almost zero in the case of cement to over 120 percent in the case of motor vehicles, with rates of over 40 percent for finished textiles, jewelry, and soaps and cosmetics.

The impact of the NTB equivalents for several sectors appears very large, but for others the impact is relative small. For example, as can be seen by comparing Tables 4a and 4b in the case of private industries in 2009 the inclusion of NTB estimates on ERPs are small for ISIC #1711 (spinning and finishing textiles), #2423 (drugs and medicine), #2610 (glass products), #2694 (cement), and #2710 (iron and steel).

The inclusion of NTBs estimates affect the ERPs notably (in the private sector) for industries #2101 (pulp and paper), #2412 (fertilizers and pesticides), #2893 (cutlery and hand tools), #2921 (agricultural machinery), and #3110 (electrical appliances); the impact is extremely high in the cases of industries #1721 (textiles except garments), #2424 (soap and cosmetics), #2511 (tires and tubes), #3410 (automobiles) and #3811 (jewelry). For these latter industries, the estimated tariff equivalents of the NTBs are high as seen in Annex Table 3, reaching 120 percent in the case of automobiles.

The tire and tube industry (#2511) is an interesting case to compare private and public firms. With the addition of the NTB tariff equivalent estimate to the ERP, the value added of the private sector industry becomes negative (i.e., the industry would not exist without interventions), and so its ERP becomes high and negative. Interestingly, the same industry in the public sector maintains a positive ERP, after adjusting for NTBs, because it employs relatively more domestic resources (mainly labor) and the resulting share of tradable inputs relative to gross output is much smaller. While the value added over tradable inputs is reduced in the public industry with the removal of interventions, it still remains positive, unlike the industry in the private sector. In fact, using the CAPMAS 2006/2007 Annual Bulletin of Industrial Production Statistics, the wage bill for the private and public tire and tube industries are practically the same, but the wage bill represents only 5 percent in the private sector and 20 percent in the public. (We note also that the public industry represent about one-fifth of the gross output of the private tire and tube industry.) Intuitively, one would think that there must be a subsidy to the public firm in this industry, but no explicit subsidy appears in the CAPMAS statistics going to the public enterprise, although the statistics show a subsidy to the private firms in this industry. The inference is that returns to capital in the public industry is very low, representing an implicit subsidy.

# **7. Results: ERPs Incorporating Energy Subsidies for 23 Sectors from 2006/2007 Input-Output Information**

Table 5a shows the ERP calculations for 23 industrial sectors in Egypt, using applied tariffs, net output subsidies and subsidies on energy inputs. Table 5b shows the ERP calculations including the NTB estimates. Table 6 shows the industrial categories used to construct the average tariffs associated with each sector. In some cases, for example LPG, specific tariff lines are available. Where specific tariff lines are not used, sector tariff are calculated by using averages over tariff lines in the appropriate category. Sector-level tariffs are shown in the first column of figures in Tables 5a and 5b. The second column of figures in Table 5b shows the ad valorem addition due to NTBs. The reader should note that due to the extremely high tariffs on alcoholic beverages (as seen 14