per capita income is much higher than Sub-Saharan African
countries on average, the three highest PCIs in the region,
Botswana, Mauritius, and South Africa, are all comparable to
Uruguay's. Ghana is a major outlier at $27,390. Estimates from
Latin America and the Caribbean are also presented. In
addition, annual growth rates for PCI are included for 20
Table 3. Comparisons of 2006 Per Capita Income
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 Per Capita
Region/Country Income Growth in PCI 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uruguay........................................................... 5,310 6.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Saharan Africa................................................ 648 3.0
Botswana........................................................ 5,570 0.9
Mauritius....................................................... 5,430 8.7
South Africa.................................................... 5,390 3.9
Lesotho......................................................... 980 6.4
Senegal......................................................... 760 -0.3
Tanzania........................................................ 350 3.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latin America & Caribbean......................................... 4,785 4.2
Trinidad & Tobago............................................... 12,500 11.6
Panama.......................................................... 5,000 6.3
Colombia........................................................ 3,120 5.3
Ecuador......................................................... 2,910 2.8
Paraguay........................................................ 1,410 2.2
Bolivia......................................................... 1,100 2.7
Haiti........................................................... 430 0.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: World Bank. World Development Indicators, 2008. Washington, D.C. April 2008. p. 14-16.
A second comparison is presented in Table 4, which provides
2007 PCI in real terms (adjusted for market prices) for Latin
American and Caribbean countries that are eligible for tariff
preferences under regional programs (not all Caribbean
countries are included). In real terms, Uruguay's per capita
income is well above the average for Latin America and the
Caribbean. It actually ranks right below oil-rich Trinidad and
Tobago among countries eligible for U.S. trade preferences in
the Western Hemisphere. Nonetheless, there are certain
Caribbean countries that retain eligibility for trade
preferences that do have higher real per capita incomes.
Trinidad exports to the United States under predominantly the
CBTPA program, which extends tariff preferences on a temporary
basis to energy products that, are excluded under the CBERA.
The Bahamas is another high PCI country because of its
financial services industry; it has little merchandise trade
with the United States. For the most part, the Caribbean
countries have developed into service economies, with some
still producing in the agricultural sector, making comparisons
with Uruguay more difficult. Preliminary estimates of PCI
growth rates for 2008 are also included, a statistic that
highlights Uruguay's recent strong economic growth.
Table 4. Real Per Capita Income for Latin America and the Caribbean, 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 Per Capita
Region/Country Income ($2000) Growth in PCI 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uruguay........................................................... 7,255 11.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latin America & Caribbean......................................... 4,732 3.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latin America..................................................... 4,723 3.3
Caribbean......................................................... 5,530 1.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bahamas......................................................... 18,393 0.3
Trinidad & Tobago............................................... 10,916 3.1
Barbados........................................................ 6,706 1.2
Panama.......................................................... 5,205 7.5
Jamaica......................................................... 3,028 -0.5
Colombia........................................................ 2,853 1.7
Ecuador......................................................... 1,624 5.0
Paraguay........................................................ 1,467 3.1
Bolivia......................................................... 1,090 3.7
Guyana.......................................................... 910 5.1
Haiti........................................................... 392 -0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: United Nations. Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean. Statistical Yearbook for Latin
America and the Caribbean, 2008. Santiago, February, 2009. p. 86 and 88.