U.S. Export Performance in Agricultural Markets. By Mark J. Gehlhar and

Thomas L. Vollrath, Commercial Agriculture Division, Economic Research

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Technical Bulletin No. 1854.

Abstract

U.S. market shares are commonly used as measures of export performance in

international markets and are frequently cited statistics in USDA publications.

A drop in the U.S. market share is not necessarily associated with displaced

U.S. sales from competing suppliers. Accurate interpretation of changes in the

agricultural market share requires understanding of the changing structure of

world trade. This report develops a method, called trade-share accounting (TSA),

that establishes the relationship between trade structure and market share.

Keywords: Agricultural exports, market share, commodity composition, export

performance, trade structure

Acknowledgments

Competitiveness Study: This report is part of a series that focuses on issues related to U.S. agricultural competitiveness in global markets. Work on this study

was done jointly between the Trade Analysis Branch of the Economic Research

Service and the Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota.

The study was financed, in part, by a National Research Initiative Competitive

Grant from Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture. We acknowledge Nicole Ballenger, Bill Coyle,

Larry Deaton, Margaret Malanoski, Paul Johnston, Mathew Shane, and Ian

Sheldon for their comments and suggestions.

Washington, DC 20005-4788 February 1997
Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction ................................... 1

Trade-Share Accounting ............................ 2

Empirical Analysis ............................... 3

Definitional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Analyses of Historical Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The Early Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Expansion Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Contraction Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Transition Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

The 33-Year Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Appendix Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

ii ❖ Economic Research Service / USDA U.S. Export Performance in Agricultural Markets / TB-1854
Summary

U.S. market shares are commonly used as measures of economic performance in

international markets and are frequently cited statistics in USDA publications,

yet their significance is not fully understood. Accurate interpretation of changes

in the U.S. agricultural market share requires understanding of the changing

structure of trade. Structural effects that negatively affect the aggregate share

should not necessarily be viewed as detrimental to U.S. agriculture. Rather,

they may signal potential growth opportunities in the sector.

To obtain insight about U.S. export performance in the foreign agricultural market,

we developed an accounting method called trade-share accounting (TSA). This

framework accounts for changes in the U.S. aggregate share by establishing the

relationship between composition of world trade and disaggregate market shares.

Disaggregate trade shares for the agricultural sector are used for individual commodity groupings and country/regions.

A rise (fall) in U.S. agricultural exports associated with a rise (fall) in the U.S.

aggregate market share is not coincidental. But exports and the aggregate market

share need not move in the same direction. Aggregate market share is not a

summary measure of performance in individual markets. The U.S. aggregate

market share can rise or fall, even if the United States retains constant market

shares in all country-commodity markets. The loss in the U.S. share is not always

a sign of deteriorating U.S. export performance in individual markets. Such a

loss can be the result of individual markets becoming relatively larger in the

global agricultural marketplace where the United States happens to have market

shares below its aggregate share.

Recently, the United States experienced strong export performance with rapid

growth and increased market shares in most markets. However, this strong performance was not seen in the aggregate market share. The changing composition of

world agricultural trade significantly affects the U.S. aggregate share because the

United States exports numerous commodities with widely different market shares.

U.S. Export Performance in Agricultural Markets / TB-1854 Economic Research Service / USDA ❖ iii

U.S. Export Performance

in Agricultural Markets

Mark J. Gehlhar

Thomas L. Vollrath

Market shares are commonly used indicators of export

performance. They are frequently cited statistics in

USDA and other publications (Ackerman, Smith, and

Suarez; Bredahl, Abbott, and Reed; Kurtzig and

Shapouri; Rhoades; and Schumacher). Because of the

association between export performance and market

share, the loss in U.S. agricultural market share concerns

policymakers (de la Garza; Harkin). Analysts have

examined market shares from various angles. Some

have focused on individual commodity markets (Alston,

Carter, and Jarvis; Daft; Green; and Coyle and Dyck).

Others have treated total agriculture as a market (Pick,

Arnade, and Vasavada).1

Introduction

There is no question that the United States is a formidable competitor in the world agricultural market. No

other country exports such a large and diverse volume

of agriculture. Moreover, the recent growth of U.S.

exports would seem to indicate that U.S. agriculture is

prospering in the global marketplace. From 1987 to

1994, the real value of U.S. agricultural exports grew at

an impressive 6.7 percent per year. However, in 1994

the aggregate U.S. agricultural market share remained

6.9 percentage points below the 1981 level.

A drop in the U.S. market share is often associated with

displaced U.S. sales from competing suppliers. But,

this need not be the case. The U.S. aggregate share,

although not typically calculated as an average, in fact,

is a trade-weighted average of U.S. shares in individual

markets. The foreign agricultural market is composed

of various country-commodity markets. U.S. shares vary

widely across these individual markets. Over time, import levels in individual markets change relative to

each other as differential growth occurs. Growth

changes the structure of world trade. Due to nonuniform U.S. shares across markets and the changing

structure of world trade, the aggregate U.S. share fluctuates. A drop in the U.S. share attributable to the

changing trade structure can give a false impression of

weakening export performance.

Evaluating U.S. export performance requires an understanding of trade structure. We develop an accounting

framework, called trade-share accounting (TSA), which

is capable of decomposing the effects of structural

change on market share. It does so by establishing the

relationship between individual markets and the U.S.

aggregate market share. The TSA method quantifies

the effect individual markets have on the U.S. aggregate

market share for a given time interval.

In recent years, slower growth has occurred in markets

where the United States holds comparatively high

market shares, namely the bulk commodities. At the

same time, the composition of U.S. agricultural exports

has shifted towards high-value products, where the

United States has lower market shares. Under these

circumstances, the United States can simultaneously

experience high export growth, expanding shares in

individual markets, yet a falling aggregate market share.

Over the past 30 years, the U.S. agricultural share has

fluctuated widely. Was the sudden loss in share in the

mid-1980’s due to foreign competitors displacing U.S.

exports or was this due to structural change? How have

fast-growing markets with low U.S. shares contributed

to the change in aggregate share in recent years? We

seek to answer these and other questions using the

TSA method.

1

These authors attempted to explain the role of technology and its

effect on the aggregate agricultural market share.

U.S. Export Performance in Agricultural Markets / TB-1854 Economic Research Service / USDA ❖ 1
Trade-Share Accounting

The U.S. agricultural market share is usually calculated

as the U.S.-to-world ratio of total agricultural exports.

When the share is calculated as an aggregate, it is difficult to account for how individual markets affect the

aggregate. A simple accounting relationship exists between the aggregate market share and the elements

making up that share. These elements consist of marketspecific trade shares. To preserve the accounting

relationship between individual trade shares and the

aggregate market share, we calculate the aggregate

from the country-commodity level. This relationship

provides the means to measure the effect that individual

markets have on the overall U.S. agricultural market

share. It enables us to pinpoint key individual markets

and precisely quantify their effects on the U.S. aggregate market share in any given time interval.

An individual market can be defined as an importer

(for example, the Japanese market); a commodity (for

example, the wheat market); or a specific importercommodity (for example, the Japanese wheat market).

We denote the value of U.S. exports in individual

market i in time period t as VUS(i,t). The value of competitor exports in market i for time period t is denoted

as VCP(i,t). The individual market share for the United

States is denoted by MUS(i,t), calculated as follows:

The individual market share can be linked to the aggregate market share using structural shares. A

structural share is the relative size of the individual

market in the world total, S(i,t):

The TSA method requires that the set of individual

markets, IMKT, contains all markets. Since this

method is exhaustive in market coverage we have:

The U.S. aggregate market share, calculated as the

size-weighted average, is represented by:

This share-weighted average is equivalent to the conventional way of calculating the U.S. aggregate market share:

The U.S. aggregate market share can be decomposed

into individual market components, CUS(i,t):

Using these components, we can decompose a change

in aggregate market share over time interval tI to identify the individual market effect, EUS(i,tI

):

Individual markets can yield both positive and negative

effects. The change in the aggregate market share during any given time interval is the net effect of all

markets, NUS(tI

):

The above is usually viewed in a more conventional

way, namely as the change in aggregate market shares

between two points in time:

The TSA method, which expresses the change in the

aggregate market share as the net effect of individual

components, provides the means for understanding the

relationship between structure and performance in individual markets. Given that structural shares serve as

weights in the TSA calculation of the aggregate market

share, structural change affects the aggregate market

share. It is, therefore, intuitive that shifts in the aggregate market share may occur even when all individual

market shares remain constant.

We now show that the United States can lose aggregate

market share while maintaining constant market shares

in individual markets. Suppose we have only two individual markets to which the United States exports and

= V

MUS(i,t)

US(i,t) . VCP(i,t) + VUS(i,t)

= . S(i,t)

VUS(i,t) + VCP(i,t)

3

i0IMKT

VUS(i,t) 3

i0IMKT

+ VCP(i,t)

S = . 3 (i,t)

i0IMKT

1

= 3 . i0IMKT

MUS(t) MUS(i,t) S(i,t)

= V

M . V + V US(t)

US(t)

CP(t) US(t)

C US(i,t) = MUS(i,t) S . (i,t)

E = . I US(i,t ) C

1 US(i,t ) 0 - CUS(i,t )

= 3 . i0IMKT

NUS(t )I EUS(i,t )I

= . I 1 0

NUS(t ) MUS(t ) - MUS(t )

2 ❖ Economic Research Service / USDA U.S. Export Performance in Agricultural Markets / TB-1854
that MUS(1,t0) > MUS(2,t0). Suppose also that Market 2 grows

faster than Market 1. With constant market shares over

some time interval, we have MUS(1,t0) = MUS(1,t1), and

MUS(2,t0) = MUS(2,t1). We know that NUS = EUS(1) + EUS(2)

and that EUS(1) = MUS(1,t1)S(1,t1) - MUS(1,t0)S(1,t0). If Market 1

grows slower than Market 2, we can say that Ö1< 0

and Ö2 > 0. Given this, we can determine that MUS(1,t0)

* Ö1< 0, and that EUS(1) < 0. Since MUS(1,t0) > MUS(2,t0),

we can also say that *EUS(1)* > EUS(2). We can unequivocally state, therefore, that NUS < 0. This shows that the U.S.

aggregate market share falls even while the U.S. retains

constant market share in individual markets. In this

case, the structural effect weights the low market share

more heavily.

The structural effect on aggregate market share is determined by changes in the structural shares. Individual

market share changes also affect the aggregate market

share. We refer to these latter changes as the performance effect. We now decompose the change in the

aggregate market share into structure and performance.

Recall that the observed market share is:

We calculate two aggregate market shares for the hypothetical conditions where the United States retains constant

individual market shares over all time periods. A single

period tb must be chosen since the change in structure

and performance is relative to a base period. We first calculate the fixed-performance market share MUSfp(t):

The fixed-performance share incorporates individual

base-period market shares MUS(i,tb). This hypothetical

share tells us what the U.S. aggregate market share

would have been had the United States held its baseperiod shares in every individual market.

Next we show the aggregate base-period share, MUSb(t),

in which both individual market shares and structural

shares are fixed at their base-period level:

If the fixed-performance share deviates from the baseperiod share, it is entirely attributable to the change in

structure, SEUS(t). If the fixed-performance share differs

from the observed share, it is entirely due to performance,

PEUS(t). These relationships are illustrated as follows:

The total effect, TEUS(t), or actual change in the U.S.

aggregate market share, is simply the sum of the structural and performance effects:

In the next section of the report, we apply the TSA

method outlined here to United Nations (UN) bilateral

trade data. Empirically TSA is used to explain how individual markets affect the U.S. aggregate market

share. It is also used to isolate the structural from the

performance effect.

Empirical Analysis

There are many definitions of the U.S. export market.

We identify 16 different definitions for the U.S. agricultural sector in table 1.2 This proliferation is attributable

to different commodity and country sets. The use of

inconsistent definitions creates problems for analysts

and policymakers alike. Defining the relevant market

is important.

Definitional Issues

A problem with using a definition of the agricultural

export market that includes all related agricultural

items is that the United States does not compete in all

markets. For instance, the United States does not produce and, therefore, does not compete in the coffee or

natural rubber markets.3 Since we are interested in

U.S. export performance, our definition of the world

agricultural market includes only those goods that the

United States exports.

= 3 . i0IMKT

MUS(t) MUS(i,t) S(i,t)

= 3 . i0IMKT

MUSfp(t) US(i,t ) M S(i,t) b

= 3 . i0IMKT

M M S US(i,t ) b USb(t) (i,t ) b

SEUS(t) = M M USfp(t) - USb(t)

PEUS(t) = MUS(t) - MUSfp(t) .

TEUS(t) = SEUS(t) - PEUS(t) .

2

In this report, we present market-share statistics based upon two

of the commonly used definitions of the foreign market: B2—the

foreign-competitive-with-intra-EU-trade market and B4—the foreigncompetitive-without-intra-EU-trade market.

3

Consider, for example, the case of an increase in the world price

of green coffee, all else held equal, a commodity the United States

does not export. This price increase would have lowered conventionally defined U.S. aggregate market shares, leaving the impression

that U.S. agricultural export performance had deteriorated. But,

nothing of relevance changed in terms of actual U.S. performance.

U.S. Export Performance in Agricultural Markets / TB-1854 Economic Research Service / USDA ❖ 3
A second definitional problem lies with the importer

set. Typically, U.S. imports are included in the world

total. This imparts a downward bias when evaluating

the United States as a supplier of goods to the foreign

market. This bias increases when U.S. agricultural imports grow faster than world agricultural trade.

Another problem is whether intra-EU trade should be

excluded from the U.S. export market. The decision

on this issue depends on the purpose of the analysis.

One could argue that intra-EU trade is not part of the

world market because of the current preferential treatment among EU members. There is no doubt that the

EU has moved towards integration. Our purpose is to

examine U.S. agricultural export performance in its

historical context (1962-present). The size of intra-EU

trade has been an important factor affecting U.S. exports in this timeframe. We, therefore, make use of

two foreign-market definitions, one that includes and

another that excludes intra-EU trade.

Figure 1 shows the two U.S. market shares for the sector—types B2 and B4. Both of these market shares

display similar patterns of variation through time, though

the gap between the two has widened. The share excluding intra-EU trade is, on average, 7.2 percentage

points higher than the share including intra-EU trade.

By 1994, the U.S. agricultural market share that includes intra-EU trade was 14.6 percent, 8.9 percentage

points lower than the share excluding intra-EU trade.

We break up total U.S. agricultural trade into three

subsectors: bulk commodities, semi-processed intermediates, and consumer-oriented products.4 Figure 2 shows

the U.S. aggregate market shares and the real (1992)

value of U.S. exports for the three subsectors. Longrun

market-share trends for bulk commodities and semiprocessed intermediates, like that typifying the sector

as a whole, are downward sloping. By contrast, the

post-1974 market-share trend for consumer-oriented

products is upward sloping and mirrors spectacular

increases in sales, particularly after 1987.

Analyses of Historical Periods

The United States held, on average, 18.5 percent of the

foreign agricultural market between 1962 and 1994

(fig. 1). U.S. agricultural exports increased in real

(1992 dollars) terms, rising from $16.5 to $44.5 billion

during this period. Despite this almost threefold increase,

the U.S. agricultural market share fell. From 1962, it

declined 7.6 percentage points to 14.6 percent in 1994.

This decline in the U.S. share belies variations occurring within the past 33 years. Four distinct trends can

be identified: the 1962-72 “early period,” the 1972-81

“expansion period,” the 1981-87 “contraction period,”

and the 1987-94 “transition period.”

We now seek explanations for movements in overall

U.S. agricultural market shares during these four periods

and for the entire 1962-94 period. We integrate insight

obtained from TSA with conventional explanations

largely based upon the impact of macroeconomic shocks

and shifts in economic policies. TSA enables us to

identify the evolving structure of the world agricultural market and changing U.S. export performance in

individual, disaggregated markets.

We examine U.S. export performance in the overall

foreign agricultural market from three vantage points:

(1) the level perspectives of U.S. exports and market

shares through time (fig. 1); (2) changes in the U.S.

aggregate market share attributable to changes in structure and performance (fig. 3); and, finally, (3) impacts

Table 1—Sixteen different definitions

of the U.S. agricultural export market

A1 A2 A3 A4

B1 B2 B3 B4

C1 C2 C3 C4

D1 D2 D3 D4

A: All USDA commodities.

B: All USDA competitive commodities.

C: All FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) commodities.

D: All FAO competitive commodities.

1: All country trade.

2: All country trade except U.S. imports.

3: All country trade except intra-EU trade.

4: All country trade except U.S. imports and intra-EU trade.

4

Bulk commodities consist of unpackaged goods that require little

handling and are comparatively inexpensive to ship. In most cases,

these commodities are primary materials, used in the manufacture

of semi-processed intermediates. Competitive bulk commodities include wheat, corn, other grains, oilseeds, cotton, and tobacco. Semiprocessed intermediates consist of goods that are derived from bulk

commodities and that are not primarily used for immediate human

consumption. Competitive semi-processed intermediates include

live animals, hides & skins, other animal material, oilcake & meal,

vegetable oils, and other plants & materials. Consumer-oriented

products consist of horticultural and other fresh produce that can be

consumed without significant post-harvest processing. They often

require special handling and may incorporate such relatively simple

value-added activity as containerization and refrigeration. They also

encompass consumer-ready products that have been significantly

transformed, in terms of processing or packaging, from their farmgate,

primitive state. Competitive consumer-oriented products include

beef, poultry, pork, other meat, dairy, apples & grapes, citrus, other

fruit & nuts, vegetables, animal & pet food, sugar & products, beer

& wine, nonalcoholic beverages, and processed foods.

4 ❖ Economic Research Service / USDA U.S. Export Performance in Agricultural Markets / TB-1854
66 70 74 78 82 86 90 94

10

15

20

25

30

35

With intra-EU trade (B2-type)

Without intra-EU trade (B4-type)

1962

U.S. market shares

66 70 74 78 82 86 90 94

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

5

10

15

20

25

Real export value

Market share (B2-type)

Average market share (B2-type)

1962

U.S. export sales and U.S. market shares

Figure 1

U.S. agricultural sector trade

Percent Billion 1992 dollars Percent

Source: Economic Research Service compiled from U.N. bilateral trade data.

66 70 74 78 82 86 90 94

0

10

20

30

40

50

Bulk commodities Semi-processed intermediates Consumer-oriented products

1962 1962

Percent Billion 1992 dollars

Figure 2

U.S. agricultural subsector trade

66 70 74 78 82 86 90 94

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Source: Economic Research Service compiled from U.N. bilateral trade data.

U.S. market shares

(B2-type)

U.S. export sales

U.S. Export Performance in Agricultural Markets / TB-1854 Economic Research Service / USDA ❖ 5
of individual markets by time interval (table 2).5 These

individual markets are grouped into 27 agricultural

commodities and 14 foreign destinations.

The structural effects reveal what the U.S. aggregate

market share would have been had the United States

retained constant market shares in all individual markets throughout the entire period. The U.S. aggregate

market share would have fallen between 1984 and

1987 even if the United States had retained constant

market shares in each individual market (fig. 3). This

points to limitations using the aggregate market share

as an indicator of U.S. export performance.

The Early Period

During the early period, the overall U.S. agricultural

market share decreased, falling from a high of 22.2

percent in 1962 to 17.6 in 1972 (fig. 1). This decline

was commensurate with the decrease in the proportion

of U.S. program-based exports to total agricultural

sales. The ratio of PL-480 and credit-guaranteed exports

to total foreign sales fell 40 percent, dropping from

29.7 percent in 1962 to 17.3 in 1972 (Ackerman, Smith,

and Suarez). The decline in program-based exports

accounted for a large proportion of the fall in U.S.

market shares for bulk commodities (fig. 2). Foreign

suppliers became more price competitive when the

United States withdrew food aid. Figure 3 shows that

the negative performance effect far outweighed the

structural effect in this early period.

Most of the 4.64-percentage-point decline in the overall

U.S. agricultural market share between 1962 and 1972

was attributable to the bulk commodities (table 2).6

Losses in U.S. bulk-commodity market shares had an

adverse impact on the overall U.S. share, with oilseeds

being the notable exception. The U.S. market share for

cotton, wheat, corn, and other grains declined 12.8, 6.1,

5.5, and 4.7 percent, respectively. Structural change

also had a negative effect. The declining importance

of cotton, wheat, and other grains in world agricultural

trade combined with losses of U.S. market shares in

these commodities explains why these three commodities

took 3.7 percentage points (80 percent of the overall

decline) from the U.S. aggregate market share during

the early period.

5

In table 3, we identified the top 20 country-commodity markets

that had the largest effect on the change in the U.S. aggregate market share between 1981-87.

64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

Structural effect Performance effect Total effect

1962

Figure 3

Structure and performance effects on the U.S. agricultural market share

Percentage points

Note: See TSA methodology where TE = SE + PE, SE = M - M , and PE = M - M . fp b 

Source: Economic Research Service compiled from U.N. bilateral trade data.

Turning

point

Base

year

Declining

PL-480

shipments

Strong

performance

Rebounding

performance

fp

6

Sixty-four percent of the overall decline was attributable to the

bulk commodities, 24 percent to the consumer-oriented products,

and 12 percent to the semi-processed subsector.

6 ❖ Economic Research Service / USDA U.S. Export Performance in Agricultural Markets / TB-1854
Table 2—Decomposition of changes in U.S. aggregate market shares, by individual markets

Markets 1962-72 1972-81 1981-87 1987-94 1962-94

Commodity Percentage points

Processed Foods 0.01 -0.04 0.03 0.61 0.61

Beef 0.05 0.06 0.22 0.37 0.70

Vegetables -0.24 0.29 -0.30 0.35 0.10

Poultry -0.25 0.16 -0.05 0.27 0.13

Sugar & Products -0.05 -0.02 0.01 0.22 0.16

Other Fruits & Nut -0.26 0.05 0.06 0.18 0.03

Non-alcoholic Beverages -0.06 0.01 -0.04 0.17 0.08

Dairy -0.28 -0.12 -0.10 0.14 -0.36

Apples & Grapes -0.04 0.03 -0.04 0.12 0.07

Beer & Wine 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.12 0.17

Animal & Pet Food -0.02 0.29 0.06 0.12 0.45

Vegetable Oils -0.14 0.00 -0.24 0.10 -0.28

Pig Meat 0.03 0.03 -0.06 0.10 0.11

Other Meat 0.00 0.03 -0.02 0.09 0.11

Cotton -1.51 0.21 -0.40 0.08 -1.62

Semi-processed Grains -0.77 0.03 -0.05 0.07 -0.71

Other Plant Material 0.07 -0.05 0.12 0.03 0.17

Other Animal Material -0.39 0.05 -0.18 0.01 -0.52

Other Grains -0.65 0.25 -0.95 -0.01 -1.36

Live Animals 0.07 -0.03 0.05 -0.01 0.08

Citrus 0.01 -0.05 0.02 -0.03 -0.05

Tobacco -0.48 -0.46 -0.23 -0.10 -1.27

Wheat -1.50 1.35 -2.49 -0.17 -2.81

Maize -0.06 1.65 -2.41 -0.22 -1.05

Oil Cake & Meal 0.39 0.05 -0.27 -0.27 -0.09

Hides & Skins 0.18 -0.14 0.30 -0.34 0.01

Oilseeds 1.22 0.26 -1.19 -0.75 -0.46

Net effect1 -4.64 3.93 -8.13 1.26 -7.59

Destination

Mexico 0.06 0.82 -0.62 0.95 1.21

Canada -0.78 -0.59 -0.16 0.94 -0.59

Japan 0.61 0.67 -0.67 0.29 0.90

ASEAN2 0.18 -0.38 -0.21 0.23 -0.18

China 0.12 0.91 -0.86 0.19 0.35

East Asian NIC’s3 0.29 0.71 -0.15 0.16 1.00

Oceania -0.11 0.02 -0.02 0.07 -0.04

Latin America4 -0.34 0.64 -0.79 0.03 -0.45

South & Northeast Asia -1.10 -0.28 -0.19 0.00 -1.57

SubSaharan Africa -0.19 0.38 -0.41 -0.02 -0.23

Other Europe -0.47 0.21 -0.68 -0.09 -1.02

Former Soviet Union 0.77 0.04 -0.42 -0.12 0.27

Middle East & North Africa -1.37 0.77 -0.28 -0.23 -1.11

EU12 -2.33 0.01 -2.67 -1.15 -6.13

Net effect1 -4.64 3.93 -8.13 1.26 -7.59

1

Change in aggregate U.S. agricultural-market share. Net changes are calculated by the TSA method: , where i =

individual markets and I = time intervals. 2

ASEAN = Association of SouthEast Asian Nations. 3NIC’s = Newly industrializing countries.

4

Excludes Mexico.

= 3 . i0IMKT

NUS(t )I EUS(i,t )I

U.S. Export Performance in Agricultural Markets / TB-1854 Economic Research Service / USDA ❖ 7
Table 2 shows that the developing nations in South and

Northeast Asia, Middle East & North Africa, SubSaharan

Africa, and Latin America took away 3.0 percentage

points from the overall U.S. agricultural market share.7

In addition, the formation of the European Common

Agricultural Policy (CAP) contributed to the 1962-72

decline in the U.S. share. The U.S. agricultural market

share fell 3.2 percent in the European Community (EC);

and the EC market took 2.3 percentage points from

the overall U.S. share.

Countering these negative influences were positive

contributions provided by the Former Soviet Union

(FSU), Japan, the newly industrializing countries in

East Asia (East Asian NIC’s), Association of South

East Asian Nations (ASEAN), and Mexico—all of

which added to the overall U.S. share between 1962 and

1972. The development of the FSU market was particularly noteworthy. The FSU increased its agricultural

imports rapidly, at a 24.4 percent annual rate between

1962 and 1972; and the United States increased its

share of this growth market by 23.2 percentage points.

The Expansion Period

The 1972-81 data points depicting U.S. agricultural

market shares in figure 1 look like outliers in contrast

to the 1962-94 trend. What are the explanations for the

boom period and its sudden demise?

During the early 1970’s, a number of shocks occurred

in rapid succession, most of which were favorable to

U.S. agriculture. The world experienced a food shortage

beginning in 1973. Global grain production had declined

3.5 percent from the previous year. This decline coincided with a policy shift by the Soviet Union away from

self-sufficiency in grain. To make up for internal production shortfall, the Soviet Union first entered world

markets as a major grain importer in 1972. As a result

of the Soviet entry, “there was a 50-percent increase

in international trade in wheat and coarse grains between

1971-72 and 1972-73” (Hathaway and Rossmiller).

The United States was well positioned to take advantage

of the increase in foreign agricultural trade because of

its bulk-grain reserves. In just one year, between 1972

and 1973, the real (1992) value of U.S. agricultural

exports increased 1.6 times to $38.1 billion, and the

U.S. aggregate market share jumped 4.2 percentage

points to 21.7 percent. Throughout the rest of the expansion period, the U.S. share averaged 20.4 percent,

almost 2 percentage points above its 33-year average.

The impact on world agricultural markets of global

macroeconomic policies following the 1973-74 oil crisis

shock largely explain why the United States was able

to sustain above-average export performance throughout

the remainder of the expansion period. To cope with

the sudden rise in energy prices, monetary authorities

in the major industrialized countries increased the supply

of money. Central bankers recycled petrodollars to

countries in the Third World, providing them with the

financial means to purchase large quantities of grain on

the open market. The United States, the world’s residual

supplier of bulk grains, was able to satisfy the growing

developing country demand for agricultural imports.

Table 2 confirms that the developing country markets

were, in fact, responsible for much of the rise in the

overall U.S. agricultural market share between 1972

and 1981. Developing countries in SubSaharan Africa,

Latin America (including Mexico), East Asian NIC’s,

Middle East & North Africa, and China conferred 4.2

percentage points to the increase in the U.S. share.

Mexico and other oil-exporting countries in the Middle East had abundant foreign exchange with which to

purchase grain on the open market. However, China,

with its large population and more open commercial

policy, had the biggest impact of any single destination market, contributing almost 1 percentage point to

the overall U.S. share. Japan, Europe, and the FSU

also had positive impacts.

Canada, ASEAN, and Other Asia each had a negative

influence on the overall U.S. share during the 1972-81

expansion period. The United States lost agricultural

market shares in these markets. It also lost market

shares in Mexico and the Middle East & North Africa.

However, agricultural import growth was greater in

Mexico and the Middle East & North Africa than in any

other destination markets. This rapid growth explains

why both Mexico and the Middle East & North Africa

contributed positively to the increase in the overall

U.S. share between 1972 and 1981.

The information in table 2 also confirms the fact that

bulk commodities, as opposed to semi-processed and

consumer-oriented products, explained most of the rise

in the overall U.S. agricultural market share during the

1972-81 expansion period.8 All bulk commodities,

with the exception of tobacco, contributed positively to

the U.S. share. Collectively, they conferred 3.25 per7

“Latin America” excludes Mexico.

8

The bulk commodities contributed 83 percent of the rise in the

overall U.S. agricultural market share during the expansion period.

Consumer-oriented products also contributed to the rise, with vegetables and animal & pet food making the largest contributions. By

contrast, semi-processed goods were responsible for a tenth of 1

percent decline in the overall share.

8 ❖ Economic Research Service / USDA U.S. Export Performance in Agricultural Markets / TB-1854
centage points. Corn and wheat had the greatest impact,

contributing 1.7 and 1.4 percentage points respectively.

During the expansion period, the United States had high

and growing market shares in the bulk commodities

and these commodities were the agricultural goods that

experienced the fastest growth in the foreign market.

This fortuitous situation led to higher overall U.S.

agricultural market shares, consistent with what TSA

would predict. The positive structural and performance

effects reinforced each other.

The Contraction Period

During the 1981-87 contraction period, the real value of

U.S. agricultural exports fell, sending the domestic farm

economy into a severe depression (fig. 1). The overall

U.S. agricultural market share dropped by a third, declining from 21.5 percent in 1981 to 13.4 percent in

1987. The sudden and sharp contraction caught analysts,

policymakers, and farmers by surprise.9 In the mid1970’s, most everyone had been bullish about the

prospects for continued export growth of U.S. agriculture (Hathaway and Rossmiller).

Several macroeconomic events worked against U.S.

agriculture during the contraction period. Adverse

macroeconomic conditions—most notably the global

recession beginning in 1981, increases in the value of

the U.S. dollar in foreign currency markets, and tight

global monetary policies following the second oil crisis

in 1979—contributed to the loss of U.S. aggregate

market share. Saddled with debt-service payments, the

developing countries could not afford the luxury of

using scarce foreign exchange to pay for large amounts

of agricultural imports.

But, the macro economy was not the only source of

influence. Towards the end of the previous “expansion”

period, questionable agricultural policy decisions were

made. Beginning in 1979, domestic farm policies distorted market signals. U.S. policymakers substantially

increased both loan rates and target prices because of

concern about the potentially negative impact that the

Soviet grain embargo would have on domestic farm

income (Bookins). The loan rate for wheat, for example, increased 36 percent in a single year, rising from

$2.35 in 1979 to $3.20 per bushel in 1980. Shortly

thereafter, the 1981 Agricultural and Food Act legislated yearly increases in support prices. Both of these

farm policy decisions effectively priced U.S. bulk

commodities out of world markets. The United States

lost market share in all bulk commodities despite accumulating large CCC stocks during the early 1980’s.

Table 2 shows that 94 percent of the 8.1-percentagepoint drop in the overall U.S. agricultural market share

between 1981 and 1987 was attributable to bulk commodities directly affected by domestic farm policies.10

The withdrawal of the United States from world commodity markets encouraged competitors to increase

their production. Increased foreign production exerted,

in turn, downward pressure on commodity prices, exacerbating the problem the United States was experiencing

of being price competitive.

Not only did the United States lose market shares in

each bulk commodity market, but imports of every

bulk commodity contracted in the world market between 1981 and 1987.11 Positive growth, by contrast,

characterized all other agricultural goods with the exception of sugar & products. During the contraction

period, the structure of foreign agricultural trade

moved sharply away from bulk commodities.

None of the 14 destination markets contributed positively to the overall U.S. market share between 1981

and 1987. U.S. agricultural market shares decreased

in most destination markets, with the FSU, Mexico,

and the Middle East & North Africa being the only

exceptions. However, world agricultural exports to

these three markets declined. Negative import growth

prevented the FSU, Mexico, and the Middle East &

North Africa from making a positive contribution to

the overall U.S. agricultural market share.

The EU market presented the biggest problem. By 1980,

the EU had achieved, under the CAP protective umbrella, self-sufficiency in many commodities that it had

previously imported. Examples include grain, dairy,

beef, and poultry. TSA-based analysis quantifies the

direct impact on the overall U.S. agricultural market

share. The EU market alone accounted for a 2.7-per9

ERS grain projections made at the end of 1974 (as well as those

made by analysts at Food and Agriculture Organization and Iowa

State University), indicated that the developing countries would

continue to be a growth market. These projections missed the mark—

largely because the assumptions made did not conform with later

events. The ERS study, for example, assumed either that there would be

sufficient foreign exchange to finance the rise in developing-country

imports or that there would be sufficient access to concessional sales. In

fact, the developing countries experienced foreign exchange constraints due to debt accumulation; and the real value of food-aid

shipments continued to fall.

10The consumer-oriented and the semi-processed subsectors each

contributed 3 percentage points to the overall decline.

11The United States lost market share in all agricultural-good markets during the contraction period, except beef, live animals, hides

& skins, and sugar & products.

U.S. Export Performance in Agricultural Markets / TB-1854 Economic Research Service / USDA ❖ 9
centage-point (a third of the total) drop in the 1981-87

share decline (table 2).12 But the negative impact of

the CAP was greater than its direct effect on the EU

import market. After reaching self-sufficiency in various

commodity markets, the EU exported its surplus production. U.S. agricultural producers were pushed out

of extra-EU foreign markets by the export restitutions

sanctioned by the CAP.

Using TSA, we are able to pinpoint the specific countrycommodity markets that had the largest impact on the

change in the U.S. aggregate market share. Table 3

shows the 20 specific import markets having the biggest

influence. All but one of these markets had a negative

impact on the 1981-87 change in the U.S. aggregate

market share.13 U.S. losses in the EU maize and oilseed markets had the largest negative impact, each

subtracting 1 percentage point from the overall U.S.

agricultural market share between 1981 and 1987.

The U.S. share of the EU maize and oilseed markets

fell 54 and 29 percent, respectively.

We have also identified in table 3 the biggest U.S.

competitors in each of the 20 specific markets. France,

the largest competitor in the EU maize and oilseed

markets, increased its shares in these markets 44 and

18 points, respectively, between 1981 and 1987. Other

important competitors who prevailed over the United

States in the top markets during this period include

South African suppliers of maize to Japan; Pakistani

suppliers of cotton to China; Spanish suppliers of

vegetables to Mexico; Thai suppliers of other grains to

SubSaharan Africa; and Canadian suppliers of wheat

to China, Other Latin America, FSU, and Japan.

The precipitous 1981-87 decline in the overall U.S.

agricultural market share occurred in large part because

the commodity structure of world trade moved in favor

of agricultural products in which the United States had

relatively low market shares, namely, towards consumerTable 3—U.S. and competitor performance in top 20 U.S. markets, 1981-87

Country/

Commodity market

Top

competitor

Change

in U.S.

market share

Change in

competitor’s

market share

Effect on

U.S. aggregate

market share

-------------- Percentage points - - - -----------

EU12/Maize France -53.60 44.33 -1.03

EU12/Oilseeds France -28.42 17.59 -0.97

China/Wheat Canada -47.09 19.07 -0.60

Latin America1/Wheat Canada -37.44 14.92 -0.55

Japan/Maize South Africa -23.98 11.04 -0.44

Other Europe/Maize France -56.20 15.04 -0.38

East Asian NIC’s2

/Hides & Skins Canada -2.08 2.73 0.29

East Asian NIC’s2/Other Grains Thailand -23.68 30.21 -0.29

EU12/Oilcake & Meal Brazil -9.72 -2.77 -0.28

China/Cotton Pakistan -47.80 20.20 -0.24

Former Soviet Union/Maize China 20.15 22.48 -0.23

Former Soviet Union/Wheat Canada -0.96 4.69 -0.22

EU12/Wheat France -15.89 13.85 -0.21

Japan/Oilseeds Canada -7.78 0.41 -0.20

Japan/Beef Australia 21.91 -19.95 0.18

Mexico/Vegetables Spain -9.43 4.06 -0.17

Mexico/Other Grains Argentina 27.23 -20.98 -0.16

SubSaharan Africa/Wheat France -25.96 4.49 -0.16

Japan/Wheat Canada -3.71 1.78 -0.15

SubSaharan Africa/Other Grains Thailand -15.39 23.63 -0.15

Top 20 total -5.95

1

Excludes Mexico. 2NIC’s = Newly industrializing countries.

12 EU imports grew 4.5 percent annually between 1981 and 1987.

Meanwhile, the U.S. share of the EU agricultural market fell 7.6

percentage points.

13The Japanese beef market, which made a positive contribution

to the U.S. aggregate-market share, was the notable exception. The

U.S. share of the Japanese beef market rose 22 percentage points between 1981 and 1987.

10 ❖ Economic Research Service / USDA U.S. Export Performance in Agricultural Markets / TB-1854
oriented products. This situation was a sharp reversal

from the previous 1972-81 expansion period (fig. 3).

The contraction-period decline was also attributable to

the displacement of U.S. sales by the EU in important

wheat, maize, and oilseed commodity markets (table 3).

EU integration, induced by the CAP, altered the market

structure of world agricultural trade, lowering the U.S.

aggregate market share and curtailing its rise in subsequent years.

The Transition Period

The overall U.S. agricultural market share stopped its

precipitous decline in 1987 and then began to rise (fig. 1).

It rose modestly, gaining 1.3 percentage points between

1987 and 1994 (table 2). By 1994, the real value of U.S.

agricultural exports reached $44.5 billion, having almost

rebounded to its previous 1980 high of $46.2 billion.

Changes in farm legislation helped reverse the declining

real-value and market-share trends of the previous

period. The Food Security Act of 1985 was aimed at

restoring U.S. competitiveness in agriculture. Loan

rates were lowered, the Export Enhancement Program

was initiated, and the Conservation Reserve Program

took land out of production. The Food, Agriculture,

Conservation and Trade (FACT) Act of 1990 lowered

support prices further. It also introduced the concept

of flexibility, allowing farmers increased discretion

about what was planted on program-payment acres.

Clearly, changes in 1985 and 1990 farm legislation

helped stem the loss in U.S. sales of bulk commodities.

The United States increased its market share in all

bulk commodities except oilseeds between 1987 and

1994. However, despite these increases, cotton was

the only bulk commodity that contributed positively

to the modest increase in the U.S. aggregate market

share between 1987 and 1994 (table 2). The reason

that improved U.S. performance in bulk-commodity

markets did not translate into a higher U.S. aggregate

share is that the importance of bulk commodities in

the foreign agricultural market continued to decline.

Consumer-oriented products, for which the United

States has low market shares, became increasingly

important in the foreign agricultural market. Between

1987 and 1994, foreign import growth of all 13 consumer-oriented products grew more rapidly than in the

previous contraction period. Growth was particularly

rapid for poultry, processed foods, and nonalcoholic

beverages—each of which grew more than 10 percent

per year between 1987 and 1994. Moreover, U.S. market

shares increased in all consumer-oriented product markets, except dairy. Collectively, the consumer-oriented

products contributed 2.7 percentage points to the overall U.S. agricultural market share.14 Table 2 shows

that processed foods contributed most to the increase

in the overall U.S. share, adding 0.6 percentage point.

Collectively, beef, vegetables, and poultry added another

percentage point.

The following destination markets contributed positively

to the overall U.S. agricultural market share between

1987 and 1994: Mexico, Canada, Japan, ASEAN,

China, East Asian NIC’s, Other Europe, and Latin

America.15 Neighboring Mexico and Canada had the

largest impacts, each having contributed a percentage

point to the overall U.S. share. Meanwhile, the CAP

continued to have a negative impact. The U.S. share

of the EU agricultural market declined 1.9 percentage

points between 1987 and 1994. This loss explains

why the EU market took 1.1 percentage points from

the overall U.S. share during the transition period.

U.S. market shares rose in 24 of the 27 agricultural

commodity markets between 1987 and 1994. Yet, this

strong performance was not fully reflected in the overall U.S. agricultural market share which rose modestly.

Bulk commodities contributed negatively to the U.S.

share during this period even though U.S. performance

in these individual markets increased. The reason for

the small increase in the overall U.S. share was that

consumer-oriented products, in which the United States

had low (albeit rising) market shares, grew faster in

the foreign market than did the bulk commodities.

This finding reinforces our contention that the aggregate market share is not an indicator of performance.

The 33-Year Summary

The pattern of the variation in U.S. bulk-commodity exports is similar to that of U.S. total agriculture (figs. 1

and 2). The similarity is explained by the dominance of

bulk goods in the composition of U.S. agricultural exports. Bulk exports have averaged about 60 percent of

total U.S. agricultural sales throughout the period for

which we have data (fig. 4). The importance of bulk

commodities in the foreign market has, however, experienced a relative decline, with a particularly sharp

decline in its share characterizing recent years (fig. 4).

This structural change had the effect of lowering the

overall U.S. agricultural market share.

Changes in overall U.S. agricultural market shares

generally move in tandem with shifts occurring in bulkcommodity market shares. The overall U.S. share

14By contrast, the bulk and semi-processed subsectors lowered the

aggregate U.S. agricultural market share by 1.2 and 0.2 percentage

points, respectively, between 1987 and 1994.

15“Latin America” excludes Mexico.

U.S. Export Performance in Agricultural Markets / TB-1854 Economic Research Service / USDA ❖ 11
declined in the 1962-72 and 1981-87 periods and rose

in the 1972-81 period commensurate with changes in

U.S. market shares for the individual bulk commodities. In the more recent 1987-94 transition period, the

United States increased its market shares in all bulk

commodities except oilseeds (table 2). However, none

of the bulk commodities had a net positive impact on

the U.S. aggregate share during this period because of

structural change in the world market, which continued

its move away from bulk commodities.

The overall U.S. agricultural market share does not

mirror U.S. agricultural export performance. In the

1987-94 period, U.S. performance improved throughout

the agricultural sector, as is clearly shown by rapid

U.S. export growth and market-share increases in

most commodity markets. Of particular interest during this period was the dramatic rise in the real value

of U.S. consumer-oriented-product exports (fig. 3). As

a consequence, the composition of U.S. agricultural

exports shifted away from bulk commodities (fig. 4).

Conclusions

Market shares are frequently cited statistics found in

USDA and other publications. In 1994, the U.S. agricultural market share was 6.9 percentage points below

the 1981 level, raising questions about whether U.S.

agriculture would ever be able to regain lost ground.

We contend that concern about the decline in the U.S.

market share for the sector as a whole is misplaced.

Changes in the aggregate U.S. agricultural market share

reflect not only shifts in performance in all specific

markets (i.e., individual market shares) but also shifts in

the direction and/or commodity structure of world agricultural trade (i.e., compositional shares). Publication

of U.S. aggregate market shares needs to be accompanied by statistics about the changing structure of world

trade to draw correct inferences.

To properly evaluate U.S. agricultural export performance, attention must be given to how the sector responds

66 70 74 78 82 86 90 94

0

20

40

60

80

100

Bulk commodities Semi-processed intermediates Consumer-oriented products

1962 1962

Percent

66 70 74 78 82 86 90 94

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure 4

Structural change within agricultural trade

U.S. export compositional shares Foreign import compositional shares

Percent

Source: Economic Research Service compiled from U.N. bilateral trade data.

12 ❖ Economic Research Service / USDA U.S. Export Performance in Agricultural Markets / TB-1854
to individual markets. Treatment of agriculture as a

single market provides little information about export

performance. The TSA method is capable of uncovering

the important growth markets within the overall foreign

agricultural market. In recent years, faster growth took

place in consumer-oriented-product markets in North

America and in East Asia. While this shift did not help

the U.S. aggregate market share, total U.S. agricultural

exports, and in particular exports of consumer-oriented

products, accelerated.

The aggregate market share can be a good gauge of

market saturation. Rapid U.S. export growth accompanied by a stable or falling aggregate market share is a

sign of a healthy foreign appetite for U.S. agricultural

goods and points to bright export prospects. This was

the case for the 1987-94 transition period. On the

other hand, a rise in the U.S. aggregate market share

accompanied by slow export growth is a sign of a

stagnant future. This was the case at the beginning of

the contraction period in early 1980’s when the U.S.

share reached a historical high.

Finally, the TSA method provides us with insight into

why the U.S. market share may shift in the future. We

know that the United States maintains higher market

shares in bulk commodities than in consumer-oriented

products. Current estimates show that bulk commodities

will have grown faster than consumer-oriented products

in world trade in 1995 and 1996. Under this growth

condition, we will undoubtedly see the U.S. aggregate

share rise. But, consumer-oriented trade is expected to

continue to increase its share in world trade in the long

run. This means that the U.S. aggregate share will move

closer towards the consumer-oriented market share.

Unless the U.S. consumer-oriented market share rises

above the current aggregate share, the U.S. aggregate

share will fall.

U.S. Export Performance in Agricultural Markets / TB-1854 Economic Research Service / USDA ❖ 13
References

Ackerman, Karen Z., Mark E. Smith, and Nydia R.

Suarez. Agricultural Export Programs: Background

for 1995 Farm Legislation. FAER-716, June 1995.

Alston, Julian, Colin A. Carter, and Lovell S. Jarvis.

“On Japanese Beef Trade Liberalization: It May Not

Benefit Americans,” Choices. 4th Qtr., 1989.

Bookins, Carol. “Carol Bookins on The Embargo Study,”

Choices. 1st Qtr., 1987.

Bredahl, Maury E., Philip C. Abbott, and Michael R.

Reed. Competitiveness of U.S. Agriculture and the

Balance of Payments. CAST Report, 1996.

Coyle, William T., and John Dyck. “On Japanese Beef

Trade Liberalization: It Will Benefit American Agriculture,” Choices. 4th Qtr., 1989.

Daft, Lynn M. “Lynn Daft on the 1985 Farm Bill,”

Choices. Premiere edition, 1986.

de la Garza, E. “Food, Farm and Resource Policy: A

Democratic View,” Choices. 4th Qtr., 1988.

Gehlhar, Mark, Mathew Shane, and Thomas Vollrath.

“Growth of Consumer-Oriented Trade: Implications

for the U.S. Agricultural Market Share,” Choices.

3rd Qtr., 1996.

Gehlhar, Mark, and Thomas Vollrath. “Demystifying

International Agricultural Trade Statistics.” Econ.

Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr., forthcoming Technical

Bulletin.

Green, Paul B. “Export Subsidies on Value-Added

Products: Our Trade Policy Needs Them Too,”

Choices. 2nd Qtr., 1988.

Harkin, Tom. “Agricultural Policy: Time for New Directions,” Choices. 3rd Qtr., 1987.

Hathaway, Dale E., and George E. Rossmiller. “Policy

Errors: They Can’t Be Eliminated, But Can They Be

Reduced?” Choices, 1st Qtr., 1993.

Kurtzig, Michael E., and Shahla Shapouri. “North Africa and Middle East Markets Diversify,” Agricultural Outlook. AO-224. Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept.

Agr., Nov. 1995, pp. 15-19.

Paarlberg, Philip L., Alan J. Webb, and John C. Dunmore.

“The U.S. Competitive Position in World Commodity Trade,” Agricultural-Food Policy Review: Commodity Program Perspectives. AER-530, Econ. Res

Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr., July 1985, pp. 93-121.

Pick, Daniel H., Carlos Arnade, and Utpal Vasavada.

“Technology Gaps and Trade in Agriculture,” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv. Vol. 131, No. 3, 1995, pp.

509-525.

Rhoades, Douglas. “Agricultural Trade-Weighted Exchange Rates Indexes: Revisions.” Agricultural Outlook. AO-216. Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr.,

Mar. 1995, pp. 16-17.

Schumacher, August. “Building Prosperity with U.S.

Trade Partners.” Agricultural Outlook, AO-228. Econ.

Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr., Apr. 1996, pp. 10-11.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research

Service. NAFTA. International Agriculture and

Trade Reports. Situation and Outlook Series, WRS95-2, May 1995.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research

Service. The World Food Situation and Prospects to

1985. FAER-98, Dec. 1974.

14 ❖ Economic Research Service / USDA U.S. Export Performance in Agricultural Markets / TB-1854
Appendix table—Decomposition of changes in U.S. aggregate market shares excluding intra-EU trade,

by individual markets

Markets 1962-72 1972-81 1981-87 1987-94 1962-94

Commodity Percentage points

Processed Foods 0.07 -0.08 0.15 0.99 1.13

Beef 0.08 0.08 0.39 0.59 1.14

Vegetables -0.24 0.37 -0.30 0.56 0.39

Poultry -0.30 0.21 -0.02 0.44 0.33

Sugar & Products -0.05 -0.03 0.03 0.35 0.30

Other Fruits & Nut -0.25 0.04 0.24 0.29 0.32

Non-alcoholic Beverages -0.06 0.01 -0.02 0.28 0.20

Dairy -0.31 -0.17 -0.11 0.22 -0.38

Apples & Grapes -0.04 0.03 -0.02 0.20 0.16

Beer & Wine 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.19 0.27

Animal & Pet Food 0.00 0.38 0.22 0.19 0.78

Pig Meat 0.05 0.04 -0.06 0.16 0.19

Vegetable Oils -0.10 -0.03 -0.26 0.16 -0.22

Other Meat 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.15 0.26

Cotton -1.75 0.22 -0.33 0.13 -1.72

Semi-processed Grains -0.93 0.02 0.00 0.12 -0.79

Other Plant Material 0.14 -0.09 0.27 0.05 0.36

Other Animal Material -0.42 0.03 -0.15 0.01 -0.53

Other Grains -0.63 0.26 -1.11 -0.02 -1.50

Live Animals 0.11 -0.04 0.12 -0.02 0.17

Citrus 0.05 -0.08 0.09 -0.04 0.01

Tobacco -0.42 -0.68 -0.17 -0.16 -1.44

Wheat -1.51 1.67 -2.95 -0.28 -3.07

Maize 0.25 2.08 -2.80 -0.36 -0.83

Oil Cake & Meal 0.61 0.03 -0.20 -0.44 0.00

Hides & Skins 0.32 -0.22 0.63 -0.55 0.18

Oilseeds 1.98 0.17 -0.98 -1.22 -0.05

Net effect1 -3.33 4.28 -7.28 1.98 -4.34

Destination

Mexico 0.12 1.08 -0.69 1.53 2.05

Canada -0.75 -0.88 0.00 1.51 -0.12

Japan 1.16 0.75 -0.16 0.46 2.21

ASEAN2 0.35 -0.56 -0.22 0.36 -0.06

China 0.16 1.21 -1.11 0.30 0.57

East Asian NIC’s3 0.54 0.88 0.28 0.25 1.95

Oceania -0.13 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.01

Latin America4 -0.25 0.79 -0.76 0.05 -0.17

South & Northeast Asia -1.28 -0.42 -0.19 -0.01 -1.90

SubSaharan Africa -0.20 0.50 -0.49 -0.03 -0.21

Other Europe -0.47 0.24 -0.82 -0.14 -1.20

Former Soviet Union 1.09 0.01 -0.44 -0.20 0.46

Middle East & North Africa -1.60 0.98 -0.01 -0.37 -0.99

EU12 -2.07 -0.32 -2.69 -1.86 -6.93

Net effect1 -3.33 4.28 -7.28 1.98 -4.34

1

Change in aggregate U.S. agricultural-market share. Net changes are calculated by the TSA method: , where i =

individual markets and I = time intervals. 2

ASEAN = Association of SouthEast Asian Nations. 3NIC’s = Newly industrializing countries.

4

Excludes Mexico.

= 3 . i0IMKT

NUS(t )I EUS(i,t )I

U.S. Export Performance in Agricultural Markets / TB-1854 Economic Research Service / USDA ❖ 15