# Table 4.3

|**Mer**|**chandiseExport**|**Intr**<br>**sWithinRegi**<br>**Re**|**aregional Tra**<br>**onalGroup(a**<br>**lativeMeasur**|**de**<br>**sshareofgro**<br>**e**|**up'stotalex**|**ports)**||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|(%<br>**of**<br>totalexports)|1970|**1980**|1990|1996|1998|1999<br>||2000|
|**APEC**|57.8|57.9|68.3|72.1|69.7|71.9|73.2|
|ASEAN|22.9|18.6|19.9|25.4|21.7|22.2|23.1|
|ASEANPFusThree|**na.**|29.5|27.1|36.8|28.8|31.4|32.0|
|All EastAsia|n.a|33.8|40.4|50.4|43.0|44.8|46.3|
|European Union|59.5|60.8|65.9|61.4|57.0|63.3|62.1|
|NAFTA|36.0|33.6|41.4|47.6|51.7|54.6|55.7|

NOTE: Table shows sum of exports by members of a group to other members<sup>**_of_**thegroup as apercentage ofthe groupstotal exports.</sup> Service exports are excluded. Although data has **been caicuiated** back **to** 1970 or 1980 on the **basis** of current group membership, most of the groups came Into eaxistence in later years and their membership may have changed<sup>overtime.Intratradein eartier yearsmay not have been affected by the</sup> same preferences as in recent years.

I **All** East Asia indudes ASEAN plus Japan, Korea, China, Hong Kong, and<sup>Taiwan.Taiwannotincluded in1980 and1990</sup><sup>**data.**</sup> Source. For APEC, EU, and NAFTA used World Bank. World Development Indicators<sup>2002; for all others:authors' calculation usingIMF. DOTS</sup> The first measure (Table 4.2) places a group's intraexports in the context of total world exports reflecting the degree of importance of its intraregional trade in total<sup>world</sup> trade. The second measure (Table 4.3) places a group's intraexports in the context of its own total exports reflecting the degree of importance of its intraregional trade relative to its extraregional trade.<sup>24</sup> The patterns (both between regions and for each region over time) in Table 4.3 are similar to those in Table 4.2. First, since 1990, APEC has had the largest intraexport share of world exports and of its own total exports, followed by the EU, NAFTA, "All East Asia", ASEAN-Plus-Three and, finally, ASEAN.<sup>25</sup> Second, the fluctuation patterns in each group's intraexport share over time, or in other words, the increases and decreases in the importance of each group's intratrade in world trade and in its own trade, have generally followed the same pattern over the last two decades.

The increases in these measures for most regional groups, except the EU which experienced a decline that is noteworthy considering it is the region that has become the most integrated during that time, reflect members' intraexport growth relative to the growth of world exports and of their own total exports.<sup>26</sup> In other words, intratrade for East Asian groups generally increased in importance relative to both world trade and their own trade over the last 10 to 20 years. However, this does not indicate that a group's trade is more biased in favor of group members.

Trade share as a measure of trade has certain shortcomings, primarily that the share size of a trading group is a direct reflection of the number of countries in the group and of the trading volume of those countries; i.e., shares are larger for large groups<sup>that</sup> include high-volume-trade countries and smaller for small groups of low-volume-trade countries. 7 Furthermore, the larger the group, the larger is a country's share in that group.28 Thus, in order to accurately assess the level of East Asia's intraregional trade, we need to know not only the magnitude of intratrade of the countries within the' region (as shown above) but also whether members of the region trade more intensely with one another than they do with those outside the region. A measure that has been developed<sup>to</sup> adjust for the shortcomings of trade shares, and that comes closer to revealing the true nature of intraregional trade, is the "trade intensity index".<sup>29</sup> 12