Full text of Estimating Price Trends of Industrial Countries' Exports to OPEC : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1969

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

Estimating Price Trends of
Industrial Countries’ Exports to OPEC
U. S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
1977
Bulletin 1969




Estimating Price Trends of
Industrial Countries’ Exports to OPEC
U. S. Department of Labor
Ray Marshall, Secretary
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Julius Shiskin, Commissioner
1977
Bulletin 1969




For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U .S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D .C . 20402
Stock No. 029-001-02057-1




Preface
This bulletin review s problems implicit in estimating price trends o f industrial countries’ exports to OPEC,
describes the approaches used by investigators w ho have attempted to estimate these trends, and discusses the
results obtained by using different price data. Estimates o f industrial countries’ export price trends presented at the
end o f this study are unique in that specification export price data, where available, are utilized in their
construction. These price trends are restricted to merchandise trade and exclude transactions involving services and
military goods. Bibliographic references are indicated in brackets and are listed at the end o f the study.
This study was prepared in the D ivision o f International Prices (Office o f Prices and Living Conditions) o f the
Bureau o f Labor Statistics by Edward E. Murphy and Jorge F. Perez-Lopez. T he authors are grateful to Robert
Gillingham , Irving Kravis, John Layng, John Suomela, and Jack Triplett for helpful com ments and suggestions, to
W illiam Alterman, D avid Malmquist, and Glenn Stadsklev for system and programming assistance, and to Yu Ju
Tien for translation o f Japanese materials.
Material in this publication is in the public domain and may be reproduced w ithout the permission o f the Federal
G overnm ent. Please credit the Bureau o f Labor Statistics and cite the name and number o f the publication.




in




Contents

Page
Part I: The estimation problem ...............................................................................................................................................
Price trends of industrial countries’ exports to the world as proxies for those to OPEC ............................................
Differences between industrial countries’ export price trends and OPEC’s import price trends ...............................
Limited coverage of industrial countries’ export price indexes ....................................................................................
Part II: Export prices and export unit values
Part III: Data

....................................................................................................................

1

2
2
3

.........................................................................................................................................................................

^

Part IV: Industrial countries’ price trends of exports to OPEC: Some alternative calculations...................................

8

Export price trends: Estimates for Germany, Japan, and the United States .............................................................
8
Export price trends: Estimates for all industrial countries .......................................................................................... I 10
Comparison of industrial countries’ merchandise export price trends with oil price trends ..................................... j 10
PartV: Summary

...................................................................................................................................................................

Tables:
1. Coverage in 1973 of indexes of U.S. export unit values, by economic class .........................................................
2. U.S. exports to the world and to OPEC during 1973, by SITC section ..................................................................
3. Export price indexes for Germany and Japan, and specially constructed U.S. price index to the world,
1970-76 .........................................................................................................................................................................
4. Aggregate measures of export price trends for Germany, Japan, and the United States weighted by each
country’s share of exports to OPEC in 1974, selected quarters and period-to-period percent changes,
1970-76 ...................................................................................
5. Percent changes in aggregate measure of export prices for Germany, Japan, and the United States weighted
by trade with OPEC, as measured by export unit value indexes, 1970-76 ..............................................................
6. Percent changes in aggregate measure of export prices for Germany, Japan, and the United States weighted
by trade with OPEC, as measured by export price indexes, 1970-76 ......................................................................
7. Aggregate measures of export price trends for 14 industrial countries weighted by each country’s share of
exports to OPEC in 1974, for the years 1970-76 .....................................................................................................
8. Comparison of percent changes in alternative estimates of industrial countries’ export prices to OPEC and in
estimates of OPEC’s oil price per barrel
................................................................................................................




v

13

5
7
9

9
11
11
12
13




Estimating Price Trends of Industrial Countries’ Exports to OPEC
The trends o f prices paid by members o f the Organi­
zation o f Petroleum Exporting Countries (O P E C )1 for
products purchased from the developed countries has
recently received much attention in the context o f the
possible impact o f imported inflation on the purchasing
pow er o f the oil exporters. Investigators w h o have
attempted to estimate these trends have been faced with
conceptual and data difficulties that have made it
necessary to use restrictive assumptions and proxy
variables that are not satisfactory in important respects.
Part I b elow discusses som e o f the basic problems in
estimating price trends o f industrial countries’ exports
to O PE C and describes the m ethodology follow ed by
investigators w h o have developed their ow n estimates.
T he nature o f export price indexes and export unit
value indexes, the tw o types o f external price data
available for investigators to use for making their
estimates, are described in Part II. Som e conceptual
and practical differences in the construction and uses o f
the tw o measures are also outlined. Export price data
for the industrial countries are described in Part III and
are used in Part IV to estimate industrial countries’
export price trends to O PEC. Estimates obtained using
different types o f price data are com pared w ith each
other and w ith an estimate o f the trend o f prices
received by O PE C per barrel o f oil. Part V summarizes
the findings.

Thus, in the absence o f O PE C import price data,
investigators have relied on export price trends o f the
countries that supply goods and services to O PE C in
order to estimate import price trends for O PEC. This
approach, how ever, encounters such conceptual ques­
tions and data limitations as:
(1) the nature o f the proxy relation betw een a group
o f countries’ export price trends to the w orld and the
same group o f countries’ export price trends to a region
or group o f countries;
(2) the nature o f the proxy relation betw een a group
o f countries’ export price trends to the w orld and
another group o f countries’ import price trends for the
same internationally traded items;
(3) the lack o f price trend data for internationally
traded services and military goods; and
(4) the need to choose betw een tw o fundamentally
different price measures—export price indexes and
export unit value indexes— to estimate export price
trends.
T he first three points are discussed briefly in the
follow ing paragraphs. T he fourth problem, though
recognized in the literature on measurement o f eco ­
nom ic variables, appears not to have been treated in
quantitative work o f investigators w h o have attempted
to estimate import price trends for O PEC. Because the
tw o price proxies are different in both nature and
performance, the fourth problem is discussed in detail
in Part II.

Part I. The estimation problem
T he main obstacle to analyzing the price trends o f
goods and services imported by O PE C from the
industrial countries2 is that import price data are not
available for any o f the O PE C members. A n exception
is Kuwait, for w hich an annual import unit value index
is available w ith about a 2-year lag. In addition,
V enezuela and Iran survey dom estic w holesale selling
prices o f som e imported products in their respective
w holesale price indexes.3 In general, how ever, dom est­
ic prices o f imported goods are not satisfactory proxies
for import prices because the former include, in addi­
tion to the import prices, dom estic value added (un­
loading and wharfing charges; inland transportation;
any further manufacture an d/or handling; mark-ups
and profits) and duties, if applicable. Since all these
costs can vary independently w ith respect to the basic
import prices, dom estic price trends are generally'
considered to be poor proxies for import price trends.




Price trends of industrial countries’ exports to the
world as proxies for those to OPEC
Ideally, industrial countries’ price trends o f exports
to O PE C should be calculated using prices o f tran­
sactions w ith O PE C w eighted by the value o f ship­
ments to OPEC. H ow ever, the industrial countries’
1In mid-1976, the members o f the Organization o f Petroleum
Exporting Countries, which was created in 1960, were Algeria,
Ecuador, Gabon, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.
2The “industrial” countries, as used throughout this paper, follow
the designation o f the International Monetary Fund. The countries
are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, the Federal Repub­
lic o f Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switz­
erland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. A ll are members
o f the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
3For a description o f the series see [27]. The series are published in

[ 11].

1

merchandise export price measures currently available
are constructed to represent price trends o f exports to
the world. Thus, the sample o f products that enters into
the calculation o f either export price indexes or export
unit value indexes refers to transactions w ith all partner
countries, and not specifically w ith O PE C members.
Further, the aggregation w eights used to calculate the
indexes refer to the distribution o f industrial countries’
exports to the world.
T he use o f trends o f industrial countries’ published
export prices to the w orld to represent their export
price trends to O PE C im plicitly assumes:
(1) that price trends for industrial countries’ mer­
chandise exports to O PE C and to the w orld are the
same and
(2) that the com m odity com position o f exports from
the industrial countries to the w orld and to O PE C are
the same.
N o data are available to test the first assumption, i.e.,
w hether or not som e industrial countries practice price
discrimination against or in favor o f O PE C members.
On the second assumption, there is som e evidence
indicating that the distribution o f U.S. exports to the
w orld and to O PE C are som ew hat different at the
aggregate product class level. It has not been feasible
here to analyze the distribution o f other industrial
countries’ exports to the w orld and to O PE C because
o f lack o f resources. In any case, even if it w ere
possible to determine the extent o f the disparities in the
tw o distributions, their impact on the published indexes
could not be calculated since indexes using each o f the
countries’ distribution o f exports to the w orld and to
O PE C as w eights are not available.

pays applicable export taxes, duties, and expenses in
obtaining the proper importation documents. Further
charges may occur if goods are transshipped or if title
passes through an intermediary. T hese various tran­
sactions and shipping costs can be expected to result in
a product’s price being higher at the country o f
importation than at the port or land border o f the
country o f exportation.
If trends in freight, insurance, and other service
charges are different from trends in product prices,
price trends o f exports w ill be different from the price
trends o f imports. For example, if freight and insurance
charges rise more rapidly than product prices, then
import prices w ill rise more rapidly than the export
prices for the same goods; if freight and insurance
charges rise less rapidly than product prices, then the
reverse w ill be true.
There is som e indication that freight and other costs
associated w ith the m ovem ent o f products to some
O PE C countries increased significantly immediately
after 1973, partly as a result o f congestion o f port
facilities in some O PE C countries brought about by the
rapid grow th in imports. For example, O PE C merchan­
dise imports f.o.b. from all countries during 1972 and
1973 amounted to $14.7 and $21.4 billion, respectively.
Imports increased to $39.0 billion in 1974 and $61.8
billion during 1975.4 It was reported [36, p. 8] that this
rapid rise in the volum e o f O PEC imports led to
instances in 1974 and 1975 where ships waited up to 60
days to unload at O PE C ports and that demurrage
charges o f $4,000 per day per ship, spoilage, and other
losses have not been uncommon [18]. Press reports [6]
suggest that in som e cases shippers resorted to expen­
sive air transport in order to obtain timely deliveries.
A s such conditions becom e the rule, rather than the
exception (and no attempt has been made here to
determine actual conditions), then an index o f O PEC
import prices might rise faster than an index o f export
prices o f goods to OPEC. On the other hand, as such
conditions are moderated and these additional charges
are reduced, changes in export prices and O PEC
import prices might tend to converge.

Differences between industrial countries’ export
price trends and OPEC’s import price trends
U sing industrial countries’ merchandise export prices
to estimate O PE C import prices im plicitly assumes that
trends in these tw o measures are identical. T ypically,
h ow ever, there are differences betw een the price o f a
product paid to the exporter and the price for that same
product paid by the importer as it arrives at the country
o f destination. In general, these price differences arise
because in addition to the products’ purchase price, the
import price takes into consideration other charges
involved in delivering the product to the importing
country. In most cases, the buyer bears the costs
associated w ith the m ovem ent o f the goods from the
exporting country to the importing country such as
freight charges, insurance, demurrage, warehousing
charges at the port, accessorial services (for example,
protecting goods from damage from heat, cold or
moisture) and heavy lift charges, if any, for loading the
good s on board vessel. In addition, the buyer usually




Limited coverage of industrial countries’ export
price indexes
A ll o f the industrial countries currently publish some
sort o f export price data for merchandise sales to the
world. A t the present time, how ever, none o f these
countries publishes a price series for exports o f services.
Since services made up about one-third o f total O PEC
Estim ates in [11, p. 44]. Note that elsewhere in this same
publication ([11, p. 37]), OPEC imports valued c.i.f. anomalously are
shown to be less than its merchandise imports valued f.o.b.

2

A lso, they are reprinted in publications o f international
organizations.5
Since export price indexes and export unit value
indexes are based on a sample o f product groups or
transactions, they are both subject to sampling errors.
Export price indexes, by design, are constructed using
reports on a sample o f companies, products, and
transactions.6 Therefore, sampling errors may occur at
each o f the three levels o f sampling. Export unit value
indexes, although in theory are calculated using data
covering all transactions, in practice use a judgmental
sample since som e transactions w ith erratic unit value
behavior are excluded, as are groups for w hich quantity
data are not available.7
(The quantity definition
problem does not arise in the construction o f export
price indexes.) A nother factor that introduces sampling
error is that, at least for the United States, export unit
value indexes do not cover exports to every country. In
addition to being affected by sampling errors, both
export price indexes and export unit value indexes are
affected by nonsampling errors (such as measurement
errors).
E vidence o f problems associated w ith the use o f unit
values as measures o f price change appears in the
recent literature on econom ic measurement. In virtual­
ly all cases, investigators have concluded that unit
value indexes, as they currently exist, are poor mea­
sures o f price change because they are affected by
changes arising from the products them selves or from
the circumstances surrounding the transactions. T hey
have been found to be influenced by changes during
and betw een periods in the com position o f products in
each class, by both short-term and secular changes in
quality, by changes in shipment values due to changes
in the amount o f “service” provided to the buyer by the
seller, by contract-shipment lags, and by changes in the
circumstances o f transactions (credit terms, shipping
terms, packing, etc.) as w ell as by pure price changes.
Export price indexes, how ever, are designed in such a
w ay that adjustments can be made for these non-price
changes so that they do not becom e erroneously
incorporated into the indexes as price changes. W hile
conceptually, at least, export price indexes can be
considered to be measures o f pure price change,
changes in export unit value indexes reflect, in addition

imports in 1975 [11, pp. 44-50], the lack o f any price
data in this area poses a serious problem for w hich
there is no ready solution.
Another related problem is that the export price data
currently available generally refer directly to nonmili­
tary merchandise trade only. Price trends o f military
merchandise exports are not usually covered. In sum,
the available export price data from the industrial
countries are limited in that they refer to exports o f
nonmilitary merchandise, w ith sales o f services not
explicitly within the scope o f the indexes.

Part II. Export prices and export unit values
Export unit value indexes have been used extensive­
ly, though often uncritically, as approximations to
export price trends in most international trade studies.
H ow ever, there are significant differences betw een the
nature and performance o f these data and those o f
export price indexes. This section describes the tw o
measures and discusses som e o f the differences and
limitations o f each.
Export price indexes, constructed according to the
specification approach, measure the export price trends
o f a sample o f items or products chosen to represent the
universe o f a country’s exports. T he chosen items are
fully described by their physical and performance
characteristics (or specifications) as w ell as the condi­
tions o f sale (or purchase) such as discounts, size o f
transaction, credit terms, class o f buyer or seller, and so
forth. Export prices are then collected periodically for
items with the same specifications and conditions o f
sale. W henever changes occur in the specifications
(such as quality changes) or the terms o f transaction,
prices are adjusted accordingly. Thus, specification
export price indexes are designed to gauge pure price
changes in a sample o f products over time.
Export unit values for classes o f products are calcula­
ted from customs docum ents by dividing the accum ula­
ted value o f shipments in each class during a given
period (generally a month) by the respective accum ula­
ted quantities. Period-to-period unit value relatives for
each class then may be com bined through any o f a
variety o f w eighting procedures to form indexes for
larger aggregates o f products. A t the limit, w hen
categories are sufficiently detailed, specification prices
and unit values are the same. H ow ever, in practice this
limit is seldom, if ever, reached because a product
classification system w ith the level o f detail that w ould
be necessary to accom plish this w ould be too cumber­
some for exporters to use. Export unit value indexes,
calculated follow ing the m ethods described above, are
available for most o f the major countries o f the w orld
and are published in national statistical publications.




5See, [11] world tables and country tables.
6Sampling and pricing procedures employed in the preparation of
export price indexes are similar to those followed in domestic
industrial price indexes. For a description o f these procedures used in
constructing export price indexes in West Germany see [23]; for
Japanese methodology see [3]. Detailed specifications o f products
included in the Japanese indexes are given (in Japanese) in [2]. For
the United States, [28] describes the methodology o f the export price
indexes and discusses both the judgmental and probability sampling
procedures.
7This is illustrated by information shown in table 1 below.

3

enter into an a verage v alu e index w ith o u t b ein g
filtered or co rrected (p. 10).
In spite o f the findings cited ab ove, G o rd o n [7] states
that unit valu es are superior to sp ecification p rices as
applied in th e capital g o o d s portion o f the U .S .
W h o lesa le P rice Index (W P I). T h e reason for this, he
argues, is that th o u g h the W P I seeks to obtain tran­
saction prices, list p rices that d o n ot sh o w actual
d iscou n ts are obtained for som e p rod ucts and, there­
fore, W P I series for th ese p rod ucts tend to sh o w less
p rice ch a n g e than actu ally occurs. G o rd o n b eliev es
th ese d iscou nts are reflected in unit v a lu es.8 H o w e v e r ,
P opk in and G illin gham [22, p. 307] p oint ou t that
G o r d o n ’s analysis rests on the assum ption o f the
v a lid ity o f unit v alu e in dexes as m easures o f transaction
prices, a lth ou gh there is little justification g iv en by
G o rd o n to support its a ccep tan ce. In fact, exam ination
b y P opkin and G illin gham o f the data used b y G o rd o n
in dicates sev ere p rod uct m ix problem s w h ich under­
m ine G o r d o n ’s co n clu sio n that the unit valu es are
superior m easures o f transaction p rices.9 In apparent
recognition o f this criticism, Gordon in a later paper
[8] co n clu d es that “ th e im portant fun ction served b y
unit v alu e data is to pinpoint the areas w h ere further
research on transaction p ricing is lik ely to h a v e a h igh
b en efit-co st ratio.” T h is seem s to im ply a ccep ta n ce o f
th e recom m en dation o f the S u b com m ittee on P rices
[10, p. 257] that price m easures rather than unit valu es
b e used unless there is p o sitiv e ev id e n c e that p rice
m easures are unusuable.
T h e studies cited a b o v e h a v e dealt either w ith
co n cep tu a l and m easurem ent differen ces b etw een
prices and unit valu es or w ith disparities in the
b eh a v io r o f price and unit valu e indexes for p rod uct
ca teg o ries at different le v e ls o f aggregation. N o tw ith ­
standing th ese d ifferen ces and their effects on p rice and
unit v alu e in dexes at d isaggregated lev els, there are at
least tw o additional factors that m ay be partially
resp onsible for disparities in the b eh avior o f published
a g g reg a te exp ort p rice indexes and exp ort unit v alu e
in dexes as th ey cu rren tly exist.
(1) W h ere a co u n try publishes b oth an exp ort p rice
index and an exp ort unit valu e index th e sam ple o f
p rod ucts in clu d ed in th e tw o m easures is lik ely to be
different. S in ce d etailed inform ation on the p rod uct
sam ple used b y ea ch o f the cou n tries in the preparation
o f the tw o external p rice m easures is n ot available, it
has n ot b een p ossib le either to determ ine the extent to

to pure p rice ch an ges, ch an ges in any, all, or a num ber
o f factors ou tlined ab ove. A b rief sum m ary o f the
findings o f som e o f th ese studies fo llo w s. R eaders
already familiar w ith this literature m ay w ish to skip to
Part III.
A fter com p arin g p rice and unit valu e data in the
d ev elo p m en t o f deflators, the S u b com m ittee on P rices
o f th e In teragen cy C om m ittee on M easurem ent o f R eal
O utput [10] recom m en ded m ore exten sive use o f sp ecif­
ica tion p rice data, prim arily b ecau se unit valu e m ea­
sures ten ded to be affected b y ch an ges in p rod uct m ix.
A n em pirical stud y o f unit valu es w as undertaken b y
th e Bureau o f L abor S tatistics (B L S ) at th e request o f
th e S ub com m ittee. U sin g 25 item s at d isaggregated
le v e ls the stud y sh o w s (p. 256) a “persistent ten d en cy
o f unit values. . .to reflect shifts in p rod uct m ix, usually
to th e lo w e r end o f the quality- or p rice lin e.” A n o th er
stu d y b y th e F ed eral R eserv e B oard for th e S u b co m ­
m ittee su ggests that (p. 256) “any gains in p recision
w h ic h m ay arise b ecau se unit valu es reflect a co m p re­
h en siv e u niverse representing actual transaction prices
are o ffset b y problem s o f p rod uct and transaction m ix.”
S everal studies h a v e in vestigated th e perform an ce o f
p rice in dexes and exp ort unit valu e indexes either b y
con stru ctin g th e tw o typ es o f in dexes for th e sam e
ca teg o ries or b y com p arin g existing m easures. K ravis
and L ip sey [14] com p ared sp ecification exp ort price
in dexes w ith exp ort unit valu e in dexes for the U n ited
States con stru cted using sim ilar w eig h tin g sch em es for
several exp ort categories in S IT C 7 and the m etals
p ortion o f S IT C 6. B ased on a com p arison o f trends o f
th e six tw o -d ig it groups that en com p assed th e prod ucts
th e y studied for the period 1953-64, th ey co n clu d e (p.
189) that th e unit valu es w er e “erratically related to the
international prices, rising m uch faster in 1953-1957,
d eclin in g sharply in som e cases in later years, and rising
rapidly at other tim es relative to th e international
p rices.” Sim ilar results w ere obtained b y M urphy [15]
in a stud y that com p ared U .S . exp ort p rice in dexes and
exp ort unit valu e in dexes for sev en four-digit exp ort
ca teg o ries and b y H olm es [9] for a com p arison o f the
C anadian Industrial S ellin g P rice In dexes and unit
v a lu e in dexes for 3,237 co m m o d ity categories. T h e
sim ilarity o f th e results o f all three studies con d u cted at
d ifferen t le v els o f aggregation rein forces th e p osition
that trends in unit valu es are n ot g o o d estim ators o f
p rice trends. In sum, as W . R ostin [23] o f th e F ed eral
Statistical O ffice states, in referen ce to th e foreign trade
p rice statistics o f the F ed eral R ep u b lic o f G erm any,
. . .the in dices o f foreign trade p rices and the
resp ectiv e unit valu e indices. . .take a different
course; at tim es, th ey ev e n d iffer v er y s t r o n g ly .. .
T h is sh ould n ot c o m e as a surprise. . . .W hile in
th e case o f a gen u ine p rice index, all ch a n g es
w h ich are n ot pure price m ovem en ts are elim ina­
ted, ch an ges in addition to pure p rice m ovem en ts




8For further background on the general problem of list prices, see
[25]. Their principal recommendation for dealing with this problem is
that greater reliance be placed on collecting prices from buyers. That
solution, one of several that could be proposed, is not practical in the
case of export price indexes.
9See also [26, p. 63 and note 33].
4

w h ic h differen ces in p rod uct sam ples affect the compar­
isons or to make any adjustm ents to elim inate this
sou rce o f differences.
(2) In m ost cases, individual cou n try exp ort unit
v a lu e in dexes are calcu lated b y the F ish er form ula,
w h ile exp ort p rice in dexes g en erally are con stru cted
u sing the L aspeyres form ula. A gain , it has n ot been
feasible to g au ge the effec t o f this d ifferen ce in the
ag g regation form ula on th e b eh avior o f the aggregate
indexes.

unstable w ith in ea ch o f the countries. T h e relatively
large am ount o f variation in unit v alu e ch a n g es that
can n ot be explained b y ch a n g es in exp ort p rice indexes,
to g eth er w ith relations that are different b etw een and
unstable w ith in th e tw o cou n tries, m ake it quite risky to
infer ch a n g es in o n e index from ch a n g es in the other.
N o r can exp ort price b eh avior in other cou n tries be
reasonably ex p ected to con fo rm to the unit valu e
relations o f either G erm any or Japan.
M o reo v er, an interesting lo g ic a l question arises here.
In order to estim ate a relation b etw e en exp ort p rice
in dexes and unit v alu e indexes for a g iv e n cou n try, b oth
series m ust be available. H o w e v e r , if b oth are available,
unless there is ev id e n c e to the contrary, analysts o u g h t
to prefer to use the exp ort p rice series rather than the
unit v alu e series w h ich is a p roxy for the p rice series.
In addition to the inadequacies o f unit valu es as
m easures o f p rice ch a n g e d iscussed a b ove, another, less
w id e ly reco g n ized problem tends to plague exp ort unit
v a lu e indexes, nam ely, that th e unit valu es o f m any
exp orted co m m o d ities are n ot in clu d ed in th e published
unit v alu e indexes. F o r the U n ited States, for exam ple,
th e official exp ort unit valu e in dexes for 1973 w ere
calcu la ted from unit valu es for ca teg o ries acco u n tin g
for 42.2 p ercen t o f th e total v alu e o f U .S . exports; the
rem aining 57.8 p ercen t w a s c o v e re d b y im putation.
(S e e table 1.) C ategories are n ot in clu d ed in the U .S .
unit va lu e indexes, and h en ce are co v e re d b y im put­
ation, for eith er o f th e fo llo w in g reasons [32, p. 31]:
(1) S in ce exp ort unit valu es are d erived b y d iv id in g
an exp ort dollar va lu e b y a com parable quantity figure
(pounds, tons, bushels, num ber o f units, etc.), th ey

S o m e in vestigators argue that the m ajor d ifferen ce
b etw e en p rice and unit valu e indexes, esp ecially at
a g g regate le v els, is o n e o f lags, i.e., that ch an g es in
p rices sh o w up at a later date as ch an ges in unit values;
h en ce, the argum ent runs, unit valu e ch an ges reflect
p rice ch an ges o f earlier periods. W h ile there is a
m easure o f truth in this lin e o f reasoning, sev ere
problem s rem ain if p rice ch an ges are to be inferred
from unit valu e ch an ges as illustrated b y the fo llo w in g .
S in ce m on th ly aggregate exp ort p rice in dexes as w e ll
as export unit valu e in dexes are available o n ly for
Germany and Japan, lagged relationships between the
tw o p rice m easures can be estim ated o n ly for th ese tw o
countries. F o r th e period 1970 to 1975, the lo g s o f
m o n th ly exp ort price ch an ges for Japan and G erm any
distributed o v er p eriods o f up to 6 m onths w er e able to
explain 55 and 70 percent, resp ectiv ely , o f th e ob served
variation in the lo g o f the ch an ge in their exp ort unit
valu es for the current m onth. In terestingly, o v er the
period exam ined, the relation b etw e en ch an ges in unit
valu es and ch an ges in la g g ed exp ort p rices is statistical­
ly d ifferent b etw e en the tw o cou n tries and statistically

Table 1. Coverage in 1973 of indexes of U.S. export unit values, by economic class
(in millions of dollars)
All commodities
Economic class

Percent
of total

Total
value

Percent
of class

Covered commodities

Noncovered commodities

Value

Percent
of class

Value

Percent
of class

U.S. domestic exports, total1 ..........................................

100.0

69,707.2

100.0

29,379.1

42.2

40,328.1

57.8

Crude foods ............................................................................
Manufactured foods ...............................................................
Crude materials.......................................................................
Semimanufactures...................................................................
Finished manufactures ..........................................................

12.6
5.1
11.2
13.3
57.8

8,804.0
3,523.6
7,826.4
9,249.4
40,303.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

7,852.1
2,079.0
6,066.1
3,706.5
9,675.4

89.2
59.0
77.5
40.1
24.0

951.9
1,446.6
1,760.3
5,542.9
30,628.4

10.8
41.0
22.5
59.9
76.0

1 Excludes military grant-aid.




SOURCE: Foreign Trade Division, Bureau of the Census. See Index Numbers
of U.S. Exports and Imports. 1919 - 1971 (Bureau of the Census, 1972).

5

can n ot be calcu lated for th ose classes w h ere quantity
data are n ot available, e.g ., com puters;
(2) E v e n w h ere quantity data are available, ca te g o ­
ries con sistin g o f a m ixture o f unlike item s are often
ex clu d ed .

o f the 14 cou n tries and a sp ecia lly co n stru cted exp ort
p rice index for th e U n ited States; and
(3)
W eig h ts for a g g reg a tin g th ese in dexes across
countries.
C urrently, all 14 industrial cou n tries publish a g g re­
g a te exp ort unit va lu e in dexes for all m erchandise
exp orts to th e w o rld . A d d itio n a lly , th e F ed eral R ep ub ­
lic o f G erm an y [24] and Japan [1] publish b o th exp ort
p rice in dexes for d isaggregated p rod uct ca teg o ries and
an a g g reg a te m easure for their m erchandise ex p o rts.10
T h e N eth erlan d s and th e U n ited States cu rren tly
publish exp ort p rice in d exes for se lected exp ort ca te g o ­
ries but d o n o t p ro d u ce an ag g reg a te series b ecau se
co v e r a g e o f all exp orts o n a sam ple basis is n ot y et
co m p lete. S in ce o n ly th e a g g reg a te exp ort p rice series
w er e used in this analysis, ex cep t for th e U n ited States,
data for th e N eth erlan d s w er e n ot in clu d ed . E xp ort
p rice in dexes for C anada and S w ed en , w h ic h are based
o n a com b ination o f exp ort p rices and exp ort unit
valu es, w er e n o t in clu d ed either.
F o r the U n ited States, d isaggregated exp ort p rice
in d ex es are cu rren tly availab le [29] for a sign ifican t
num ber o f ca teg o ries o f exports; th ese in d exes h a v e
b een published b y th e B L S for th e third m on th o f ea ch
quarter sin ce M arch 1974, c h ie fly for th e finished
m anufactured g o o d s in S IT C 7, and se lec te d ca teg o ries
in S IT C 5, 6, and 8. In addition, exp ort p rice data for
w h ea t, sorghum , c o m , and soyb ean s are published
m o n th ly b y th e U .S . D ep artm en t o f A g ricu ltu re (U S D A ) in [35].

O rdinarily, im putation is a p roced u re used in scien tif­
ic sam pling. H o w e v e r , in this in stance it is clear that the
p rop ortion o f p rod ucts that m ust b e c o v e re d b y
im putation in th e unit v alu e in dexes is the con seq u en ce
o f th e peculiar nature o f unit valu es th em selves, and is
n o t a result o f a scien tific and replicab le sam pling
procedu re. H en ce, there are u n k n ow n biases in the
p rod u ct sam ple co v e re d b y th e unit valu e indexes.
In this regard, it is in teresting to n ote that there is a
stro n g in verse relation, b y m ajor ec o n o m ic class,
b etw e en th e relative im portan ce o f each class o f
exp orts in th e total valu e o f U .S . exp orts and the share
o f the valu e o f exp orts for w h ic h unit valu es are
ca lcu lated in that class. F o r exam ple, it can b e seen in
table 1 that exp ort unit valu es w er e calcu lated for
ca teg o ries corresp on d in g to 89.2 p ercen t o f the va lu e o f
exp orts o f crud e fo o d s w h ile crud e fo o d s a ccou n ted for
12.6 p ercen t o f th e valu e o f U .S . exports. Y et, exp ort
unit valu es w er e calcu lated for categories co v e rin g
o n ly 24.0 p ercen t o f th e valu e o f finished m anufactures,
th o u g h this ca teg o ry acco u n ted for 57.8 p ercen t o f the
v a lu e o f U .S . exports. G iv e n this in verse relationship, a
question exists as to w h eth er or n ot th e unit valu e index
fo r U .S . exp orts to th e w o rld ad eq uately reflects the
m o v em en t o f unit valu es o f all U .S . exports, a question
w h ic h is quite apart from th e problem o f w h eth er or
n ot th e index o f unit valu es represents th e m o v em en t o f
actual prices.
A s p reviou sly n oted, p rice in dexes are based on a
sam ple o f transactions for a sam ple o f products. T hus, it
is clear that m ost p rod ucts are n ot in clu d ed d irectly in
p rice indexes. Instead, their p rice m ovem en ts are
c o v e r e d b y im putation from the p rice m ovem en ts o f
th e sam pled products. F o r unit valu e indexes, w h eth er
o r n ot a class o f p rod ucts is in clu d ed in an index
appears to d ep en d on th e classification system . E v e n
w h e n a class o f p rod ucts is in clu d ed , it is n ot p ossib le to
adjust for ch an ges in th e com p o sitio n and q uality o f
p rod u cts in each class or for ch an ges in th e term s o f
transactions.

A n estim ated in dex o f U .S . exp ort p rices to the
w o rld w a s co n stru cted u sing th e exp ort p rice data from
B L S and U S D A , to g eth er w ith published d o m estic
U .S . w h o lesa le p rice series for m illed rice and beans
[30]. (N o te that a lth o u g h official p rice in dexes h a v e
b een used h ere to co n stru ct an agg reg a te for the U n ited
States, th e agg reg a te itse lf is n o t an official p rice in dex.)
T h e exp ort p rice series that w ere used co v e re d , on a
sam ple basis, ca teg o ries that a cco u n ted for 65.4 p ercen t
and 73.7 p ercen t o f U n ited S tates exp orts to the w o rld
and to O P E C , resp ectiv ely , in 1973 (S e e table 2.) T h ese
figures in clu d e th e sam pled valu es and also th e im puted
va lu es o f U .S . exp orts in ca teg o ries in S IT C sectio n s 7
and 0 w h e re th e internal c o v e r a g e w a s v e r y high. U .S .
exp ort p rice trends for th e ca teg o ries o f p rod ucts
w h ic h w er e n ot c o v e r e d b y th ese p rice series w er e
approxim ated b y p rice in dex series for th e appropriate
ca teg o ries o f the U .S . W P I (published m o n th ly [30]),
after th e y w er e arranged a cco rd in g to th e system used
for cla ssify in g and reco rd in g U .S . exp orts [33].11 T hus,

Part III. Data
T h e basic data used h ere to estim ate alternative
m easures o f industrial cou n tries’ exp ort p rice trends to
O P E C are all taken from p u b licly available sources.
T h e data include:
(1) A g g r e g a te exp ort unit valu e in dexes to the w o rld
for each o f th e 14 industrial countries;
(2) A g g r e g a te exp ort p rice in dexes to th e w o rld for 2




10Export price indexes are also published by other countries such as
Australia, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia. See [27].
nThe risks of using domestic price trends as proxies for export
price trends are well known and are described in detail in [12] and
[13]. See also [15].
6

T a b le 2.

U . S . e x p o r t s to t h e w o r ld 1 a n d to O P E C 2 d u r in g 1 9 7 3 , b y S I T C s e c t io n
OPEC covered by U .S. export prices to the w orld3

Description
To world

Total

...................................................................

$70,241,414,891

Percent

T o OPEC

Percent

T o world

Percent

T o OPEC

Percent

100.00

$ 3,334,973,423

100.00

(4 )

(4 )

.....................................................

68,541,162,293

97.58

3,284,705,624

98.49

$45,912,926,561

65.36

$ 2,459,117,583

7 3 .7 4

Food and live a n im a ls...................................................

11,930,201,785

16.98

589,766,770

17.68

11,930,201,785

16.98

589,766,770

17.68

Total, SITC 0-8
0

Value o f U.S. exports to the w orld and to

U.S. exports

S IT C
section

1

Beverages and tobacco ................................................

1,008,149,385

1.44

49,329,433

1.48

2

Crude materials, inedible, excluding fuels

8,380,210,878

11.93

122,532,361

3.67

3

Mineral fuels, lubricants, and related
materials ....................................................................

4

Oils and fats, animal and vegetable

5

Chemicals

6

............

(4 )

(4 )

0

0
2,762,207,817

0
8,237,940

3.93

0
0.25

1,670,507,236

2.38

19,137,834

0.57

0

0

0

0

.......................

683,948,562

0.97

53,065,094

1.59

0

0

0

0

...................................................................

5,749,508,582

8.19

243,446,386

7.30

1,155,853,604

1.65

34,369,833

1.03

Manufactured goods classified chiefly
by material ..............................................................

7,161,550,701

10.19

370,463,370

11.11

1,589,874,461

2.26

95,205,364

2.85

27,864,580,137

39.67

1,698,676,502

50.94

27,864,580,137

39.67

1,698,676,502

50.94

4,092,505,027

5.83

138,287,874

4.15

610,208,757

0.87

32,861,174

0.99

1,700,252,598

2.42

50,267,799

1.51

7

Machinery and transport equipment

8

Miscellaneous manufactured articles, nec

9

Commodities and transactions not
classified according to kind.
.........................

.....................
............

-

-

-

-

Value of U.S. exports to the w orld and to
OPEC fo r w hich WPI data were used

Total

.....................................................................

Total, SITC 0-8
0

1
2
3
4

(4 )

.........................................................

Food and live animals

..................................................
................................................

$ 22,628,235,732
0

(4 )

(4 )
31.22
0

$

825,588,041
0

(4 )

24.75
0

1

Beverages and tobacco

1,008,149,385

1.44

49,329,433

1.48

2

Crude materials, inedible, excluding fuels

...................

5,618,003,061

8.00

114,294,421

3.42

3

Mineral fuels, lubricants, and related
materials .........................................................................

4

Oils and fats, animal and vegetable

5

Chemicals

6

1,670,507,236

2.38

19,137,834

0.57

............................

683,948,562

0.97

53,065,094

1.59

.........................................................................

4,593,654,978

6.54

209,076,553

6.27

Manufactured goods classified chiefly
by material .....................................................................

5,571,676,240

7.93

275,258,006

8.25

7

Machinery and transport equipment

8

Miscellaneous manufactured articles, n e c .....................

9

Commodities and transactions not
classified according to kind .........................................

............................

U.S. exports to the w orld include both m ilitary and nonm ilitary sales.
U.S. exports to OPEC refer only to nonm ilitary sales.
On a sample basis.
Not applicable since SITC has been excluded.




0
3,482,296,270

-

0
4.96

-

0
105,426,700

-

0
3.16

-

SOURCE: Calculated from data in U.S. Exports - Schedule B Com m odity by Country,
Report FT - 410, December 1973 (Bureau of the Census, 1974).

7

a p rice index w h ich is a com p osite o f U .S . exp ort prices
to the w o rld and d om estic U .S . industrial p rices w as
calcu lated using as w eig h ts the valu e o f U .S . exports to
all destinations in d etailed ca tegories in 1973. T h is
gen eral aggregation p rocedu re, d escrib ed in detail in
[16], yield s a standard L asp eyres index o f prices. It
should be noted, however, that there are tw o impor­
tant differen ces b etw e en the U .S . exp ort price index to
O P E C estim ated in [16] and th e index o f U .S . exp ort
prices to the w orld estim ated here.
(1) T h e form er stud y used b oth published and
unpublished exp ort p rice data from the B L S , w h ile
h ere o n ly published exp ort price data h a v e b een
in clu d ed so that others m ay rep rod u ce the results.
(2) T h e estim ate prepared h ere uses as w eig h ts the
v a lu e o f U .S . exports to th e w o rld in d etailed c a te g o ­
ries, w h ile in the earlier stud y U .S . exp orts to O P E C
w er e used as valu e w eigh ts.
E x p ort unit valu e in dexes for the industrial countries,
exp ort p rice indexes for G erm any and Japan, and the
sp ecial exp ort p rice m easure for th e U nited S tates w er e
com b in ed in to aggregate m easures (sh o w n in tables 3
and 4) using w eig h ts corresp on d in g to each o f the
industrial cou n tries’ shares in the total dollar valu e o f
exp orts to O P E C in 1974 calcu lated from [19]. T rade
flo w s from the industrial cou n tries to tw o O P E C
m em bers, Qatar and G abon, w er e n ot in clu d ed b ecau se
o f lack o f data.

exp ressed in d ollar term s are in fluenced b y ch a n g es in
th e ex ch a n g e rates o f ea ch o f th e industrial co u n tries’
curren cies vis-a-vis th e dollar, as w e ll as b y each
co u n try ’s in flation rate as stated in its national curren­
cy. Thus, during times when the dollar has a general
ten d en cy to d ep reciate against other currencies,
ch a n g es in exp ort p rices in dollar term s w ill ex ceed
p rice ch a n g es expressed in national currencies. T h is
appears to h a v e b een the case from the b egin ning o f
1973 through th e seco n d quarter o f 1975. H o w e v e r , as
th e d ollar appreciates in relation to oth er industrial
co u n tries’ cu rrencies, ch a n g es in exp ort p rices in dollar
term s w ill b e sm aller than if th ey w er e m easured in
national currencies. T h is latter situation appears to
h a v e prevailed from 1975 III to 1976 II so that, d esp ite
substantial d o m estic inflation in so m e industrial co u n t­
ries during this period, th e com m en surate d eclin e o f
their ex ch a n g e rates m eant that the am ount o f dollars
n ecessary to purchase a set o f g o o d s in th o se cou n tries
did n ot ch a n g e v er y m uch.

Export price trends: Estimates for Germany,
Japan, and the United States
T w o agg reg a te m easures o f exp ort p rice ch a n g es for
G erm any, Japan, and th e U n ited S tates w er e ca lcu la ­
ted , o n e based on exp ort p rices and th e oth er o n e on
exp ort unit valu es, w eig h ted b y ea ch co u n try ’s share o f
exp orts to O P E C in 1974.12 T h e results are sum m arized
in table 4.
C om parisons o f th e tw o a ggregate in dexes sh o w
sign ifican t d ifferen ces in their b eh a v io r.13 F ro m 1970 II
to 1973 IV , period-to-p eriod ch a n g es in th e agg reg a te
exp o rt price index ex c ee d e d ch a n g es in th e exp ort unit
v a lu e in dex in four ou t o f fiv e instances. B egin n in g w ith
1974 I and exten d in g through 1975 IV , the op p o site
pattern em erged: the quarter-to-quarter ch a n g es in the
exp ort p rice index w er e substantially lo w e r than
ch a n g es in the exp ort unit v alu e index in ev e ry
instance. D u rin g 1976, h o w e v er , th e exp ort p rice index
sh o w e d a m uch larger increase than the unit valu e
in dex during the first quarter, w h ile the exp ort p rice
in dex sh o w e d sm aller increases than the exp ort unit

Part IV. Industrial countries' price trends of
exports to OPEC: Some alternative calculations
T h e data described a b o v e on exp ort unit valu e
in dexes, exp ort p rice indexes, and w eig h ts are used in
this section to obtain tw o estim ates o f the b eh avior o f
exp ort p rices from the industrial cou n tries to O P E C .
B o th exp ort unit valu e and p rice in dexes for the
industrial cou n tries are used to prepare estim ates o f
their exp ort prices to O P E C . T h e m eth o d o lo g y fo llo w ­
ed , w h ich is to com b ine individual cou n try ’s a ggreg a te
exp ort p rice trends into an aggregate m easure for all
industrial countries, adheres c lo se ly to that in other
studies in order to facilitate com p arison am on g the
results. E stim ates o f trends o f p rices receiv ed b y O P E C
per barrel o f oil are also com p ared w ith th e different
extim ates o f industrial cou n tries’ exp ort price trends
prepared here.
T h e estim ates o f industrial cou n tries’ exp ort p rice
trends to O P E C carried ou t h ere are prim arily in term s
o f dollars sin ce oil is sold in w o rld m arkets for dollars
and, therefore, the receip ts o f th e oil exp ortin g co u n t­
ries are in dollars. (Ind exes in national curren cies are
also sh o w n in the tables, for inform ation p urposes
o n ly .) It sh ould be n oted that ch an ges in eith er exp ort
p rices or exp ort unit valu es o f the industrial cou n tries




12In 1974, Germany, Japan, and the United States accounted for
59.4 percent of the industrial countries’ exports of nonmilitary goods
to OPEC. For these three countries alone, the export shares for 1974
were: Germany, 25.4 percent; Japan, 32.9 percent; and the United
States, 41.7 percent. See [19].
13Data are presented here that use a wide choice of base periods for
comparisons such as the one given. The indexes calculated in this
paper for the period 1970-73 show changes between the second
quarters of successive years because only second-quarter data are
available for the United States for years prior to 1974. Index values
for the United States have been interpolated for 1973 III and 1973 IV
as described in footnote 3 of table 3.
8

T a b le 3. E x p o rt p rice in d e x e s fo r G e rm a n y and J a p a n , and s p e c ia lly c o n s tru c te d U .S . p rice
in d e x to th e w o rld , 1970-761
.(Indexes in dollar terms; 1970 annual average=100)2

1970

99.7

1971
1972

United States

Japan

Germany

Year and quarter

100.0

( 99.7)

100.1

104.9

(103.5)

101.5

(101.5)

103.9

121.1

(105.1)

114.2

( 97.7)

105.5

1973

149.3
172.2
165.8

(111.6)
(112.6)
(115.5)

139.5
145.6
153.2

(102.7)
(107.2)
(116.9)

125.5
129.03
148.23

1974

168.3
191.1
188.0
196.1

(125.6)
(130.7)
(134.1)
(135.1)

163.6
179.6
182.3
178.3

(132.8)
(139.2)
(149.2)
(148,6)

149.6
148.6
158.2
164.2

1975

212.8
211.7
195.7
193.4

(135.9)
(136.2)
(136.5)
(137.2)

172.6
169.8
165.6
163.8

(140.6)
(137.9)
(137.1)
(138.1)

159.2
157.6
163.9
161.9

1976

199.2
203.0
206.5

(140.1)
(141.9)

165.8
169.4
173.8

(139.3)
(140.8)
(140.5)

166.2
167.4
163.5

(142.8)

1 For Germany and Japan, unweighted average o f m onthly values. For the
United States, estimate fo r the last month of each quarter, unless otherwise
noted.
2 For the U.S. measure, June 1970=100.
3 Interpolated using estimates fo r 1973 II and 1974 I and changes in U.S.
wholesale prices fo r all categories fo r June-September 1973 and December
1973-March 1974. See Wholesale Price Indexes. Supplement 1974. (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 1975).
SOURCES:
Germany and Japan — Data in national currencies from International
Financial Statistics (International Monetary Fund, August 1976 and more recent

(100.1)

issues). Data in dollar terms calculated from export price data in national
currencies and exchange rates in same. Export price indexes are weighted
internally using value o f exports to the world.
United States — Export price measure fo r the United States uses export
price data published by the Bureau o f Labor Statistics and the U.S. Department
o f Agriculture and domestic prices fo r some categories, weighted using the value
of U.S. exports to the world in 1973. For methodology and im portant assump­
tions in the construction of the measure see Edward E. Murphy and Jorge F. PerezLopez, "U.S. Export Prices and OPEC Oil Prices," M onthly Labor Review, Nov­
ember 1975, table 7 and part 111 of this paper.
NOTE:

Figures in parentheses are indexes in national currencies.

Table 4. A ggregate m easures of export price trends for Germ any, Jap an and the United States w eighted by each
country's share of exports to O P E C in 1974, selected quarters and period-to-period percent ch an ges, 1970-76
(Indexes in dollar terms; 1974 1=100)
E xport price indexes

Export u nit value indexes
Year and quarter
Index

-

1970

II

..

64.5

( 74.6)

-

1971

II

..

66.7

( 76.9)

3.4

63.0

( 72.8)

-

( 3.1)

65.2

( 75.0)

3.5

70.7

( 74.9)

8.4

(-0 .1 )

85.6
91.2
97.1

( 83.0)
( 85.3)
( 93.6)

21.1
6.5
6.5

(10.8)
( 2.8)
( 9.7)

9.8)
4.8)
6.2)
4.0)

100.0
106.4
109.1
111.2

(100.0)
(102.3)
(108.2)
(109.9)

3.0
6.4
2.5
1.9

111.2
110.0
108.5
107.3

(106.7)
(105.6)
(107.3)
(107.1)

0.0
-1.1
- 1 .4
-1.1

(-2 .9 )
(-1 .0 )
( 1.6)
(-0.2)

109.7
111.4

(109.2)
(110.2)
(109.3)

2.2
1.6
0.3

( 2.0)
( 0.9)
(-0.8)

1972

II

..

72.0

( 76.4)

8.0

(-0 .7 )

1973

II . .
I ll . .
IV ..

83.9
92.0
94.7

( 81.5)
( 86.0)
( 91.1)

16.5
9.7
2.9

( 6.7)
( 5.5)
( 5.9)

1974

I
II
I ll
IV

..
..
..
..

100.0
108.9
112.3
117.2

(100.0)
(104.8)
(111.3)
(115.8)

5.6
8.9
3.1
4.4

1975

I
II
I ll
IV

..
..
..
..

122.6
121.0
116.3
114.2

(117.9)
(116.3)
(114.9)

( 1.8)
H .4 )
(-1 .2 )

(114.0)

4.6
-1 .3
-3 .9
-1.8

1976

I
II
III

.

115.2
117.1
120.5

(114.5)
(116.0)
(118.0)

0.9
1.7
2.9

( 0.4)
( 1.3)
( 1.7)

(
(
(
(

Percent change

Index

Percent change

(-0.8)

111.7

_
( 3.0)

(
(
(
(

6.8)
2.3)
5.8)
1.6)

NOTE: Figures in parentheses refer to aggregate measures calculated from country indexes
SOURCES: Export u n it value indexes - International Financial Statistics (International Monein national currencies.
tary Fund, August 1976 and more recent issues).




Export price indexes - Table 3.

9

v alu e index for the secon d and third quarters. On
balance, o v er the entire period 1970 II to 1976 III, the
in crease o f exp ort prices w as about on e-h a lf that o f
exp ort unit values.
S in ce com parisons o f rates o f ch an ge often are
sen sitive to the c h o ic e o f base period, tw o tables w ere
prepared to sh o w all the p ossib le com b ination s o f
p eriod-to-p eriod chan ges. T o facilitate com p arison o f
th e tw o m easures, table 5 sh o w s the p ercen t ch an ges o f
th e a g gregate export unit valu e index for G erm any,
Japan, and the U nited States b etw e en any tw o periods,
w h ile table 6 refers to the corresp on d in g ch an ges in the
a g g reg ate exp ort p rice index. F o r exam ple, for the
p eriod 1974 I to 1975 I, the exp ort unit valu e index o f
th e three cou n tries increased b y 22.6 percent, w h ile the
export price index increased by 11.2 percent. Between
1975 III and 1976 III the export price index rose by 2.9
percent, while the export unit value index rose by 3.6
percent. From 1974 I to 1976 III the increase o f export
unit values was 20.5 percent compared with an 11.7 percent
increase o f export prices.
Thus, increases in the three
countries’ export prices to OPEC for some periods are sub­

p eriod o f the first o il p rice freeze, the unit v alu e index
increased by 20.7 p ercen t and the index using a
com b ination o f prices and unit valu es increased b y 16.1
percent. B egin nin g w ith the seco n d oil price freeze
effe c tiv e on O cto b er 1, 1975, the unit valu e index
increased b y 3.1 p ercen t w h ile the index using both
p rices and unit valu es increased b y 2.4 p ercen t.15
In co n clu sio n , the different alternative estim ates
presented a b o v e indicate that there has b een inflation in
th e p rices o f exports from the industrial cou n tries to
O P E C during the p eriod exam ined. H o w ev e r, the
m agnitude o f this estim ated increase w as sh o w n to be
in flu en ced b y the c h o ic e o f data used. Industrial
co u n tries’ exp ort p rice trends to O P E C estim ated b y
u sing exp ort unit v alu e indexes for each cou n try tended
to indicate h igh er p rice ch an ges than w h en a co m b in ­
ation o f exp ort unit v alu e indexes and exp ort price
in dexes (w h ere available) w as used. T h is o ccu rred
b ecau se o f the significant d ifferen ces in the trends o f
th e exp ort unit valu e indexes for G erm any, Japan, and
the United States compared with those o f the export price
indexes.

stantially larger, in some cases about twice as large, when an
export unit value index is used than when an export price
index is employed.

Comparison of industrial countries’ merchandise
export price trends with oil price trends

Export price trends: Estimates for all industrial
countries

A t th e sam e tim e that industrial cou n tries’ export
p rices w er e rising, the p rice re ceiv ed b y O P E C for
ea ch barrel o f o il exp orted also u nd erw ent ch an ges.
O P E C cou n tries’ oil exp ort p rices traditionally h a v e
b een k ey ed to the p rice o f Saudi A rabian lig h t crude,
34 d eg rees A P I, f.o.b. R as Tanura, w h ich is often
referred to as the m arker or benchm ark crude. Thus,
trends in the p rice o f the m arker crude, calcu lated
fo llo w in g [16], are used here to indicate price trends for
all O P E C countries. (P rice receiv ed per barrel rather
than p osted p rices h a v e b een used sin ce p osted p rices
are n ot transaction prices but rather acco u n tin g valu es
o n w h ich th e o il exp ortin g cou n tries le v y reven uep rod u cin g taxes and royalties.)
F o llo w in g the large increases o f p osted prices for
crud e oil in late 1973 and early 1974 (the increase
effected in early 1974 w a s m ade retroactive to January
1, 1974), the p osted prices w ere “frozen ” at the n ew

O ther in vestigators w h o h a v e attem pted to assess the
exp ort p rice perform ance o f the 14 industrial cou n tries
( e .g .,[ 2 1 ] , [5]> h ave relied en tirely on th ese cou n tries’
exp ort unit valu e indexes. H o w e v e r , in addition to
arguing that unit valu e in dexes h a v e serious lim itations
as m easures o f p rice ch an ge, it w as sh o w n in the
p reced in g section that the unit valu e in dexes for
G erm any, Japan, and the U n ited States h ave gen erally,
th o u g h not alw ays, increased m ore rapidly than their
co rresp on d in g export p rice indexes. S in ce th ese 3
cou n tries a ccou n t for 59 p ercen t o f industrial cou n tries’
exp orts to O P E C , it is clear that the c h o ic e o f unit
va lu e in dexes to m easure their exp ort price p erform ­
a n ce w ill h a v e a significant effect on a m easure for the
14 industrial cou n tries as a w h o le. A n indication o f this
effec t can be sh o w n b y substituting th e export p rice
in dexes o f the 3 cou n tries for their export unit valu e
in d exes in a calcu lation that uses unit valu e indexes for
th e rem aining 11 countries. (S ee table 7.)
In table 7, colu m n 2 it m ay be seen that from 1974 I
to 1975 I, rou gh ly the period co v e re d b y the other
studies, the exp ort p rice inflation o f the 14 industrial
cou n tries w as 26.7 p ercen t w h e n m easured b y unit
va lu es a lo n e.14 T h is figure is redu ced to 20.0 p ercen t (in
co lu m n 1) w h en exp ort p rice in dexes are substituted for
th e unit valu e indexes for G erm any, Japan, and the
U n ited States. F o r th e period 1974 I to 1975 III, the




14Using preliminary export unit value data, [21] and [5] found
increases of 22-5 percent and 23.1 percent, respectively, over this
period; the 26.7-percent figure above uses later revised export unit
values for each of the countries published in [11] aggregated in a
manner consistent with the two studies.
15The second oil price freeze period is approximated here by the
period 1975 III to 1976 III. Export unit value data for 1976 III were
not available for France and Norway at the time of the preparation of
this study. PIRINC, in a later study [20], forecasted a 2.7-percent
increase in industrial countries’ export prices (actually unit values) to
OPEC from 1975 III to 1976 III.

10

Table 5. Percent changes in aggregate measure of export prices for Germany, Japan, and the United States
weighted by trade with OPEC, as measured by export unit value indexes, 1970-76
Year and quarter, to 1 9 Year and quarter, from 19—

70

II

...................................................................

71

II

...................................................................

72

II

...................................................................

73

71

72

73

73

73

74

74

74

74

75

75

75

75

76

II

II

II

III

IV

1

II

I II

IV

1

II

I II

IV

I

1 1 .6

30.1

42.6

46.8

55.0

6 8 .8

74.1

81.7

90.1

87.6

80.3

77.1

8 .0

25.8

37.9

42.0

49.9

63.3

68.4

75.7

83.8

81.4

74.4

71.2

16.5

27.8

31.5

38.9

51.3

56.0

62.8

70.3

6 8 .1

61.5

58.6

9.7

12.9

19.2

29.8

33.9

39.7

46.2

44.2

38.6

2.9

8.7

18.4

2 2 .1

27.4

33.3

31.5

26.4

5.6

15.0

18.6

23.8

29.5

27.8

2 2 .8

2 0 .6

12.3

17.2

2 2 .6

2 1 .0

16.3

14.2

7.6

12 .6

1 1 .1

6 .8

4.9

4.4

9.2

3.6

1.7

3.4

II

...................................................................

73

III

...................................................................

73

IV

...................................................................

74

I

...................................................................

8.9
3.1

74

II

...................................................................

74

I II

...................................................................

74
75

IV
|

...................................................................
...................................................................

75

II

...................................................................

75

III

...................................................................

75

IV

...................................................................

76

I

...................................................................

76

II

...................................................................

4.6

7.8

76
II

76

78.6

81.6

8 6 .8

72.7

75.6

80.7

60.0

62.6

67.4

36.1

37.3

39.6

43.6

24.1

25.2

27.3

31.0

2 1 .6

23.7

27.2

15.2

17.1

20.5

5.6

7.5

10.7

2 .6

4.3

III

7.3

3.2

-0 .8

-2 .6

-1.7

-0.1

2 .8

-1.3

-5.1

-6 .9

-6 .0

—4.5

-1.7

-5 .6

-4 .8

-3 .2

-0.4

-1 .8

-0 .9

0.7

0.9

2.5

5.5

1.7

4.6

-3 .9

3.6

2.9

S O U R C E : Calculated from table 4.

Table 6. Percent changes in aggregate measure of export prices for Germany, Japan, and the United States
weighted by trade with OPEC, as measured by export price indexes, 1970-76
Year and quarter, to 1 9 Year and quarter, from 19—

70

II

................................................................

71

II

................................................................

72

II

................................................................

73

II

73

III

................................................................

73

IV

................................................................

.................................................................

74

I

................................................................

74

II

................................................................

74

I II

.................................................................

74

IV

................................................................

75

I

................................................................

75

II

................................................................

75

I II

................................................................

75

IV

................................................................

76
76

I
II

................................................................
................................................................

71

72

73

73

73

74

74

74

74

75

75

75

75

76

76

II

II

II

III

IV

1

II

II I

IV

1

II

III

IV

1

II

3.5

1 2 .2

35.9

44.8

54.1

58.7

68.9

73.2

76.5

76.5

74.6

72.2

70.3

74.1

8.4

31.3

39.9

48.9

53.4

63.2

67.3

70.6

70.6

68.7

66.4

64.6

68.3

70.9

71.3

2 1 .1

29.0

37.3

41.4

50.5

54.3

57.3

57.3

55.6

53.5

51.8

55.2

57.6

58.0

6.5

13.4

16.8

24.3

27.5

29.9

29.9

28.5

26.8

25.4

28.2

30.1

30.5

6.5

9.7

16.7

19.6

21.9

21.9

2 0 .6

19.0

17.7

20.3

2 2 .2

22.5

3.0

9.6

12.4

14.5

14.5

13.3

11.7

10.5

13.0

14.7

15.0

6.4

9.1

1 1 .2

1 1 .2

1 0 .0

8.5

7.3

9.7

11.4

11.7

2.5

4.5

4.5

3.4

2 .0

0.9

3.1

4.7

5.0

1.9

1.9

0 .8

-0 .6

-1.7

0 .6

2 .1

2.4

0 .0

-1.1

-2 .4

-3.5

-1 .4

0 .2

0.4

-1.1

-2 .4

-3 .5

-1 .4

0 .2

0.4

-1 .4

-2 .5

- 0 .3

1.3

1.5

-1.1

1 .1

2.7

2.9

2 .2

3.8

4.1

76.8

1 .6

77.3

1 .8

0.3

S O U R C E : Calculated from table 4.




76
III

11

Table 7. Aggregate measures of export price trends for 14 industrial countries weighted by
each country's share of exports to OPEC in 1974, for the years 1970-76
(Indexes in dollar terms; 1974 - 1=100)
Aggregate-measures fo r 1 4 industrial countries as measured by:

Year and quarter

Export price indexes fo r Germany and
Japan, special measure fo r the

E xport unit value indexes

United States, and unit values fo r the
remaining 11 industrial countries

1970

64.0

( 72.0)

64.5

( 72.6)

1971

66.7

( 74.6)

67.6

( 75.4)

1972

72.5

( 75.2)

73.5

( 76.1)

1973

87.3

( 83.0)

86.3

( 82.1)

I

93.7

( 85.9)

94.2

( 86.3)

V

97.4

( 92.4)

95.9

( 90.9)

1974

1 0 0 .0

(100.0)

109.0

(104.9)

110.5

(106.3)

I

112.7

(110.7)

114.5

(112.5)

V

115.9

(113.1)

119.4

(116.6)

1975
I
V
1976

1 2 0 .0

(112.3)

119.7

(111.6)

126.2

(117.9)

116.1

(113.6)

120.7

(118.1)

115.1

(114.3)

119.3

(118.5)

116.5
III

126.7

(117.2)

(118.9)

119.8

(120.4)

117.2

(120.7)

1 2 0 .6

(124.1)

118.9

(121.7)

124.4

(126.5)

N O T E : Figures in parentheses refer to aggregate measures in national
currencies of each country.

SO U RCES:

Exp ort unit values — International Financial Statistics

(International Monetary Fund, August 1976, and more
Export

January 1, 1974, levels until the end o f September 1975.
On O ctober 1, 1975, a 10-percent increase in posted
prices w as implemented and prices w ere again “fro­
zen,” until late 1976. Apparently, som e o f the price
differentials w ere revised in order to bring into line
som e o f the higher priced crudes, but the price freeze
that began O ctober 1, 1975, was still in effect at the
time o f this writing. It is interesting to note, how ever,
that although posted price levels remained unchanged
during the first price freeze (January 1974 to September
1975), price received by Saudi Arabia for exports o f
light crude rose by 9.6 percent as a result o f adjust­
ments to the tax and royalty rates effected during late
1974 and early 1975. (See [16, pp. 40-41].) T o illustrate,
percent changes in price received for specific time
periods are show n in table 8.
During a time (1974 I to 1975 III) that approximates
the period o f the first oil price freeze, the increase in
the export prices o f merchandise from Germany, Japan,
and the United States to O PE C was estimated at 8.5
percent using export prices, and at 16.3 percent using
unit values. F or all 14 industrial countries together, the
increase was 16.1 percent using a combination o f export
prices for Germany, Japan, and the United States, and
export unit values for the remaining 11 countries, and
20.7 percent based on the export unit values for all 14
countries. T hese estimates com pare w ith the 9.6percent estimated increase o f O P E C ’s price o f crude oil
during this period.




(100.0)

1 0 0 .0

price

indexes

— Table

recent

issues).

3.

For the more recent period (1975 III to 1976 III) that
covers about the same time as the second oil price
freeze, the increase o f export prices o f Germany, Japan,
and the United States was estimated at 2.9 percent
using export prices and at 3.6 percent using unit values,
based on the most current data available. For the 14
industrial countries, the increase in export prices to
O PE C during this same period was estimated at 2.4
percent using export prices for Germany, Japan, and
the United States and unit values for the remaining 11
countries, and 3.1 percent based on the export unit
values for all 14 countries. O PEC price per barrel
increased by an estimated 10 percent at the beginning
o f this period. (This 10-percent increase in the price per
barrel series probably overstates the increase for all
exported O PE C crude oil since som e downward
adjustments took place in the posted prices o f several
types o f crude oil.)
For the entire period that follow s the large oil price
increases, i.e., from 1974 I to 1976 III, estimates o f the
increase o f export prices from Germany, Japan, and the
United States to O PE C were 11.7 percent using export
prices or 20.5 percent using unit values. Estimates for
the 14 countries together were 18.9 percent using
export prices for Germany, Japan, and the United
States and unit values for the remaining 11 countries,
and 24.4 percent based on the export unit values for all
14 countries. During this period, O PEC price per
barrel rose by an estimated 20.6 percent.
12

Table 8. Comparison of percent changes in alternative estimates of industrial countries'
export prices to OPEC and in estimates of OPEC's oil price per barrel
(Percent changes calculated from indexes in dollar terms)
Germ any, Japan, and the

14 countries using—

United States using—

Exp ort price
indexes for

Estim ates for

Germ any and
Period

Exp ort prices

Exp ort unit

Japan, special

Exp ort unit

values

measure for the

values

O P E C price per
barrel

United States,
and unit values
for the remaining
industrial
countries

............................................................

8.5

16.3

16.1

20.7

9.6

1975 III to 1976 I I I 2

..........................................................

2.9

3.6

2.4

3.1

1 0 .0

1974 I to 1976 I I I 3

..........................................................

11.7

20.5

18.9

24.4

2 0 .6

1970 II to 1976 III

.........................................................

77.3

8 6 .8

85.8

92.9

1,033.1

1974 1to 1975 I I I 1

1

S O U R C E S : Germ any, Japan, and the United States — Table 5 and 6.

Tim e period chosen to approximate time span of the first O P E C

All

oil price freeze.

2

Time period chsoen to approximate tim e span from beginning of

O PEC

countries

— calculated from

Table 7.

revenue per barrel — calculated using data in

Murphy

the second O P E C oil price freeze to most current time.

3

industrial

O PEC

Time period chosen to approxim ate tim e span from beginning of

and
Oil

Perez-Lopez,

Prices,"

table

" U .S .
7,

and

Export Prices and
more recent data.

the first O P E C oil price freeze to most current time.

O ver a longer period, from before the large oil price
increases to the most current period (1970 II to 1976
III), the price received by O PE C per barrel o f oil was
estimated to have increased by 1,033.1 percent w hile
estimates o f export prices o f Germany, Japan, and the
United States rose by 77.3 percent using export price
indexes and 86.8 percent using export unit value
indexes. T he corresponding figures for the 14 industrial
countries w ere 92.9 percent using export unit values for
all countries and 85.8 percent using a combination o f
export unit value indexes and export price indexes
w here available.

(2) that trends o f freight, insurance, and other
charges associated w ith transporting and delivering
products from an exporting to an importing country
behave in the same manner as the export prices o f those
products.
These assumptions have not been tasted here. How­
ever, some unsystematic evidence was noted regarding
the latter assumption w hich suggests that freight and
other costs associated w ith the m ovem ent o f products
to some O PE C countries increased significantly during
1974 and 1975, partly as a result o f congestion o f port
facilities at points o f importation, and thus, may have
behaved differently from product price trends, at least
in those years.
Considerable data exist that may be used to estimate
the merchandise export price trends o f the principal
industrial countries. T hese data are o f tw o types: export
unit value indexes and export price indexes. There are
several studies that have show n theoretically and
em pirically that unit value indexes are inferior to price
indexes as measures o f price change.

Part V. Summary
Estimation o f the trend o f O PE C import prices is
made difficult by the absence o f import price indexes
for goods and services for the individual members o f
O PEC . Until this situation is remedied, the analysis o f
the trend o f O PE C import prices w ill need to rely upon
export price information o f the countries that are the
suppliers o f goods and services to O PEC. Additional
data problems arise because none o f the industrial
countries publishes export price data for exports o f
services or o f military goods. T he only price data on
industrial countries’ exports currently available refer to
export prices o f merchandise sold to all destinations.
T he use o f industrial countries’ merchandise export
price trends to the w orld to estimate trends o f O PEC
import prices from those countries is based on tw o
assumptions:
(1) that each country’s export price trend for mer­
chandise shipments to the w orld is a suitable proxy for
its merchandise shipments to O PEC , and




A comparison o f aggregate indexes o f export unit
values w ith indexes o f export prices for Germany,
Japan, and the United States has show n that there are
substantial differences in the behavior o f the tw o series
during the period covered, and that the ch oice o f proxy
variable for measuring export price trends has an
important bearing on the estimate o f O PE C ’s imported
inflation. W ithin the stated limitations o f the measures,
it has been estimated here that export prices o f mer­
chandise from Germany, Japan, and the United States,
w hich account for 59 percent o f industrial countries’
13

ed by 85.8 percent and 18.9 percent for the same tw o
periods, respectively. In contrast, the price received by
O PE C per barrel o f oil is estimated to have increased
by 1033.1 percent from second quarter 1970 to third
quarter 1976, and by 20.6 percent from first quarter
1974 to third quarter 1976.

merchandise shipments to O PEC, increased by 77.3
percent from the second quarter of 1970 to the third
quarter o f 1976 and by 11.7 percent from first quarter
1974 to third quarter 1976. A measure o f export prices
for Germany, Japan, and the United States and export
unit values for the other 11 industrial countries increas­




14

Bibliographic References
1. Bank o f Japan, Statistics Department. Export and Im port Price Indexes M onthly . T okyo, monthly.
2 . ----- , ------ . Price Indexes Annual. Tokyo: Bank o f Japan, 1975.
3 . ----- , ------ . Price Indexes Annual (Related Materials). Tokyo: Bank o f Japan, 1974.
4. E conom ic Research Institute for the M iddle East. Im ported Inflation in the M iddle E ast and O PE C Nations (in
Japanese). T okyo, mimeographed, January 24, 1975. English translation published as a supplement to
M iddle E ast Economic Survey, V ol. 18, no. 18 (February 21, 1975).
5 . ------- . Im ported Inflation in the M iddle East and O PE C N ations Calculated in U S. Dollars. T okyo,
mimeographed, September 1975.
6. Goldsand, Alan. “A ir Freight to Iran B oom ing,” The Journal o f Commerce, August 4, 1975, p. 3.
7. Gordon, Robert J. “Measurement Bias in Price Indexes for Capital G oods,” Review o f Income and Wealthy
Series 17, no. 2, June 1971, pp. 121-74.
8 . ---- . “T he U se o f Unit Values to Measure D eviations o f Transaction Prices from List Prices,” Review o f
Income and Wealth, Series 19, no. 2, June 1973, pp. 267-69.
9. H olm es, R. A . “T he Inadequacy o f Unit V alue Indexes as Proxies for Canadian Industrial Selling Prices,”
Review o f Income and Wealth, Series 19, no. 3, September 1973, pp. 271-77.
10. Interagency Com m ittee on Measurement o f Real Output, Subcom mittee on Prices. Report on Criteria fo r
Choice o f Unit Values or Wholesale Prices in Deflators (The Searle Comm ittee Report). Mimeographed,
June 17, 1960. Reprinted w ith changes andia brief summary o f the appendixes in Review o f Income and
Wealth, Series 19, no. 3, September 1973, pp. 253-66.
11. International M onetary Fund. International Financial Statistics, V ol. 29, no. 8, A ugust 1976 and more recent
issues.
12. Kravis, Irving, and Robert E. Lipsey. “Export Prices and the Transmission o f Inflation "American Economic
Review, V ol. 67, no. 1 (February 1977), pp. 155-63.
1 3 . ---- . “International Trade Prices and Price Proxies,” in N ancy E. Ruggles, et. al. The R ole o f the Computer in
Economic and Social Research in Latin America. N ew York: National Bureau o f E conom ic Research,
1974.
1 4 . ----- . Price Competitiveness in World Trade. N ew York: National Bureau o f E conom ic Research, 1971.
15. Murphy, Edward E. “A Comparison o f the Bureau o f Labor Statistics’ Indexes o f Export Prices for Selected
U.S. Products w ith Unit V alue and W holesale Price Indexes.” Proceedings, Business and E conom ics
Statistics Section, Am erican Statistical Association (1971), pp. 462-67.
16. Murphy, Edward E., and Jorge F. Perez-Lopez. “U.S. Export Prices and O PEC Oil Prices,” M onthly Labor
Review, V ol. 98, no. 11, N ovem ber 1975, pp. 36-43.
17. The N ew York Times, June 5, 1975, p. 23.




15

18. “Nigeria E con om y Called Impaired,” The N ew York Times , October 19, 1975, p. 12.
19. Organization for E conom ic Cooperation and D evelopm ent. Statistics o f Foreign Trade, Series A , June 1975.
20. Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, Inc. OPEC's Im port Costs and Crude Oil Price Increases. N ew
York, mimeographed, October 26, 1976.
2 1 . ---- . World Price Increases and the Inflation in OPEC's Im port Costs. N ew York, mimeographed, A ugust 27,
1975.
22. Popkin, Joel, and Robert Gillingham. “Comments on ’Recent D evelopm ents in the Measurement o f Price
Indexes for Fixed Capital G oods,”’ Review o f Income and Wealthy Series 17, no. 3, September 1971, pp.
307-9.
23. Rostin, W. Indices o f Foreign Trade Prices, Base 1970, Studies in Statistics, no. 30. Weisbaden: Federal
Statistical Office, 1974.
24. Statistisches Bundesamt. Preise und Preisindizes fu r Aussenhandelsguter. Weisbaden, monthly.
25. Stigler, G eorge, and James K. Kindahl. The Behavior o f Industrial Prices. N ew York: National Bureau o f
E conom ic Research, 1970.
26. Triplett, Jack E. “T he Measurement o f Inflation: A Survey o f Research on the A ccuracy o f Price Indexes,” in
Paul H. Earl (editor), The Analysis o f Inflation. Lexington: D .C . Heath and Co., 1976.
27. United Nations. N ational Practices in Compiling Price and Quantity Index Numbers. N ew York: United
Nations, 1975.
28. U.S. Departm ent o f Labor, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. “International Price Indexes,” Chapter 17 in U.S.
Departm ent o f Labor, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. H andbook o f M ethods fo r Surveys and Studies, Bulletin
1910, 1976.
2 9 . ---- , ------ . “U .S. Export and Import Price Indexes, Third Quarter 1976,” N ew s Release U S D L 76-1369,
N ovem ber 3, 1976.
3 0 . ---- , ----------. Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes. M onthly.
3 1 . ---- , ----------. Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, Supplement 1974. 1975.
32. U .S. Departm ent o f Com m erce, Bureau o f the Census. Index N um bers o f U.S. Exports and Imports 1919-1971.
1972.
3 3 . ---- , ----------. Schedule B: Statistical Classification o f Domestic and Foreign Commodities E xported from the United
States. January 1, 1971 edition and annual revisions.
3 4 . --- , ------- . U.S. Exports-Schedule B C om m odity by Country, Report FT-410, D ecem ber 1973, 1974.
35. U.S. Departm ent o f Agriculture. Foreign Agricultural Trade o f the United States. M onthly.
36. U.S. Departm ent o f the Treasury, O ffice o f M iddle East Affairs. The Absorptive Capacity o f the O P E C
Countries. M imeographed, September 5, 1975.
37. The Washington Posty June 5, 1975, p. A20.

☆

U . S .

GOVERNMENT




P R IN T IN G

O F F IC E :

1977-241-016/61

16

AJVEW

BLS HAJVUBOOIi
OF METHODS

ibr Surveys and Studies •1920 Edition

Chapters contain a brief
account of each major
program and what it attempts
to do, where the basic data
come from, definition of terms
and concepts. Sources of
more information—some
more popular, some more
technical—are listed. Included
are program descriptions for:
Labor force, employment, and
unemployment
Labor turnover
Occupational employment
statistics
Order Form

Consumer expenditures and
income
Consumer and wholesale
prices
Occupational pay and
supplementary benefits
Current wage developments
Union and association
membership
Wage chronologies and
salary trend reports
Productivity measures:
Private sector
Output per employee hour
measures: Industries and
Federal Government
Occupational safety and
health statistics
Economic growth studies
Employment cost index
□ $----------------- Remittance

Mail to BLS Regional Office nearest you (See listing elsewhere) or Superintendent of Documents p a y a ^ |d’t0 Superintendent
Please sen d ______ copies of BLS Bulletin 1910, Handbook of Methods
of Documents.)
for S u rv e y s and R eports, 1 97 6 Ed ition Stock No. 029-001-01936-0 at $3.50 a copy
p nharno
$to
(25 percent discount for orders of 100 copies or more sent to one address)
my Deposit Account No.
N a m e _______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________
Firm or Organization-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Street Address______________________________________________________________________
City and S ta te _________________________________________________ Zip Code---------------------For Prompt Shipment, Please Print or Type Address on Label Below, including your Zip Code
Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Government Printing Office
375
Special Fourth-Class Book Rate
Book

U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents
Washington, D.C. 20402
Official Business
Penalty for private use, $300




N a m e ---------------------Firm or Organization
Street Address_____
City and S ta te _____

Zip Code

Bureau of Labor Statistics
Regional Offices

Region I

1603 JFK Federal Building
Government Center
Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: (617) 223-6761

Region IV

1371 Peachtree Street, NE.
Atlanta, Ga 30309
Phone: (404) 881-4418
Region V

Region I!

Suite 3400
1515 Broadway
New York, N.Y. 10036
Phone: (212) 399-5405
Region III

3535 Market Street
P.0 Box 13309
Philadelphia, Pa 19101

Phone: (215) 596-1154


9th Floor
Federal Office Building
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, III. 60604
Phone: (312) 353-1880
Region VI

Second Floor
555 Griffin Square Building
Dallas, Tex. 75202
Phone: (214) 749-3516

Regions VII and VIII*

911 Walnut Street
Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Phone: (816) 374-2481
Regions IX and X**

450 Golden Gate Avenue
Box 36017
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Phone. (415) 556-4678
‘ Regions VII and VIII are serviced
by Kansas City
“ Regions IX and X are serviced
by San Francisco

U. S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Washington, D.C. 20212
Official Business
Penalty for private use, $300




Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Department of Labor
Third Class Mail
Lab-441