See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309430085

The role of trade policy on Ethiopia’s

leather�industry: effect of export tax on
competitiveness

Conference Paper · September 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 120

1 author:

Wegayehu Fitawek
University of Pretoria
3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Wegayehu Fitawek on 22 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The role of trade policy on Ethiopia’s leather
industry: effect of export tax on
competitiveness

Wegayehu Bogale Fitawek and Mmatlou Kalaba

Invited paper presented at the 5th International Conference of the African Association of
Agricultural Economists, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Copyright 2016 by [authors]. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice
appears on all such copies.
 The role of trade policy on Ethiopia’s leather industry: effect of export tax on
competitiveness

Wegayehu Bogale Fitawek1*, Mmatlou Kalaba1

1
Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development, University of
Pretoria, 0002, South Africa

The government of Ethiopia implemented a 150 percent export tax on raw hides and skin and semi-
finished leather products and crust leather in 2008 and 2012 respectively, in order to encourage
leather manufacturing industry. The objective of this paper is to analyse the effect of export tax on
Ethiopia’s leather industry export competitiveness. Constant Market Share (CMS) model has been
used to evaluate Ethiopian’s performance in leather product trade. Export value data in 2007 was
used as a base year, whereas data in 2013 was considered as a year after export tax. The results
indicated that, implementation of export tax shifted the export of hides and skins and unfinished
leather product to finished leather product. Besides the shift in export products from raw materials to
finished leather product, implementation of export tax has also resulted in positive export growth
(2.55. this indicate that,the country’s leather product export growth was higher than world demand
after implementation of export tax; which is most likely achieved by an increase in export
competitiveness of the leather industry (2.25).

Keywords: raw hide and skin, leather, export tax, competitiveness, CMS

*
Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

1
1. Introduction

Increased participation in international trade and investment can serve as the engine for
economic growth and development. Joined to international trade is the principle of
comparative advantage that generally provides that states should trade with one another
because they are better off by maximising their production potential for some products and,
through trade, can obtain products they do not have or that they produce with less efficiency.
International trade has increased dramatically in recent decades. The flow of goods and
services is crucial for achieving sustained growth in developing countries (Goldberg &
Pavcnik, 2007).

Developed and developing countries use trade as the main component of viable development.
Owing to this, most countries have implemented export-oriented development strategies with
the objectives of reinstating their economic stability, both internally and externally, and
improving resource allocation efficiency. Trade liberalisation plays a role in securing
economies of scale, accessing markets, and expansion of trade through its effect on
industrialisation and modernisation. In developing nations like Ethiopia, international trade
can play an important role in economic growth. Trade helps a developing country move from
inefficient resource utilisation to efficient utilisation. It serves as a channel for agricultural
commodities and a raw material produced by a particular country, and thereby links the
country to international markets. This in turn stimulates domestic producers to strive for
global competition and hence meet world standards in their products.

Export tax, which has been an integral part of trade policies for centuries, has not been given
adequate attention by the World Trade Organization (WTO) or in economic literature
(Solleder, 2013). The focus of most export taxes is on raw products (hides, cocoa, and seed
cotton), processed oilseeds, semi-processed aluminium, and iron, minerals, timber products,
etc. (Piermartini, 2004). In the case of large export countries, restricting exports of a
particular commodity can lead to an increase in the world price of the restricted commodity.
This often leads to an improvement in the country’s terms of trade. According to Bickerdike
(1906), the arguments on export tax measures and those on optimum tariffs are similar.
Export taxes on primary commodities (unprocessed raw materials) serve as indirect subsidies
to manufacturing and processing industries by lowering the domestic price of inputs, as

2
compared to their world non-distorted price. Export tax can have a positive effect on
government revenue and it may also affect income redistribution. Conversely, export taxes
can impose serious negative impacts on the producers of raw materials and negative
externalities for trade partners.

The 2008/2009 economic crises have led to the special examination of policies affecting
trade. As a consequence, export taxes and other export restrictions have ranked as ninth and
fifth top measures against foreign commercial interests in 2009 and 2012 respectively after
bailouts, trade remedies, tariffs, and non-tariff barriers (Evenett, 2009). Except in some cases,
Article XI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (Kock, 1969) indicate that
quantitative restrictions should not be imposed on exports. So far there is no specification
made by GATT that obliges the maximum level of export taxes. Most member countries of
the WTO have imposed certain types of export taxes at some stage. Among 155 WTO
member countries, the number of countries that have applied export tax has increased from
39 in 2004 to 93 in 2013, which has affected 178 importing countries (Solleder, 2013).

Ethiopian export earnings, particularly those derived from dominant agricultural exports such
as coffee, have been subject to large fluctuations due to the unstable nature of international
prices (Brautigam, 2011). The economic growth of the country has been too weak to absorb
the effect of these exogenous shocks; it is less flexible in dealing with both internal and
external disturbances. Therefore, the instabilities and decline in earnings are found to affect
the economic growth adversely and there is a need for a large foreign exchange reserve in the
short-run, while trade and exchange rate policies reforms would be the long-run instruments
needed to reduce the instabilities in export earnings (Amin, 2002). To this effect, policy
makers in Ethiopia developed different plans to encourage different potential export
industries and thereby diversify export commodities. The leather industry is one of the most
important prioritised industries for the diversification of export and foreign exchange
earnings (FDRE, 2010). The prioritised industries link to agriculture and are highly labour-
intensive demanding a large labour force.

The next figure shows that the Ethiopian export of coffee has a declining trend in export
performance. On the other hand, the export performance of oilseed, pulses, leather and
leather products, and chat shows an increasing trend (Figure 1).

3
 Export value
1000

800
Millioin USD

600

400

200

0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Coffee Oilseeds Leather & leather products
Pulses Live animals Chat
Gold
Figure 1: Export trends of main Ethiopian export items
Source: Ethiopian Revenue and Custom Authority, 2007–2014

To this effect, the Ethiopian Ministry of Finance and Economic Development Authority
developed a different export policy to encourage and diversify exports. The export tax on
hides and skins and leather products is one of the export policy measures to encourage and
improve the domestic value chain in the leather industry and to increase the supply of raw
materials to the local industry. In 2008, the government imposed a 150% export tax on the
export of raw hides and skins and semi-finished leather products. In 2012, the government
also levied a 150% export tax on the export of crusted leather on the leather industry. These
high export taxes affected both international buyers and some domestic tanneries (Abebe &
Schaefer, 2013).

140
120
100
Millions USD

80
60
40
20
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Raw hides & skins Finished leather products

Figure 2: Trends of hides and skins and leather products export in Ethiopia
Source: Author’s own computation based on data obtained from ERCA and UNCOMTRADE, 1999-
2014

4
The export of raw hides and skins and semi-processed leather products was highly affected
by the export tax. On the other hand, the export of finished leather products vastly increased
after the imposition of export tax in 2008 (Figure 2).

This paper consists of the following sections. Section two describes Ethiopia livestock
populations and leather industry policies. Section three explains overview of export
restriction. Section four describes conceptual framework and analytical method of CMS.
Section five presents empirical results and discussions. Finally, the paper closes with
concluding remarks in section six.

2. Ethiopia livestock populations and leather industry policies

Ethiopia is highly endowed with livestock resources; ranking first in Africa and is among the
top ten countries in the world. It has more than 55.03 million heads of cattle, 27.35 million
sheep, and 28.16 million goats (CSA, 2013). Livestock is an integral part of the agricultural
GDP and serves the Ethiopian economy as sources of food traction, manure, raw materials,
investment, cash income, security, foreign exchange earnings, and social and cultural
identity. Consequently, an increasing trend of livestock populations shows the country has
substantial resource potential to attract investment and consequently foster the development
of the leather industry (USAID, 2013).

70,000

60,000
Heads in thousands

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Ethiopia Cattle Ethiopia Sheep Ethiopia Goats
Nigeria Cattle Nigeria Sheep Nigeria Goats
South Africa Cattle South Africa Sheep South Africa Goats

Figure 3: Trends of livestock popultions

Source: FAO, 2013

5
As mentioned above, Ethiopia has high livestock populations; however, there was a gap
between the livestock resource base of the country and the growth of its leather industries.
The next table shows that, South Africa was the leading African exporter of raw hides and
skins and leather products (US$351 827 000) in 2014, followed by Nigeria (US$286 621
000). Ethiopia was the fifth largest exporting country and its export value was US$89 504
000 in 2014 (Table 1). Recently, Ethiopian exports mainly depended on finished leather
products and footwear.

Table 1: Top ten African RHS and leather products exporting countries
Rank Country Export value (USD)
1 South Africa 351 827 000
2 Nigeria 286 621 000
3 Egypt 195 392 000
4 Kenya 136 364 000
5 Ethiopia 89 504 000
6 Uganda 73 758 000
7 Zambia 55 405 000
8 Zimbabwe 37 928 000
9 Tunisia 35 903 000
10 Namibia 25 898 000
Source: Author’s calculation based on UNCOMTRADE data, 2014

Tunisia was the largest African exporter of footwear in 2014, with US$669 385 000 export
value, followed by South Africa (US$198 385 000). Ethiopia was the third largest footwear
exporter; its export value was US$30 971 000 in 2014. Ethiopia’s footwear exports increased
after the imposition of the export tax on raw hides and skins and crust leather products;
however, it was much smaller than Tunisia and South Africa (Table 2).

Table 2: Top five African footwear exporting countries

Rank Country Export value (USD)
1 Tunisia 669 385 000
2 South Africa 198 551 000
3 Ethiopia 30 971 000
4 Lesotho 18 054 000
5 Kenya 15 034 000
Source: Author’s calculation based on UNCOMTRADE data, 2014

The foregoing tables indicate that Ethiopia was the first African country in livestock
populations; however, it was ranked fifth and third on raw hides and skins and leather

6
products and footwear exports respectively. Even if livestock production was high, there was
a critical shortage of raw hides and skins in Ethiopia due to insufficient supply to meet even
the most minimal market demand, and poor-quality (e.g. scarred, diseased, improperly
flayed) hides and skins, which directly limited the market potential of the finished leather
products (USAID, 2013).

In 2008, the Minister of Finance and Economic Development of Ethiopia imposed a 150%
export tax on raw hides and skins and semi-leather products. In addition to this, the
government again imposed a 150% export tax on cluster leather products in 2012 (FNG,
2008: 2012). These export tax systems could serve as instruments to encourage industries
engaged in the production and export of hides and skins and/or semi-processed leather to
finished leather products. However, these export taxes affected incompetent tannery
industries and diverted export destinations from European countries to Asian countries
(Workneh, 2014). Before the export tax, the main importers were Italy and the United
Kingdom; after the export tax, exports diverted to China, Hong Kong, and India (Figure 4).

Figure 4: The major countries importing RHS and leather products from Ethiopia
Source: Author’s calculation based on UNCOMTRADE data, 2001-2014

The policy intervention, which levied a heavy export tax on the export of raw hides and skins
and crust leather products to encourage the production and export of finished leather
products, shifted to value addition in the leather industry. Raw hides and skins and semi-
processed leather products export was increased and fluctuated more before 2008; after the
export tax on raw hides and skins in 2008, the export of raw hides and skins and semi-

7
processed leather products dropped radically. Meanwhile, the export of finished leather
products and footwear shows an upward trend after the government imposed the export tax,
specifically after the 2012 export tax on crust leather products (Figure 5). Encouraged by this
progress, world-known footwear companies from China, Italy, and the UK have shifted their
facilities to Ethiopia. China’s Huajian Group and Hong Kong’s New Wing are examples of
recently established shoe companies in Ethiopia (Workneh, 2014).

120000

100000
Export value (000 USD)

80000

60000

40000

20000

0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

RHS FLH Footwear

Figure 5: Ethiopian RHS, FLH, and footwear exports

Source: Author’s calculation based on ITC data, 2005-2014

According to Abebe and Schaefer (2013), the Ethiopian government’s policies targeted at
fostering value‐added local processing have met with some success at the expense of
Ethiopian tanneries. Some small local tanneries stopped exporting or greatly reduced their
exports due to the new policy. Such tanneries then started selling semi‐processed leather to
other tanneries in order to survive. Abebe and Schaefer (2013) also found some evidence of
technology upgrading in the leather sector, which created jobs and increased exports.

However, Ethiopia is still importing large numbers of shoes, leather and plastic products from
across the world and spending millions of hard currency annually. In addition, as most shoe-
making and leather products’ accessories such as synthetic sewing thread, plastic linen,
shoelaces, zippers, buckles, and the like are being imported, the country is a long way from
fully substituting imported shoes with other leather products (UNIDO, 2012). Ethiopia’s

8
imports of leather products, especially shoes, indicate an increasing trend during 2005 to
2013 (Figure 6).

90000
80000
Import Value ('000 USD)

70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Footwear FLH RHS

Figure 6: Ethiopian RHS, FLH, and footwear import

Source: Author’s calculation based on ITC data, 2005-2014

The leather industry policies in Ethiopia did not make a significant impact on the import of
leather products. This is due to three new foreign firms from Germany, China, and Italy
producing export-quality shoes; only domestic firms produced for the domestic markets and
the price of imported shoes from China was lower than the domestic price (Jing, 2014). For
instance, the Chinese shoe-manufacturing company Huajian, which has its own Shoe City in
China, is currently producing 2 000 pairs of shoes every day in Ethiopia.

In addition, the number of employees in both the tanning and dressing of leather and footwear
manufacturing industries increased significantly from 950 007 people to 1 902 194 in 2000 to
2013 respectively; there was a data gap in 2012. This significant change in the number of
employees in the leather industry, as well as other manufacturing industries, is due to the
government policy that gave priority to producing more value-added products (Figure 7). On
the other hand, employment in micro and small enterprises engaged in the leather industry
also increased; there were more than 12 000 individuals working in shoe-making businesses
in 2011 (Abebe & Schaefer, 2013).

9
 35000

30000
Number of Employees

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013

LLPI Tanning Leather FW

Figure 7: Ethiopia’s leather industry employment trend
Source: CSA Large and Medium Manufacturing Survey, 2000-2013

In the meantime, Ethiopia has seen a significant increase in foreign investment in leather
processing and manufacturing since 2004. By relaxing control measures, the government
suspended the ban on new foreign investment in tanneries for several years, because local
tanneries were not advanced enough to process up to the crust level. For instance, FDI from
China to Ethiopia increased from US$0.43 million in 2004 to US$58.53 million in 2010 in
the leather sector (Brautigam, 2011). However, these inflows of FDI in the leather industry
hurt local tanneries; instead of being sources of technology transfer, foreign tanneries overall
are regarded as unwelcome and unfair competition (Workneh, 2014).

Hides and skins change hands several times before they reach the tanneries, since traders
collect them in small quantities over a large geographic area. The leather tanneries in
Ethiopia obtain most of the hides and skins from collectors and traders. Larger tanneries
equipped with machines and the required facilities buy semi-processed products from other
tanneries and this leads to improvements in the leather value chain. The leather industries buy
raw materials from the tanneries and produce various types of finished leather products; both
for domestic use and export purposes (i.e. shoes, gloves, garments, and other articles of
leather) (USAID, 2013).

In 2012, there were 27 tanneries which produced crust leather for the export market and
finished leather mainly for the domestic market. These tanneries have an average daily

10
soaking capacity of 107 850 pieces of sheep skin, 51 550 pieces of goat skin, and 9 800 hides
(USAID, 2013). However, they produce below their capacity because of the shortage of raw
hides and skins; this leads to tanneries being price takers, as the shortage of hides and skins
force them to bid aggressively against other tanneries (Urgessa, 2013). Particularly, foreign
tanneries overall present unfair competition rather than being sources of technology transfer
(Abebe & Schaefer, 2013).

The Ethiopian shoe industry is one of the leather goods producing industries and consists of
two distinct groups: smaller manufacturers that produce for the local market, mostly covered
by most of the domestic producers; and medium- and large-scale manufacturers that produce
for the export market (foreign producers). The glove industry, which currently strictly focuses
on export markets, is in its infancy and is expected to grow rapidly in the years to come as
more investors discover that Ethiopian hair sheep skin is one of the best materials in the
world for making fashion and sports gloves because of its softness and strength. The garment
industry in Ethiopia is small and they produce for the local market, and therefore has
negligible penetration in the international market (USAID, 2013).

Ethiopia has a number of livestock value chain market opportunities like meat and live
animals, hides, and skin and dairy products. The most common leather industry value chain is
illustrated in Figure 8.

11
 Home use
Household

Rural slaughter
Producers Fresh RHS RHS
Municipal slaughter collectors

Mechanised slaughter

Village collectors Traditional

Raw hides and tanneries
skins collectors Small collectors
(1 500) - Wet-salted
- Air dried
Medium collectors Modern
tanneries
Large collectors

Pickled leather
Modern - Pickled
Tanneries (29) Export
Export tax
- Wet-blue Wet-blue leather

- Crust
Crust leather Leather
industry

Finished leather Export

- Shoes

Footwear & - Gloves Articles of leather

leather industries
- Bags
Local
- Garments Footwear market

Figure 8: Leather industry value chain

Source: Modified from USAID, 2013

12
3. Overview of export restriction

Export restriction designed to meet different goal, it may be for environmental protection or
to increase government revenue or encourage the domestic processing sector. Export
restrictions on raw materials affect global competition and supply chain by creating
difference between domestic price and world price. This price difference providing advantage
for the domestic consumer and attract investment in the processing sector. However, it affects
importing countries by increasing international price. In this section of the paper explain
about export restriction and WTO agreement, types of export restriction and overall effect of
export tax.

3.1 Export restriction and World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement

The WTO does not specifically prohibit export taxes (Piermartini, 2004). Export restriction is
mainly mentioned in WTO Article XI (General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions) of
GATT 1994, and export restriction is also concerned in the agriculture agreement in Article
12 (Disciplines on Export Prohibitions and Restrictions) of the 1994 AoA. Article XI of
GATT stated that import and export restriction policy instruments like quotas and export
license are prohibited (XI: 1); only taxes and other duties are allowed. Temporary
quantitative export restrictions or prohibitions are applied to prevent critical shortages of food
or other products that are important for exporting countries (XI: 2a).

According to Solleder (2013), export restrictions did not receive as much attention as import
protection in the Uruguay Round and in the Doha Round, because when the Uruguay Round
was launched in 1986, high supply and low prices of many commodities were recorded.
Instead, developed countries were mostly using export subsidies as a way to encourage the
export of products. Current less attention to export restrictions by the WTO resulted in that
they persisted outside the core elements of the 1994 AoA. They do not have good reason to
restrict their exports. The policy responses made by some of the core food exporters towards
the recent food crises and the consequences of their decisions on food insecurity of several
food-importing developing countries and the negative effects of all these crises on the status
of international markets demanded a different framework than the Uruguay Round
negotiation.

13
Several countries which agreed to the WTO after the conclusion of the Uruguay Round,
including China, Mongolia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the Ukraine, and Vietnam, had to accept
obligations which go beyond different extents of the existing WTO rules (Karapinar, 2011).
These obligations refer to the elimination from certain products of existing export
restrictions, different from export taxes, such as minimum export prices, but also to the
elimination of existing export taxes from certain products or the introduction of binding
levels.

3.2. Types of export restrictions policies

Export tax, export bans, quotas and licensing are some form of export restrictions. Export tax
is a duty collected on exported commodities. There are different forms of export tax that
reducing the volume of exports such as: ad valorem tax (percentage tax of the value of the
product), specific tax (fixed amount to pay per unit of a product), progressive tax (i.e. it
depends on the price of the product. Export ban is another type of export restriction which cut
exports completely. Export bans are mostly applied on hides and skins, live fishery products,
wildlife, and others to prevent exports of dangerous materials and to improve domestic value
addition. The two core problems of using this policy are the lack of long-term credibility of
such a policy and it mostly leads to smuggling (Marks et al., 1998).Export quota and
licensing are also export restriction policy; quota restricts the maximum amount of export
while licensing is making sure that commodities can be exported only by allowed exporters.

3.3. Overall effects of export tax

Export tax is different effect when imposing by large country and small country (Laborde, et
al., 2013). When export tax is imposed by large country, it will affect both exporting country
as well as importing country. Large exporting country is market power that affect world
price. This leads to term-of-trade gain for exporting country; however, importing country
term-of-trade is worsening. Producer in exporting discourage because of low domestic price
and consumer consume more. Meanwhile, consumption of importing country reduces
because of high world price.

Export tax is imposed by small country the effect is different because small country is small
share in the world market it does not affect the world price. In small country case unlike large

14
country export tax results not gain on term- of- trade ( welfare lose), because of implementing
cost is greater than revenue. In general, the national welfare effect of export tax that imposed
by small country is negative). However, the national welfare effect in large country can be
positive or negative it depending on the ability of the country to increase the world price.
Over all world welfare effects of export tax also negative, this is due to both production and
consumption efficiency loss in exporting and importing country (Anania, 2013).

In addition, export tax policy results income distribution effect from producer to consumer in
the same sector as well as from other sectors. If export tax is imposed on raw commodity
results low domestic price of raw commodity in the domestic market, this subsidize the
domestic processer industry that used this raw commodity, this shows income transfer from
raw commodity producing sector to the processing industry. Export tax policy encourage the
processing industry because the industry gain competitiveness in the international market
however, it harm the raw commodity producing sectors (Piermartini, 2004).

4. Conceptual framework and analytical methods of CMS

The CMS model was first proposed by Tyszynski (1951) to analyse export growth.
According to Fleming and Tsiang (1956), a change in export share not only depends on a
change in competitiveness, but also depends on the conditions of world demand. Fleming and
Tsiang (1956) analysed the variation in export through the difference between export
revenues and constant export share revenues by applying CMS methods.

Leamer and Stern (1970) faced an inconsistency problem after conducting further research on
the correlation between export and changes in the structure of world trade. Richardson (1971)
showed that commodity composition and market distribution affect the calculation result
when the market distribution effect is included in the analysis. He suggested three solutions
to solve the problem; namely use different base weights to calculate multiple CMS values,
select appropriate and effective competitors to represent the whole world with regard to a
given exporter.

The CMS model has been widely used to evaluate trade policy and its implications (Amzul,
2010). The analysis basically decomposes export growth into four components; namely the
market size effect, the market composition effect, the commodity composition effect, and the

15
competitiveness effect (Richardson, 1971). The market size effect shows that the country’s
export growth is caused by an increase in market destination imports. Market composition
effect indicates that the country can concentrate on a relatively growing market compared to
the world market. Commodity composition effect shows whether a country is concentrated
on a commodity whose market is expanding rapidly. Lastly, the competitiveness effect is
the residual of the CMS, which is not explained by the other three effects. It is also assumed
that the role of domestic factors of the exporting countries is dominant.

The formula for the constant market share is as follows (Tyers, et.al, 1985)

𝑋𝑡 −𝑋0 ∑𝑖(𝑔𝑖 −𝑔)𝑋0𝑖 ∑𝑖 ∑𝑗(𝑔𝑖𝑗 −𝑔𝑖 )𝑋0𝑖𝑗 ∑𝑖 ∑𝑗(𝑋𝑡𝑖𝑗− 𝑋0𝑖𝑗 −𝑔𝑖𝑗 𝑋0𝑖𝑗 )
= g+ + +
𝑋0 𝑋0 𝑋0 𝑋0

Where :
𝑊(𝑡)− 𝑊(0)
g = growth rate of world leather product export
𝑊(0)
𝑊(𝑡)𝑖 −𝑊(0)𝑖
gi = growth rate of world export for leather product i
𝑊(0)𝑖
𝑊(𝑡)𝑖𝑗 −𝑊(0)𝑖𝑗
gij = growth rate of country j import of leather product i
𝑊(0)𝑖𝑗
𝑋𝑡 −𝑋0
Ethiopia leather export growth
𝑋0
∑𝑖(𝑔𝑖 −𝑔)𝑋0𝑖
commodity composition effect
𝑋0
∑𝑖 ∑𝑗(𝑔𝑖𝑗 −𝑔𝑖 )𝑋0𝑖𝑗
market composition effect
𝑋0
∑𝑖 ∑𝑗(𝑋𝑡𝑖𝑗− 𝑋0𝑖𝑗 −𝑔𝑖𝑗 𝑋0𝑖𝑗 )
competitiveness effect
𝑋0

𝑋𝑡 = Ethiopia’s total leather product export value at year t

𝑋0 = Ethiopia’s total leather product export value at base year
𝑋(𝑡)𝑖 = Ethiopia’s leather product export value at year t for leather product i
𝑋(𝑡)𝑗 = Ethiopia’s total leather product export value at year t to country j
𝑋(𝑡)𝑖𝑗 = Ethiopia’s leather product export value at year t for leather product i to country j
𝑊(𝑡) = world’s total export value for all leather product at year t
𝑊(𝑡)𝑖 = world’s total export value at year t for leather product i
𝑊(𝑡)𝑗 = world’s total export value at year t to country j
𝑊(𝑡)𝑖𝑗 = world’s total export value at year t for leather product I to country j

16
Where:
t = current year (2013)
0 = base year (2007)
i = specific product (4101, 4102, 4103, 4104, 4105, 4106, 4107, 4112, 4113, and 64)
j = importing destinations (Italy, China, Hong Kong, and the USA)

This study utilized secondary data from the year in 2000-2014 from both national and
international data sources. Constant Market Share (CMS) model was used to analyse the
export competitiveness of Ethiopia’s leather industry, appropriate and effective competitor
exporting countries (South Africa and Nigeria) were selected and 2007 was used as base year
and 2013 was considered after export tax. Four main importing countries (Italy, China, Hong
Kong and USA) were selected to analyse Ethiopia’s raw hides and skins, unfinished and
finished leather products market position in the world. The HS code for the leather products
covered in the analysis are indicated in the next table (Table 3).

Table 3: Raw hides and skin and leather product according to HS code 2 & 4 digit

No. “HS” code Specification Product categories

1 4101 Raw hides & skins of Whole hides and skins of bovine animals
bovine/equine animals (fresh or wet-salted or dry-salted)
2 4102 Raw skins of sheep or lambs Raw skin of sheep or lamb with wool or
without wool, fresh, salted, dried, pickled
3 4103 Raw hides and skins nes Raw hides and skins of goats or kids (fresh or
preserved)
4 4104 Leather of bovine/equine animals Bovine leather pre-tanned or tanned or full
grains or wet-blue
5 4105 Sheep/lamb skin leather Sheep or lamb skin leather (without wool or
pre-tanned)
6 4106 Goat/kid skin leather Goat or kid skin leather (without hair or pre-
tanned)
7 42 Articles of leather, harnesses and Articles of apparel and clothing accessories
travel goods of leather or composition leather, handbags
8 64 Footwear, gaiters, and the like Footwear with uppers of leather or
parts composition of leather
9 4107, 4112 & Leather further prepared after Leather further prepared after tanning or
4113 tanning or crust and leather of crusting, including parchment-dressed
other animals leather, of other animals, without wool or
hair on, whether or not split
Source: ITC

5. Results and Discussions

17
The total export value of Ethiopia raw hides and skins and leather products were
US$105 433 000 and US$135 052 000 in 2007 and 2013 respectively. This is a 28% export
value increase in 6 year time. Meanwhile, the world demand for raw hides and leather
products in the same period increased from US$ 15 7662 088 to US$235 267 554 (i.e. a 49%
increase). This is an indication for increase in the world demand of leather products during
this period. In Ethiopia raw hides and skins and semi-processed leather products contributed
82.84% of the total leather export value in 2007. Conversely, in 2013, raw hides and skins
and semi-processed leather products exports decreased significantly to 0.22%. Surprisingly,
finished leather products including footwear exports increased significantly from 17.16% in
2007 to 99.78% in 2013 (see Table 4). This clearly demonstrates how implementation of an
export taxes likely results in a shift from exporting raw hides and skins and semi-processed
leather products to finished leather products and footwear exports.

Table 4: Ethiopia’s RHS and leather products export share

Product 2007 2013
Ethiopia World Ethiopia World
Value % Value % Value % Value %

(000) USD) (000) USD) (000) (000) USD)

RHS 87 340 82.83 14 541 736 9.22 USD)
301 0.22 16 975 131 7.22
FLH 18 093 17.17 142 866 958 90.78 134751 99.78 218 292 423 92.78
Total 105 433 100.00 15 7662 088 100.00 135 052 100.00 235 267 554 100.00
Source: Author’s calculation based on ITC data, 2006, 2007, 2013 & 2014

The next table demonstrate Ethiopia export share in global market. In terms of market share,
Ethiopia held 0.057% export share of raw hides and skins and leather products in 2013,
which had decreased from by 0.01% compared to 0.067% export share in 2007 (Table 5).
The decrease in Ethiopia’s market share is due to a decrease in raw hides and skins and semi-
processed leather products exports. This was reflected by a significant increase in export of
Ethiopia’s finished leather products in the world market, particularly for product (“HS” 4107,
“HS” 4112 and “HS” 4113).

Table 5: Ethiopia’s RHS and leather products export in world market share
Product code Market Share (%)
2006 2007 2013 2014

18
4101 0.184 0.101 0.000 0.000
4102 2.544 2.368 0.000 0.000
4103 0.572 0.726 0.000 0.000
4104 0.038 0.079 0.000 0.000
4105 4.341 5.477 0.053 0.021
4106 3.059 3.154 0.004 0.016
42 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.006
64 0.004 0.018 0.022 0.022
FLH 0.043 0.062 0.599 0.516
Total 0.057 0.067 0.057 0.049
Source: Author’s calculation based on ITC data, 2006, 2007, 2013 & 2014

Regarding export destinations, Italy was the largest market destination for both Ethiopia’s
raw hides and skins and finished leather products in 2007. The value reached US$37 816 000
(43.30%) and US$8 783 000 (48.54 %), respectively of Ethiopia’s total raw hides and skins
and finished leather products export (see Table 6). However, in 2013 the value of raw hides
and skins imported by Italy declined significantly to zero. Meanwhile, the value of finished
leather products import increased from US$8 783 000 in 2007 to US$17 998 000 in 2013.
However, the share of Italy’s imported finished leather products from Ethiopia’s total export
value of finished leather products declined from 48.54% in 2007 to 13.36% in 2013 and was
replaced by the Chinese and USA markets (Table 6).

Table 6: RHS and finished leather products importing countries from Ethiopia
Total RHS imported value (000USD) Total finished leather products
Importer Importer imported value (000 USD)
2007 Share 2013 Share 2007 Share 2013 Share
(%) (%) (%) (%)
World 87 340 100.00 301 100.00 World 18 093 100.00 134 751 100.00
China 11 612 13.30 0 0.00 China 635 3.51 23 861 17.71
Italy 37 816 43.30 0 0.00 Italy 8 783 48.54 17 998 13.36
Hong K 3 492 4.00 59 19.60 USA 634 3.50 22 403 16.63
Source: Author’s calculation based on ITC data, 2007 & 2013

China was the second largest market destination for Ethiopia’s raw hides and skins and
finished leather products in 2007, which contributed 13.30% and 3.51%, respectively of
Ethiopia’s total export value of raw hides and skins and leather products (Table 6). In 2013,
the share of raw hides and skins decreased to 0.00% likely due to the export tax. However,
the share of Ethiopia’s finished leather products in Chinese import increased from 3.51% in
2007 to 17.71% in 2013, indicating the replacement of Italians market to Chinese market, and
China become the top destination. USA was the second export destination next to China for
Ethiopia’s finished leather products in 2013, with a market share of 16.63% of Ethiopia’s

19
total finished leather products export value. Hong Kong was the third export destination for
Ethiopia’s raw hides and skins export in 2013, with a market share of 19.60% of the total raw
hides and skins export value of Ethiopia (see Table 6).

Constant Market Share (CMS) Results

Ethiopia’s raw hides and skins and leather products’ market share in selected markets using a
constant market share approach is presented in Table 7. In this study, the competitiveness
value indicates the change in percentage points; the greater the positive the value, the better
the competitiveness. The competitiveness of Ethiopia’s raw hides and skins and semi-
processed leather products (“HS” 4101 to “HS”4106) were very low in all selected countries,
namely Italy, China, and Hong Kong. However, Ethiopia’s finished leather product (FLH)
was positive value, indicates that high competitiveness in all selected markets except in USA
(see Table 7).

Table 7: Competitiveness of Ethiopian RHS and FLH (change in percentage points)

Market Specific product imported
4101 4102 4103 4104 4105 4106 42 64 FLH
Italy -0.036 -0.098 -0.014 -0.015 -0.117 -0.141 -0.010 -0.387 0.872
China -0.008 -0.104 0.000 -0.023 -0.029 -0.045 0.000 0.015 1.273
Hong Kong -0.006 0.000 0.000 -0.012 -0.014 -0.056 0.002 0.000 1.950
USA 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.120 1.112 -0.027

Source: Author’s calculation based on ITC (2015) data

Hong Kong is the main importer of Ethiopia’s leather further prepared after tanning or crust
and leather of other animals, with a change in percentage points 1.950; followed by China
(1.273). The positive and high competiveness of Ethiopia’s finished leather products shows
that Ethiopia’s exports of finished leather products increased in fast-growing markets; namely
China, Hong Kong, and Italy. Hong Kong was also the main importer of Ethiopian articles of
leather, as indicated by its positive coefficient of 0.002. The USA was a major importer of
Ethiopia footwear (more than other leather products) and its competitiveness value was 1.112
(see Table 7).

20
The CMS model was used to evaluate data for 2007 and 2013 and decomposed export growth
into four components. The positive value of Ethiopia’s leather products’ export growth (2.55)
comes from four components; namely market size (0.695), the commodity composition effect
(-0.132), the market composition effect (-0.262), and the competitiveness effect (2.25). The
negative commodity composition effect (-0.132) and the market composition effect (-0.262)
show that the imposition of the 150% export tax on raw hides and skins in 2008 and 150%
export tax on crust leather in 2012 likely affected market destinations and commodities
exports. The export tax led to the expulsion of all raw hides and skins and most unfinished
leather products out of the market (those countries importing such products decreased) and
not growing faster than the world market (see Table 8).

On the other hand are the positive competitiveness effect (2.25) and the market size effect
(0.695). The positive value of the competitiveness effect shows that the implementation of
the export tax on raw hides and skins and crust leather products led to an increase in the
competitiveness of Ethiopia’s leather industry. The positive market size effect (0.695)
indicates that the world demand for leather products had a positive trend during the period of
2007 and 2013 (see Table 8).

Table 8: Ethiopia’s total leather products export growth, 2007 and 2013
Component Value
Export growth 2.551
Commodity composition effect -0.132
Market composition effect -0.262
Competitiveness effect 2.250
Market size effect 0.695

Source: Author’s calculation based on ITC (2015) data,

Even though Ethiopia has negative RHS export growth (-0.53) due to the export tax, the
overall Ethiopia’s leather products export growth was positive (2.55) and greater than
Nigeria; but still less than South Africa. The export tax on RHS and semi-finished leather
products led to higher export growth in finished leather products (3.08). This value is greater
than both South Africa’s and Nigeria’s finished leather products export growth (2.09 and
2.39, respectively). South Africa has a higher RHS export growth compared to Ethiopia and
Nigeria (see Table 9).

21
The commodity composition effects of finished leather products in all three countries are
negative, indicating that the finished leather products exported by these countries are growing
slower than the world growth. However, the commodity composition effect of RHS is
positive in Ethiopia and South Africa, meaning the RHS products exported by the two
countries are more demanded than others. The market composition effect for both RHS and
FHL products are negative for the countries except a positive FLH for Nigeria. The negative
value indicates that the market destinations for these specific products, which were exported
by those countries, are growing slower than the rest of the world. All countries’ competitive
effects are positive; except Ethiopia’s RHS. The competitiveness effect of Ethiopia’s FLH
products is higher than South Africa’s and Nigeria’s, which ultimately led to positive total
export growth of Ethiopia’s leather products. The positive competitive value indicates that
the country’s export growth of total leather products is due to the competitiveness effect,
rather than commodity and market effects (see Table 9).

Table 9: Leather products export growth of Ethiopia, South Africa, and Nigeria’s
Components Exporting Countries
Ethiopia South Africa Nigeria
RHS FLH RHS FLH RHS FLH
Export growth -0.529 3.080 0.969 2.090 0.095 2.390
Commodity composition effect 0.093 -0.224 0.173 -0.232 -0.011 -0.289
Market composition effect -0.072 -0.190 -0.122 -0.016 -0.306 0.062
Competitive effect -0.717 2.697 0.745 1.81 0.242 2.090
Market size 0.167 0.528 0.167 0.528 0.167 0.528

Source: Author’s calculation based on ITC (2015) data

The overall leather products export growth of Ethiopia, South Africa, and Nigeria were
2.551, 3.059, and 2.485, respectively (see Table 10). These positive values of export growth
are the result of competitiveness effect as all three countries scored negative on the
commodity composition effect and the market composition effect.

Table 10: Total leather products’ export growth of Ethiopia, South Africa, and Nigeria’s
Components Exporting Countries
Ethiopia South Africa Nigeria
Export growth 2.551 3.059 2.485
Commodity composition effect -0.132 -0.138 -0.243

22
Market composition effect -0.262 -0.059 -0.300
Competitive effect 2.250 2.560 2.333

Source: Author’s calculation based on ITC (2015) data

The results indicate that Ethiopia had positive finished leather products’ export growth and
negative raw hides and skins and semi-processed leather products’ export growth; however,
the overall export growth was positive, which means that the increase in finished leather
products’ export is greater than the decline in raw hides and skins export.

6. Conclusions

The aim of this paper is to examine the effect of export tax on the competitiveness of
Ethiopia leather industry. The model result shows that, competitiveness of Ethiopia’s raw
hides and skins and semi-processed leather were very low in all selected countries, which are
Italy, China and Hong Kong. However, Ethiopia’s leather further prepared after tanning or
crust leather of other animals was high competitive in all selected markets. Ethiopia’s
footwear was also gain high competitiveness in USA market. For more than 50 years, Italy
was the main destination (imports more than 60 percent) of Ethiopia’s raw hides and skins
and semi-finished leather products. However, after export tax market destination shift to
Asian markets (i.e China, Hong Kong and India). This indicate that, in the past few years the
industry has been made to focus on valued added products mainly due to policy measure
taken by the government which has put the sector on the right path as can be understood from
the above descriptions and indicators. As a result, currently finished leather products, shoes
and leather gloves export products have ensure tangible technology transfer. In addition to
this, these policy measures leads to an increased foreign direct investment as well as highly
contributed for creating job opportunities for the citizens in the leather industry sectors.
However, government policy has favoured foreigners who have access to capital and better
technology (MCmillan, 2012).

References

23
Abebe, G. & Schaefer, F. 2013.High Hopes and Limited Successes: Experimenting with
Industrial Policies in the Leather Industry in Ethiopia.Working Paper 011. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia: Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI).
Amin, A. 2002.Spatialities of Globalisation.Environment and Planning A, 34: 385-400.
Amzul, R. 2010. Export Competitiveness of Indonesia’s Palm Oil Product.Trends in
Agricultural Economics 3: 1-18.
Anania, G. 2013. Agricultural Export Restrictions and the WTO: What Options Do Policy-
Makers Have for Promoting Food Security? Geneva, Switzerland: International
Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD).
Bayou, K. 2005.Country Paper – Ethiopia.Common Fund for Commodities (Technical Paper
No. 47). Pre-slaughter Defects of Hides/Skins and Intervention Options in East
Africa: Harnessing the Leather Industry to Benefit the Poor. Proceedings of a
Regional Workshop. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 18 – 20 April 2005.
Berg, M.A. & Krueger, A.O. 2003.Trade, Growth, and Poverty: A Selective Survey.
Washington, D.C., USA: International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Bickerdike, C.F. 1906. The Theory of Incipient Taxes.The Economic Journal 16: 529-535.
Bowen, H.P. &Pelzman, J. 1984. US Export Competitiveness: 1962 – 77. Applied Economics
16: 461-473.
Brautigam, T.M. 2011. Flying Geese in Ethiopian Leather Industry? Understanding
Asian/Chinese Impact on the Leather Value Chain.[Online]. Retrieved from
http://www.theigc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Margaret-McMillan-Firm-
capabilities-GW2012.pdf
Central Statistical Agency (CSA) of Ethiopia. 2013. Report on Livestock and Livestock
Characteristics (Private Peasant Holdings). Agricultural Sample Survey 2012/13
[2005e.C.] Volume Ii.Statistical Bulletin 570, Ii (April). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: CSA.
Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR).
Fagerberg, J. &Sollie, G. 1987. The Method of Constant Market Shares Analysis
Reconsidered. Applied Economics 19: 1571-1583.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).2013. World Statistical Compendium for Raw
Hides and Skins, Leather and Leather Footwear: 1993 – 2012. Rome, Italy: Trade
and Markets Division Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). 2010. Report on Small Scale
Manufacturing Industries Survey. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

24
Fleming, J.M. &Tsiang, S.-C. 1956. Changes in Competitive Strength and Export Shares of
Major Industrial Countries. Staff Papers:International Monetary Fund 5: 218-248.
Goldberg, P.K. &Pavcnik, N. 2007.Distributional Effects of Globalization in Developing
Countries.Journal of Economic Literature 45(1): 39-82.
Jing, Z. 2014. The Effect of Export Taxes on Ethiopia’s Leather Industry.[Online].Retrieved
from: http://Gateway.Proquest.Com/Openurl?Url_Ver=Z39.88-
2004&Res_Dat=Xri:Pqdiss&Rft_Val_Fmt=Info:Ofi/Fmt:Kev:Mtx:Dissertation&Rft_
Dat=Xri:Pqdiss:1558600.
Karapinar, B. 2011.Export Restrictions on Natural Resources: Policy Options and
Opportunities for Africa. Switzerland: World Trade Institute, University of Bern.
Kock, K. 1969. International Trade Policy and the GATT: 1947 – 1967. Stockholm
Economic Studies, New Series. Stockholm. Almqvist and Wiksell.
Laborde, D., Estrades, C. &Bouët, A. 2013.A Global Assessment of the Economic Effects of
Export Taxes.The World Economy 36: 1333-1354.
Leamer, E. E. & Stern, R.M. 1970. Quantitative International Economics. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Marks, S.V., Larson, D.F. & Pomeroy, J. 1998.Economic Effects of Taxes on Exports of
Palm Oil Products.Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 34: 37-58.
Piermartini, R. 2004. The Role of Export Taxes in the Field of Primary Commodities.World
Trade Organization (WTO) Discussion Paper. Geneva, Switzerland: WTO.
Richardson, J.D. 1971. Some Sensitivity Tests for a "Constant-Market-Shares" Analysis of
Export Growth.The Review of Economics and Statistics 53: 300-304.
Solleder, O. 2013.Trade Effects of Export Taxes. Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies Working Paper No. 08/2013. Geneva, Switzerland: The
Graduate Institute.
Tyres, R., Phillips, P. & Findlay, F. 1987. ASEAN and China Exports of Labour-Intensive
Manufactures: Performance and Prospects. ASEAN Economic Bulletin 3(3): 12-17.
Tyszynski, H. 1951. World Trade in Manufactured Commodities: 1899‐19501. The
Manchester School, 19: 272-304.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). 2004. Commodity
Yearbook, Trade and Development Report.Gevena, Switzerland: UNCTAD.
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). 2012. Technical Assistance
Project for the Upgrading of the Ethiopian Leather and Leather Products Industry:

25
 Independent Evaluation Report. UNIDO Project Number: Te/Eth/08/008. Vienna,
Austria: UNIDO.
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 2013. Agricultural Growth
Program: Livestock Market Development End-Market Analysis for Meat/Live
Animals, Leather and Leather Products, Dairy Products Value Chains.
[Online].Retrieved from:
https://www.USAID.gov/Sites/Default/Files/Documents/1860/AgpLmd%20end%20
market%20analysis.pdf.
Urgessa, B.G. 2013. Defect Assessment of Ethiopian Hide and Skin: The Case of Tanneries
in Addis Ababa and Modjo, Ethiopia. Global Veterinaria 11(4): 395-398.

26

View publication stats