Tom 24 2008 Zeszyt 4/2
AHMAD REZA SAYADI*, MIR ABDOLLAH HOSSEINI**, VAHID BOZORGI***
Price instability and terms of trade for mineral commodities in the last two decades
Introduction
Price changes of materials and products (including raw materials, agricultural products, manufactures, etc) and the shares of developing and developed countries in the world trade reflect countries,gain from international trade. In this respect, terms of trade (TOT) is an index the behavior of which may be explored to gauge a country’s share of the revenues accrued from commodity exchanges.
Nowadays, TOT is regarded as one of the most important tools for analyzing macro- economic and development issues such as the benefits of international trade, the changes of its volume and composition, and its effects on wages, public welfare and national income. In international economic theories, TOT has a high profile and has stimulated many arguments for and against the long- run trends of TOT of commodities or countries. David Ricardo and Alfred Marshal explicitly used the term to measure the interests of trade partners. Further, in economic development literature, some critical analyses have referred to the deterioration of developing countries,TOT vis-a-vis developed countries.
The present study intends to answer the following question: how have prices and TOT of selected mineral commodities changed in the world during last decades? What have been the mineral commodies with minimum and maximum improvement in their TOT? And, what have been the mineral commodities with minimum and maximum instability in their TOT?
To this end, having reviewed the pertinent literature and indices, we would examine world
* Assistant professor of theUniversity of Tarbiat Modares, Tehran, Iran.
** Faculty member of the Institute for Trade Studies and Research,Tehran, Iran.
*** Assistantprofessor of the Institute for Trade Studies and Research, Tehran, Iran.
price trends of selected mineral commodities and then comparatively analyze those commo- dities TOT during 1985–2006.
1. Terms of Trade (TOT)
TOT has played a significant role in the development of international economic theories.
It has been repeatedly used to determine the conditions of benefiting from international trade.
Initially, in his theory of “comparative costs”, Ricardo showed that exchange of two commodities between two countries within a certain range of exchange rate would be beneficial for both parties. However, by taking into account the mutual demand, John Stuart Mill illustrated that exchange would be feasible only when there is mutual demand with elasticity in two countries for their commodities. This point is called “Terms of Interchange”.
Subsequently, the word of TOT was first used by Alfred Marshal to determine the interests of trade partners. As a result, Ricardo did not directly calculated TOT and merely showed the equilibrium value between ratios of comparative costs of two countries through assuming a linear technology. However, by introducing the “mutual supply and demand”, J. S. Mill paved the way for the explanation of offer curve by Marshal. Marshal also showed that supply and demand surpluses of two commodities in any country depend on TOT by which the equilibrium value of world supply surplus tends towards zero.
In new economic theories, consumer demand preferences have major implications for TOT. In other words, equilibrium value of TOT is determined by consumer preferences function, factor endowment and technical coefficients of production. In effect, relative welfare effect of trade depends on the said equilibrium TOT: the more pre-trade TOT of a country is near to its post-trade TOT, the less benefits of trade would be for that country.
This is generally the case between a very large country and a very small country.
TOT has been defined in different ways falling into 3 groups [1]. First group deals with TOT between countries and includes net barter (or commodity) terms of trade (TOTnb), gross barter terms of trade (TOTg) and income terms of trade (TOTi); Second group relates to TOT between productive resources and includes single factoral terms of trade (TOTs) and double factoral terms of trade (TOTd); Finally, third group concerns trade benefits based on “utility analysis” and includes real cost terms of trade and utility terms of trade.
A) Net Barter Terms of Trade (TOTnb)
This is a very simple and common type of TOT which reflects the ratio of a country’s import to its exports (Appleyard et al. 2006, p. 110), that is:
TOTnb= (px/pm) × 100 (1)
Where pxis the price index of exported commodities and pmis the price index of imported commodities. Improvement of TOTnbindicates that a country imports more commodities in
return for a certain amount of export. Conversely, deterioration of TOTnb shows that a country imports less commodities in return for a certain amount of export.
B) Gross Barter Terms of Trade (TOTg)
This kind of TOT reflects the ratio of a country’s volume of imports to its volume of exports:
TOTg= (Qm/Qx) × 100 (2)
The increase of TOTg shows that a country imports more commodities in exchange for a certain volume of export.
C) Income Terms of Trade (TOTi)
This is an important type of TOT. It is probable that a country’s TOTnbdecreases but its volume of exports substantially increases and consequently its import capacity rises. To reflect changes in a country’s volume of exports and its capacity to import, we can use TOTi which is given by the TOTnbmultiplied by the volume index of exports [1]:
TOTi= {(Px/Pm) ×Qx} × 100 (3)
TOTimeasures a country’s export-based capacity to import. Its improvement points to the increase of imports in comparison to exports. For countries, not only TOT changes but also export volume changes are important. Hence, it is more helpful to explore both of them and TOTi is more advanced than TOTnb.
2. Price trends of commodities
The impact of different factors on the production of mineral commodities can be examined in short- and long-run periods. The lifetime of reserves, the development of the relative importance of production centers and the forecasting of the depletion of a resource base are mainly geological factors, although the category of reserves, in contrast to resource, is determined by technical and economical aspects. These three factors govern the short- and longterm supply of mineral commodities. The intensity-of use factors and the growth rate of consumption are variables related to the demand of mineral commodities. They influence the decision of companies for certain commodities as targets for exploration and investment in production centers. Both factors control the short- to medium- term mineral supply. Finally, the lead time to production is a technical variable, although influenced by ore deposit type, and controls short-term mineral availability [2].
According to theoretical arguments, the extent of monopoly power is more important than the pricing regime as a determinant of variability. As an example, metals price volatility increased in the 1980s relative to the 70s, and that this was associated with a move from administered producer pricing to exchange pricing [3]. These claims are only partially
supported. Extension of these sample to the present indicates that any early differences between the variability of producer and exchange prices have now vanished [4].
Three major commodity booms have been identified since World War II. In all three cases, demand shocks have predominated as triggers to the rise of commodity prices. The first boom occurred in 1950–1951 as a result of massif inventory buildup of commodities in the aftermath of Korean War. The second boom in 1973–1974 was created by the success of OPEC to triple oil price. The third boom began in 2003 and is still continuing. Increasing demand of China and India for primary products has played a major role in this boom. In the first two booms, world economic depression was short due to selling extra stocks. However, the third boom has been longer owing to the rapid expansion of world economy and decreased stocks [5]. Annual price indices (at constant dollar prices) of non- fuel com- modities (food- stuffs and agricultural products), metals and ores, and oil during 1948–2004 show that there has been a downward trend in the prices of non-fuel commodities and metals in the long run and all of these commodities have been generally exchanged under com- petitive conditions. However, oil price has been increasing since early 1970s, the period during which oil market has been dominated by monopolistic power of the OPEC cartel [5].
During the boom, we observed a big rise in the prices of agricultural products and a smaller one in the prices of metals. However, once it was revealed that the Korean War would not be extended to a world-wide conflict, and owing to a severe economic recession in the period, the prices of both groups of commodities fell. In addition, the quick and sudden fall of strategic reserves or stocks raised the supply and ensured price stability [6]. During the first boom, the prices of fuel and food-stuffs had no major changes, because most countries consuming fuel and food-stuffs were relatively self-sufficient, OPEC cartel had not been established, the U.S. still exported crude oil and the European fuel was mostly coal [7].
Due to a rapid increase in the prices of all groups of commodities, the second boom was much more vigorous and extensive. Here, the most important factor was the surge of oil price by OPEC cartel in late 1973. In view of the high weight of oil in international trade in goods, a surge of price indices of all commodities was in order. In this period, the rise of commodity prices provoked fluctuation and instability in exchange rates. Furthermore, due to inflation, real interest rate tended towards negative and the market disorder and weak performance of stock exchange transactions led many investors to go out of stock exchange. It is worth mentioning that the changes of price index of energy were different from those of other groups of commodities. This difference originated in the measures of OPEC cartel. Oil is the most determining factor in the price index of energy and OPEC Members regulated oil supply in response to decreased demand in 1974–1975 due to an intensified recession and price shock. The success of OPEC in maintaining the desirable price was reflected in the price stability as from early 1974.
The third boom began in 2003 and is still continuing. Like previous boom, this boom was brought about by a demand shock. For example, the world demand for oil and copper in 2004 experienced a record rise during thirty years. Producers were surprised and the limited stocks and productive capacity in many productive chains provoked a big rise in price in a large number of markets. China and India, two giants of Asia in transition to development, had a great demand for
raw materials. China’s share in world demand for oil in 2000–2005 was 28 per cent, roughly two times as much as its share in world GDP in 2005 (15.4%). Further, China‘s dominance in some markets has been considerably mounted. During 2000–2005, China’s share in world demand was over 50% for aluminum, 84% for steel and 95% for copper [8].
Extensive empirical studies have been made as regards short- and long- run trends of TOT of primary products vis- a- vis manufactures1some of which have been introduced in Table 1.
TABLE 1 Selected Empirical Studies
TABELA 1 Wybrane analizy empiryczne
Work Period Finding
Singer 1949 [9] 1870–1939 Decrease in primary products prices (due to structural change)
Prebisch 1950 [10] 1876–1938 Detrimental to primary and agricultural products by nearly one third
IMF 1982 (quoted from Meyer & Seers
1984) [11] 1957–1982 Deterioration of primary products’ TOT vis-B-vis manufactures by nearly 32 per cent
UNCTAD 1978 [12] 1960–1978 Deterioration of TOT of LDCs by 11%
Spraos 1980 [13] 1950–1977 Deterioration of primary products’ TOT vis-B-vis manufactures by 25.4%
Bairoch, 1985 (quoted from Meyer &Seers
1984) [11] 1870–1938 Deterioration of TOT and its reverse in different markets
UNCTAD 1991 [12] 1960–1990 Deterioration of developing countries’ TOT
Arcal and Meatz 2000 [14] 1980–1990 Considerable deterioration of agricultural products’ TOT vis-B-vis manufactures by 11%
Chen and Rogoff 2003 [15] Seasonal data 1986–2000
Adjustment of exchange rate through monetary policies and inflation control in response to world price shocks
Zanias 2005 [16] 1900–1998 One-third decrease in relative prices of primary products compared to the beginning of the period
Hosseini and Seyedi 2002 [17] 1968–1997 Improvement of Iran’s TOT (including oil) along with the utmost instability and fluctuation range
Hosseini & Shahmoradi 2002 [18] 1968–1997 Deterioration of TOT of 15 out of 20 selected agricultural products
1 The long- run deterioration of developing countries, TOT has been a persistent matter in international trade debates since World War II. Much empirical and applied study has been made in this respect. For instance, it was found that low income elasticity of demand for primary commodities compared to manufactures, monopolistic structures of industrial countries’ markets and competitive supply of primary products, and technical advances leading to economizing on consumption of imported primary products have brought about the deterioration in TOT of developing countries (raw material exporters) [10].
3. Statistical data
As show in Table 2, we have used price indices of a selected group of mineral commo- dities in free market during 1985–2006 as introduced in UNCTAD, ITC and PC-TAS statistical data [12].
Some points can be inferred from Table 2. First, during 1985–2006, the unit value of exported manufactures rose from 70.9 in 1985 to 122.5 in 2006. Its average growth rate was 2.64%, equal to aggregate growth rate of world prices. Second, out of the selected mineral commodities, nickel, copper and zinc have recorded the most growth of prices. Their annual average price indices in free market respectively rose from 56.8, 78.2 and 67 in 1985 to 280.7, 290.3 and 161.5 in 2006, reflecting substantial annual growth rates of 7.91, 7.69 and 7.23. Third, price index of tin decreased in the same period. With a growth rate of –1.5, it fell from 221.8 in 1985 to 161.5 in 2006. Furthermore, price indices of phosphate rock, manganese ore and silver had the lowest growth rates.
TABLE 2 Annual indices of free-market prices of selected mineral commodities (2000 = 100)
TABELA 2 Roczne indeksy wolnorynkowych cen dla wybranych minera³ów (2000 = 100)
Commodity 2000 1985 1990 1995 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Growth rate Mineral, ores and
metals … 82.2 127.0 128.1 89.0 89.2 86.8 97.6 137.3 173.2 277.7 5.97
Phosphate rock1 43.8 76.6 92.6 80.0 100.4 95.9 92.3 86.9 93.7 96.0 101.1 1.33 Manganese ore1 186.0 74.5 213.1 109.7 102.6 106.7 106.7 106.7 106.7 175.8 139.7 3.04 Iron ore2 27.7 96.0 111.3 97.4 97.4 104.5 103.4 112.2 131.7 225.9 268.8 5.03 Aluminum1 1549.2 69.8 105.8 116.6 87.9 93.2 87.1 92.4 110.8 122.5 165.9 4.21 Copper1 1813.1 78.2 146.8 161.8 86.7 87.0 86.0 98.1 158.0 202.9 370.7 7.69 Nickel1 8637.7 56.8 102.6 95.3 69.6 68.8 78.4 111.5 160.0 170.6 280.7 7.91 Lead1 454.0 86.1 178.5 138.9 110.7 104.9 99.7 113.5 195.2 215.0 283.8 5.84 Zinc1 1 128.1 67.0 134.6 91.4 95.4 78.5 69.0 73.4 92.9 122.5 290.3 7.23 Tin1 5432.8 221.8 114.8 114.3 99.4 82.5 74.7 90.0 156.5 135.8 161.5 –1.50 Tungsten3 44.9 150.9 103.4 141.2 89.2 145.6 84.8 100.0 122.9 271.3 369.7 4.36 Gold4 279.0 113.7 137.4 137.7 99.9 97.1 111.1 130.3 146.6 159.4 216.6 3.12 Silver5 499.9 122.9 96.4 103.8 105.0 87.8 92.6 98.2 133.3 146.8 231.4 3.06 Crude oil6 28.2 95.6 78.1 59.0 64.3 86.7 88.4 102.4 133.8 189.1 227.8 4.22 Manufactures export
unit value 100.0 70.9 110.9 122.3 105.2 97.9 98.5 107.6 116.5 119.4 122.5 2.64
Source: [12]
1Dollars per metric ton.
2Cents per Fe unit.
3Dollars per metric ton unit of WO3.
4Dollars per troy ounce.
5Cents per troy ounce.
6Dollars per barrel.
4. Price instability indices and price trends of selected mineral commodities
Table 3 shows the price instability indices and price trends of 13 mineral commodities in free market for three periods. Finding are as follows. First, current and constant dollar price trends of the selected mineral commodities have experienced a fluctuating path rather than a long-run ascending or descending one. In fact, only three of 13 selected mineral commo- dities (i.e. aluminum, zinc and tungsten) were consistently descending in the three periods.
However, the decreasing trend of aluminum prices has been recently halted and even witnessed a minor increase in current prices. In contrast, price trends of four mineral commodities (i.e. iron ore, nickel, lead and gold) were ascending in the last two periods.
Second, in the first period, zinc, crude oil, manganese ore and nickel had the highest price instability indices in an ascending order. In the last period (2002–2006), tungsten, lead, tin, copper, nickel and crude petroleum recorded the highest price instability. In fact, tungsten, lead, tin, copper, nickel and crude petroleum had high price instability indices in all periods, but mineral commodities such as phosphate rock and manganese and iron ores experienced the lowest price instability indices in all periods.
In next section, our findings about TOTnbof 13 selected mineral commodities in world markets in 1985–2006 will be presented.
TABLE 3 Instability indices and trends in free-market prices for selected mineral commodities (2000=100)
TABELA 3 Indeksy niestabiloœci i trendy wolnorynkowych cen dla wybranych minera³ów (2000=100)
Commodity Price instability indices Price trends
In current dollars In constant dollars 1992–96 1997–01 2002–06 1992–96 1997–01 2002–06 1992–96 1997–01 2002–06
All commodities 5.1 4.6 5.0 5.5 –7.6 15.5 3.4 –4.4 10.1
Mineral, ores and metals 10.4 8.1 8.6 3.5 –3.6 28.8 1.4 –0.4 23.3
Phosphate rock 8.6 2.6 3.2 –1.6 0.7 2.8 –3.7 4.0 –2.5
Manganese ore 13.1 3.1 12.9 –14.1 –1.7 9.8 –16.1 1.6 4.5
Iron ore 5.4 2.9 10.8 –2.4 –0.6 25.3 –4.4 2.6 19.9
Aluminum 11.5 6.7 5.8 7.9 –0.9 15.5 5.8 2.4 10.1
Copper 13.7 11.1 11.7 4.1 –6.4 36.3 2.0 –3.2 30.8
Nickel 14.1 21.3 12.6 5.3 2.4 29.3 3.2 5.7 23.8
Lead 13.3 5.5 11.8 11.5 –6.9 27.1 9.4 –3.6 21.6
Zinc 7.7 10.6 19.9 –3.0 –6.8 33.4 –5.1 –3.6 28.0
Tin 7.6 6.3 14.0 2.0 –4.9 19.4 –0.1 –1.7 14.0
Tungsten ore 20.9 13.8 16.9 4.1 6.1 39.2 2.0 9.4 33.7
Gold 2.9 4.0 4.9 3.0 –4.5 15.4 0.9 –1.3 10.0
Silver 7.7 6.8 9.7 7.2 –3.3 22.1 5.1 –0.1 16.7
Crude Oil 9.6 21.3 8.8 2.9 12.2 25.1 0.8 15.5 19.7
Source: [12]
5. TOT of mineral commodities in the world market
We have selected our mineral commodities by three criteria:
1) having a major share in world production and trade of mineral commodities, 2) being substantially exchanged in world markets (tradeable goods),
3) statistical data on their world prices being published by reliable international bodies such as UNCTAD and IMF.
The selected commodities are presented in Table 4. As measurement unit of the prices of these commodities are different, the prices of 2000 have been regarded as base and equal to 100. In order to calculate TOTnbof individual selected commodities, their price indices of 2000 have been divided by value index of industrial goods unit and then multiplied by 100.
We have calculated these indices for 13 mineral commodities in 1985–2006. Our findings regarding TOTnbtrends of selected commodities during the said period are as follows:
1. In 1985–2006, TOTnbof mining sector (including ores, minerals and metals) vis-B-vis industrial sector evolved as follows: TOTnb index of mining sector initially had a steady decrease from nearly 116 in 1985 to 83 in 1998 (falling to the lowest possible level by 33 percentage points) and then experienced an incremental but persistent increase and reached the highest possible level (226.8) in 2006. Therefore, during 1985–2006, TOTnb of mining sector vis-B-vis industrial sector witnessed two quite different trends. It was to the disadvantage of mining sector in the first period (1985–1998) but changed quite to the advantage of mining sector in the second period specially in its last three years (2004–
–2006) and rose to 2.27 times as much as industrial sector TOTnbin 2006.
2. The above behavioral pattern of TOTnbapplied more or less to all 13 selected mineral commodities. On the one hand, at the beginning of the period (1985), tin, tungsten, silver and lead had the highest TOTnbbut nickel, zinc, manganese ore and phosphate rock had the lowest TOTnb. Tin and nickel stood at the top (312.8) and bottom (80.1) respectively and other mineral commodities lied somewhere between these two extremes. On the other hand, TOTnbof all 13 commodities decreased during 1985–98 but TOTnb of many them gradually increased and reached a record level in 2006. In this year, copper, tungsten, zinc, lead, nickel and iron ore had the highest TOTnband phosphate ore, manganese ore, tin and aluminum had lowest TOTnb.
3. In the long run (1985–2006), the highest TOTnbgrowth rates belonged to nickel (5.13%), copper (4.92%), zinc (4.48%) and lead (3.12%) and the lowest ones belonged to tin (–4.03%), phosphate rock (–1.27%), manganese ore (0.39%) and silver (0.41%). However in the short run (2000–2006), the highest TOTnbgrowth rates belonged to copper (20.3%), tungsten (20.2%), zinc (15.5%), lead (15%) and nickel (14.8%) and the lowest ones belonged to phosphate rock (–3.15%), manganese ore (1.82%) and tin (4.71%). As a result, in both long and short runs, the highest TOTnbgrowth rates belonged to copper, nickel, lead and zinc but the lowest ones belonged to tin, phosphate rock and manganese ore.
4. The fluctuation and instability of crude petroleum TOTnbstands out in the selected group of mineral commodities: its TOTnbcontinuosly deteriorated from 134.8 in 1985 to under
31.5 in 1998 and subsequently experienced a consistent improvement and reached 114.9, 158.4 and 186 in 2004, 2005 and 2006 respectively (i.e 2.7,3.7 and 4.4 times as much as 1998).
TABLE 4 TOTnbof selected mineral commodities compared to manufactures export unit value (2000=100)
TABELA 4 Liczba wybranych minera³ów w porównaniu do jednostkowej wartoœci eksportowej
Commodity 1985 1990 1995 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Performance index 1985–2006
Annual average growth rate 1985–2006 2000–2006 Mineral, ores and
metals 115.9 114.5 104.7 84.6 91.1 88.1 90.7 117.9 145.1 226.8 195.6 14.6 3.3 Phosphate rock 108.0 83.5 65.4 95.4 98.0 93.7 80.8 80.4 80.4 82.5 76.4 3.15 –1.3 Manganese ore 105.1 192.5 89.7 97.5 109.0 108.3 99.2 91.6 147.2 114.0 108.5 1.8 0.4 Iron ore 135.4 100.3 79.6 92.6 106.7 105.0 104.3 113.0 189.2 219.4 162.1 14.0 2.3 Aluminum 98.5 95.4 95.3 83.6 95.2 88.4 85.9 95.1 102.6 135.4 137.6 5.2 1.5 Copper 110.3 132.4 132.3 82.4 88.9 87.3 91.2 135.6 169.9 202.6 274.4 20.3 4.9 Nickel 80.1 92.5 77.9 66.2 70.3 79.6 103.6 137.3 142.9 229.1 286.0 14.8 5.1 Lead 121.4 161.0 113.6 105.2 107.2 101.2 105.5 167.6 180.1 231.7 190.8 15.0 3.1 Zinc 94.5 121.4 84.7 90.7 80.2 70.1 68.2 79.5 102.6 237.0 250.8 15.5 4.48 Tin 312.8 103.5 93.5 94.5 84.3 75.8 83.6 134.3 113.7 131.8 42.1 4.7 –4.0 Tungsten 212.8 93.2 115.5 84.8 148.7 86.1 92.9 125.8 227.2 301.8 141.8 20.2 1.7 Gold 113.7 123.9 112.6 95.0 99.2 112.8 121.1 125.8 133.5 176.8 155.5 10.0 2.1 Silver 173.3 86.9 84.9 99.8 89.7 94.0 91.3 114.4 123.0 188.9 109.0 11.2 0.4 Crude oil 134.8 70.4 49.0 61.1 88.6 89.8 95.17 114.9 158.4 186.0 137.9 10.9 1.5 Manufactures
export unit value 70.9 110.9 122.3 105.2 97.9 98.5 107.6 116.5 119.4 122.5 172.8 3.4 2.6
International Mining Forum 2004, Sobczyk & Kicki (eds), 2004 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 90 5809 607 6.
Conclusion
The analysis of TOTnbof mining sector(including minerals, ores and metals) vis-B- vis industrial sector in 1985–2006 shows that TOTnbof mining sector vis-B-vis industrial sector witnessed two quite different trends during 1985– 2006. It was highly to the disadvantage of mining sector in the first period (1985–98) but changed quite to the advantage of mining sector in the second period specially in its last three years (2004–06) and rose to 2.27 times as much as industrial sector TOTnbin 2006. This behavioral pattern of TOTnbapplied more or less to all 13 selected mineral commodities:
1. At the beginning of the period (1985), tin, tungsten, silver and lead had the highest TOTnb but nickel, zinc, manganese ore and phosphate rock had the lowest TOTnb. Tin and nickel stood at the top (312.8) and bottom (80.1) respectively and other mineral commodities lied somewhere between these two extremes.
2. TOTnbof all 13 commodities decreased during 1985–98 but TOTnbof many gradually increased and reached a record level in 2006. In this year, copper, tungsten, zinc, lead, nickel and iron ore had the highest TOTnband phosphate rock, manganese ore, tin and aluminum had the lowest TOTnb.
3. In both long and short runs, the highest TOTnbgrowth rates belonged to copper, nickel, lead and zinc but the lowest ones belonged to tin, phosphate rock and manganese ore.
4. The fluctuation and instability of crude petroleum TOTnbstands out in the selected group of mineral commodities: its TOTnbcontinuosly deteriorated from 134.8 in 1985 to under 31.5 in 1998 and subsequently experienced a consistent improvement and reached 114.9, 158.4 and 186 in 2004, 2005 and 2006 respectively (ie 2.7,3.7 and 4.4 times as much as 1998).
REFERENCES
[1] A p p l e y a r d D.R. et al., 2006 – International Economics. New York: Mc Graw.Hill/Irwin.
[2] W e l l m e r F.W., B e r n e r U., 1997 – Factors Useful for Predicting Future Mineral-Commodity Supply Trends. Geol Rundsch 86, 311–321.
[3] S l a d e M.E., 1991 – Market structure, marketing method, and price instability. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106, 1309–1339.
[4] F i g u e r o l a - F e r r e t t i I. et al., 2001 – Price variability and marketing method in Non-Ferrous Metals.
Slade’s Analysis Revisited, Resources Policy, vol. 27, no. 3, p. 169–177 (Available online at www.elsevier.com locate/ resourpol).
[5] R a d e t z k i M., 2006 – The Anatomy of Three Commodity Booms. Resources Policy, vol. 31, no. 1, p. 56–64 (Available online at www.sciencedirect.com).
[6] R o w e J.V.F., 1965 – Primary Commodities in International Trade. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
[7] D a r m s t a d t e r J. et al., 1971 – Energy in the World Economy, Resources for the future. Washington, DC.
[8] A l b a n e s e T., 2006 – Copper running out of resources or harder to mine? Rio Tinto paper presented at Commodity Research Unit’s Fifth World Copper Conference, Santiago, 6 April.
[9] S i n g e r H.W., 1949 – Relative Prices of Exports and Imports of Underdeveloped Countries. New York:
United Nations, Department of Economic Affairs.
[10] P r e b i s c h R., 1950 – The Economic Development of Latin America and Its Principal Problems. Economic Bulletin for Latin America 7, 1–22.
[11] M e y e r J., D u d l e y S. (eds.), 1984 – Pioneers in development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[12] UNCTAD (1978, 1991, 1997 and 2006) Handbook of International Trade and Development Statistics. New York and Geneva, available on http://www.UNCTAD.org.
[13] S p r a o s J., 1980 – The Statistical Debate on the Net Barter Terms of Trade between Primary Commodities and Manufactures. Economic Journal, vol. 90, March.
[14] A r c a l de Larrinoa, 2000 – Trenes in world and agricultural trade. Module 1 of Multilateral trade ne- gotiations on agriculture: A resource manual, FAO policy assistance division, rome, available on http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X7352E/X7352E01.htm
[15] C h e n Yu-Chin, R o g o f f K., 2003 – Commodity Currencies. Journal of International Economics, 60, 133–160.
[16] Z a n i a s G.P., 2005 – Testing of Trends in the TOT between Primary Commodities and Manufactured Goods. Journal of Development Economics 78, p. 49–59.
[17] H o s s e i n i Mir Abdollah and Mir Hadi Sayedi 2002 – A survey of Iran’s foreign commercial Terms of Trade. Iranian Journal of Trade Studies Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 22, p. 22–56. (Published by the Institute for Trade Studies and Research in Tehran, Iran).
[18] H o s s e i n i Mir Abdollah and Manoochehr Shahmoradi, 2002 – A study of the Terms of Trade for selected agricultural commodities in Iran and the world in the recent decades. Agricultural Economics and De- velopment Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 37, p. 133–156. (Published by the Agricultural Planning and Economic Research Institute in Tehran, Iran).
NIESTABILNOŒÆ CEN I WARUNKÓW HANDLOWYCH MINERA£ÓW W OSTATNICH DWÓCH DEKADACH
S ³ o w a k l u c z o w e
Niestabilnoœæ cen, trendy cenowe (d³ugo- i krótkoterminowe), warunki handlu, minera³y, rynek œwiatowy
S t r e s z c z e n i e
Zmiennoœæ i niestabilnoœæ cen dóbr i ich warunków handlowych analizowana w przekroju czasowym jest u¿ywana do oszacowania zysków jakie osi¹gaj¹ kraje z ich wymiany. W ostatnich dwóch dekadach œwiatowe ceny minera³ów doœwiadczy³y dramatycznych zmian i fluktuacji. W artykule jest badane zachowanie cen minera³ów za pomoc¹ indeksów trendów cenowych, niestabilnoœci cen i warunków handlowych.
PRICE INSTABILITY AND TERMS OF TRADE FOR MINERAL COMMODITIES IN THE LAST TWO DECADES
K e y w o r d s
Price instability, price trends (long-run & short-run), Terms of Trade (TOT), mineral commodities, world market
A b s t r a c t
Variation and instability of goods prices and TOT as indices for reviewing their behavior through time are used to evaluate gains from exchange of commodities for countries. In recent two decades, the world prices of mineral commodities have experienced dramatic variation and fluctuation. In this research, the behavior of mineral commodities prices, with the help of indices of price trends, instability of prices and TOT, is investigated. The results show that the greatest degree of instability and fluctuation has related to minerals commodities prices and their TOT, relative to those of industrials products, have improved more then twofold. Although the shares of many minerals commodities, specially oil and nickel, in world trade have increased, but the greatest fluctuation and instability also relate to these commodities.
